-
Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine :... Sep 2023The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to critically evaluate the available data on the association of the BRAF V600E mutation and recurrence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to critically evaluate the available data on the association of the BRAF V600E mutation and recurrence rate of ameloblastomas.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This systematic review was registered in Prospero (CRD42020183645) and performed based on the PRISMA statement. A comprehensive search in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases was performed in order to answer the question "Does BRAF V600E mutation affect recurrence rate of ameloblastomas?" Methodological quality and risk of bias of the selected studies were assessed with JBI Critical Appraise Tool. Meta-analysis of quantitative data was conducted with RevMan 5.3 and Jamovi 2.3.
RESULTS
The initial search identified 302 articles, and 21 met the inclusion criteria. A total of 855 subjects with ameloblastoma were included in the analysis. The pooled measures for frequency of BRAF V600E mutation was 65.30% (95% CI: 0.56-0.75; p < .001; I = 90.85%; τ = 0.205; p < .001), and the pooled recurrence rate was 25.30% (95% CI: 0.19-0.31; p < .001; I = 79.44%; τ = 0.118; p < .001). No differences in recurrence rate were observed between the BRAF V600E and wild type BRAF ameloblastomas, with a pooled Odds Ratio of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.56-1.54; p = .78; I = 31%; p = .09).
CONCLUSIONS
BRAF V600E mutation is a frequent event in ameloblastomas, but does not increase nor reduce its recurrence rate, and thus have a limited value in predicting its prognosis.
Topics: Humans; Ameloblastoma; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf; Mutation; Prognosis
PubMed: 37364158
DOI: 10.1111/jop.13458 -
Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia... 2019Many published studies have estimated the association of rs2435357 and rs1800858 polymorphisms in the proto-oncogene rearranged during transfection (RET) gene with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Many published studies have estimated the association of rs2435357 and rs1800858 polymorphisms in the proto-oncogene rearranged during transfection (RET) gene with Hirschsprung disease (HSCR) risk. However, the results remain inconsistent and controversial.
AIM
To perform a meta-analysis get a more accurate estimation of the association of rs2435357 and rs1800858 polymorphisms in the RET proto-oncogene with HSCR risk.
METHODS
The eligible literatures were searched by PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) up to June 30, 2018. Summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the susceptibility to HSCR.
RESULTS
A total of 20 studies, including ten (1,136 cases 2,420 controls) for rs2435357 and ten (917 cases 1,159 controls) for rs1800858 were included. The overall results indicated that the rs2435357 (allele model: OR=0.230, 95% CI 0.178-0.298, p=0.001; homozygote model: OR=0.079, 95% CI 0.048-0.130, p=0.001; heterozygote model: OR=0.149, 95% CI 0.048-0.130, p=0.001; dominant model: OR=0.132, 95% CI 0.098-0.179, p=0.001; and recessive model: OR=0.239, 95% CI 0.161-0.353, p=0.001) and rs1800858 (allele model: OR=5.594, 95% CI 3.653-8.877, p=0.001; homozygote model: OR=8.453, 95% CI 3.783-18.890, p=0.001; dominant model: OR=3.469, 95% CI 1.881-6.396, p=0.001; and recessive model: OR=6.120, 95% CI 3.608-10.381, p=0.001) polymorphisms were associated with the increased risk of HSCR in overall.
CONCLUSIONS
The results suggest that the rs2435357 and rs1800858 polymorphisms in the RET proto-oncogene might be associated with HSCR risk.
Topics: Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Hirschsprung Disease; Humans; Polymorphism, Genetic; Proto-Oncogene Mas; Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-ret; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 31644668
DOI: 10.1590/0102-672020190001e1448 -
International Journal of Molecular... Jun 2023Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) characterized by a hallmark translocation of t (11; 14). CD10 negativity has been used to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) characterized by a hallmark translocation of t (11; 14). CD10 negativity has been used to differentiate MCL from other NHL types; however, recently, there has been an increase in the number of reported cases of CD10-positive MCL. This warrants further investigation into this rarer immunophenotype and its clinical significance. BCL6, which is a master transcription factor for the regulation of cell proliferation and key oncogene in B cell lymphomagenesis, has been reported to have co-expression with CD10 in MCL. The clinical significance of this aberrant antigen expression remains unknown. We conducted a systematic review by searching four databases and selected five retrospective analyses and five case series. Two survival analyses were conducted to determine if BCL6 positivity conferred a survival difference: 1. BCL6+ vs. BCL6- MCL. 2. BCL6+/CD10+ vs. BCL6-/CD10+ MCL. Correlation analysis was conducted to determine if BCL6 positivity correlated with the Ki67 proliferation index (PI). Overall survival (OS) rates were performed by the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Our analyses revealed that BCL6+ MCL had significantly shorter overall survival (median OS: 14 months vs. 43 months; = 0.01), BCL6+/CD10+ MCL had an inferior outcome vs. BCL6+/CD10- MCL (median OS: 20 months vs. 55 months = 0.1828), BCL6+ MCL had significantly higher percentages of Ki67% (Ki67% difference: 24.29; = 0.0094), and BCL6 positivity had a positive correlation with CD10+ status with an odds ratio 5.11 (2.49, 10.46; = 0.0000286). Our analysis showed that BCL6 expression is correlated with CD10 positivity in MCL, and BCL6 expression demonstrated an inferior overall survival. The higher Ki67 PI in BCL6+ MCL compared to BCL6- MCL further supports the idea that the BCL6+ immunophenotype may have prognostic value in MCL. MCL management should consider incorporating prognostic scoring systems adjusted for BCL6 expression. Targeted therapies against BCL6 may offer potential therapeutic options for managing MCL with aberrant immunophenotypes.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Lymphoma, Mantle-Cell; Neprilysin; Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-bcl-6; Retrospective Studies; Prognosis; Ki-67 Antigen
PubMed: 37373354
DOI: 10.3390/ijms241210207 -
Indian Journal of Dental Research :... 2022Ameloblastoma is a benign, locally aggressive neoplasm that needs extensive surgical resection. The goal of this article is to obtain an in-depth review of benign... (Review)
Review
Ameloblastoma is a benign, locally aggressive neoplasm that needs extensive surgical resection. The goal of this article is to obtain an in-depth review of benign ameloblastomas to determine the available level of evidence and the possible benefit of targeted therapeutics for the treatment of ameloblastoma and BRAF V600E mutation in ameloblastoma. An electronic literature search was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines in PubMed/MEDLINE, EBSCO, and Web of Science for eligible studies published between 1975 and 2021. The systematic review is registered with INPLASY (INPLASY202260018). The review included 2 case series and 17 case reports. The histopathological type, anatomic location, expression of BRAF mutation, additional mutations, and molecular-targeted therapies of the 19 reviewed articles were summarized and tabulated. Interestingly, the majority of the primary site of ameloblastoma was located in the mandible (80.9%) compared to the maxilla (17%). The tumour size was reported in nine of the included studies. Most of the included studies in the review exhibited ameloblastoma with BRAF V600E mutations and responded to molecular-targeted therapies. Molecular therapies employing BRAF and/or MEK inhibitors in ameloblastoma with BRAF V600E mutations proved to be an appropriate treatment based on the limited available evidence. It is essential further to deepen our understanding at the clinical and molecular level to enhance the precision of management of ameloblastoma.
Topics: Humans; Ameloblastoma; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Mutation; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf
PubMed: 36656197
DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.ijdr_456_22 -
Urologia Feb 2024The major barriers to phytonutrients in prostate cancer therapy are non-specific mechanisms and bioavailability issues. Studies have pointed to a synergistic combination... (Review)
Review
The major barriers to phytonutrients in prostate cancer therapy are non-specific mechanisms and bioavailability issues. Studies have pointed to a synergistic combination of curcumin (CURC) and ursolic acid (UA). We investigate this combination using a systematic review process to assess the most likely mechanistic pathway and human testing in prostate cancer. We used the PRISMA statement to screen titles, abstracts, and the full texts of relevant articles and performed a descriptive analysis of the literature reviewed for study inclusion and consensus of the manuscript. The most common molecular and cellular pathway from articles reporting on the pathways and effects of CURC ( = 173) in prostate cancer was NF-κB ( = 25, 14.5%). The most common molecular and cellular pathway from articles reporting on the pathways and effects of UA ( = 24) in prostate cancer was caspase 3/caspase 9 ( = 10, 41.6%). The three most common molecular and cellular pathway from articles reporting on the pathways and effects of both CURC and UA ( = 193) in prostate cancer was NF-κB ( = 28, 14.2%), Akt ( = 22, 11.2%), and androgen ( = 19, 9.6%). Therefore, we have identified the potential synergistic target pathways of curcumin and ursolic acid to involve NF-κB, Akt, androgen receptors, and apoptosis pathways. Our review highlights the limited human studies and specific effects in prostate cancer.
Topics: Male; Humans; Ursolic Acid; Curcumin; NF-kappa B; Signal Transduction; Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-akt; Apoptosis; Triterpenes; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 37776274
DOI: 10.1177/03915603231202304 -
BMC Cancer Apr 2016Brain metastases (BM) from colorectal cancer (CRC) are a rare event. However, the implications for affected patients are severe, and the incidence has been reported to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Brain metastases (BM) from colorectal cancer (CRC) are a rare event. However, the implications for affected patients are severe, and the incidence has been reported to be increasing. For clinicians, knowledge about the characteristics associated with BM is important and could lead to earlier diagnosis and improved survival.
METHOD
In this paper, we describe the incidence as well as characteristics associated with BM based on a systematic review of the current literature, following the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
We show that the incidence of BM in CRC patients ranges from 0.6 to 3.2%. BM are a late stage phenomenon, and young age, rectal primary and lung metastases are associated with increased risk of developing BM. Molecular markers such as KRAS, BRAF, NRAS mutation as well as an increase in CEA and CA19.9 levels are suggested predictors of brain involvement. However, only KRAS mutations are reasonably well investigated and associated with an increased risk of BM.
CONCLUSION
The incidence of BM from CRC is 0.6 to 3.2% and did not seem to increase over time. Development of BM is associated with young age, lung metastases, rectal primary and KRAS mutation. Increased awareness of brain involvement in patients with these characteristics is necessary.
Topics: Age Factors; Brain Neoplasms; Colorectal Neoplasms; Female; GTP Phosphohydrolases; Genetic Association Studies; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Membrane Proteins; Mutation; Prognosis; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf; Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras); Risk Factors
PubMed: 27037031
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-016-2290-5 -
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health... Feb 2024Ameloblastoma is an aggressively growing jaw tumor with high recurrent properties. Reports on global and racial distribution of ameloblastoma are variable and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Ameloblastoma is an aggressively growing jaw tumor with high recurrent properties. Reports on global and racial distribution of ameloblastoma are variable and inconclusive. The role of race and ethnicity on ameloblastoma growth characteristics, genetic mutational profile, and recurrence is also still unclear. The primary aim of this systematic review was to assess genetic, racial, and ethnic distribution of primary and recurrent ameloblastoma from published literature. The secondary aim was to assess potential correlations between ethnicity, genetic mutation, and disparities in ameloblastoma treatment outcomes in Afro-descendants and non-Afro-descendants. Twenty-three eligible articles were selected based on preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA), and a total of 169 ameloblastoma cases were evaluated. Data on patient demographics, ameloblastoma growth characteristics, and genetic status were collected for quantitative analysis. Among a total of 169 ameloblastoma cases, Afro-descendant patients had higher primary and recurrent ameloblastomas at 15.5% and 4.7% respectively compared to non-Afro-descendant at 10.7% and 1.8% respectively. Additionally, BRAF V600E was positively associated with 48.8% of all ameloblastomas and strong predilection for Afro-descendants. Despite the paucity of information on genetic profile of ameloblastomas in the Afro-descendant patient cohort, this ethnic group still accounted for 2.95% of all BRAF V600E-positive tumors. These suggest that Afro-descendants are understudied regarding ameloblastoma characteristics, genetic profile, and recurrence profile. Mutational analysis of ameloblastoma tumors in Afro-descendants should be promoted.
Topics: Humans; Ameloblastoma; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf; Jaw Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome; Mutation
PubMed: 36596981
DOI: 10.1007/s40615-022-01500-6 -
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Apr 2021A systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis were conducted to determine the prevalence of PI3K-AKT-mTOR signaling pathway mutations in patients with head and neck cancer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
A systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis were conducted to determine the prevalence of PI3K-AKT-mTOR signaling pathway mutations in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). Overall, 105 studies comprising 8630 patients and 1306 mutations were selected. The estimated mutations prevalence was 13 % for PIK3CA (95 % confidence interval [CI] = 11-14; I = 82 %; p < 0.0001), 4% for PTEN (95 % CI = 3-5; I = 55 %; p < 0.0001), 3% for MTOR (95 % CI = 2-4; I = 5%; p = 0.40), and 2% for AKT (95 % CI = 1-2; I = 50 %; p = 0.0001). We further stratified the available data of the participants according to risk factors and tumor characteristics, including HPV infection, tobacco use, alcohol exposure, TNM stage, and histological tumor differentiation, and performed subgroup analysis. We identified significant associations between PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway-associated mutations and advanced TNM stage (odds ratio [OR] = 0.20; 95 % CI = 0.09-0.44; I² = 71 %; p = 0.0001) and oropharyngeal HPV-positive tumors and PIK3CA mutations (OR = 17.48; 95 % CI = 4.20-72.76; I² = 69 %; p < 0.0002). No associations were found between alcohol and tobacco exposure, and tumor differentiation grade. This SR demonstrated that the PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway emerges as a potential prognostic factor and could offer a molecular basis for future studies on therapeutic targeting in HNC patients.
Topics: Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Mutation; Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinases; Prevalence; Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-akt; TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases
PubMed: 33675910
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103284 -
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Jul 2015Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) is a rare form of non-Langerhans-cell histiocytosis, associated in more than 50% of cases to BRAF(V600E) mutations in early multipotent... (Review)
Review
Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) is a rare form of non-Langerhans-cell histiocytosis, associated in more than 50% of cases to BRAF(V600E) mutations in early multipotent myelomonocytic precursors or in tissue-resident histiocytes. It encompasses a spectrum of disorders ranging from asymptomatic bone lesions to multisystemic, life-threatening variants. We reviewed all published reports of histologically-confirmed ECD and explored clinical, radiological, prognostic and therapeutic characteristics in a population of 448 patients, including a unique patient from our Department. To find a clinically relevant signature defining differentiated prognostic profiles, the patients' disease features were compared in relation to their CNS involvement that occurred in 56% of the entire population. Diabetes insipidus, visual disturbances, pyramidal and extra-pyramidal syndromes were the most recurrent neurological signs, whereas concomitant pituitary involvement, retro-orbital masses and axial lesions in the presence of symmetric bilateral osteosclerosis of long bones depicted the typical ECD clinical picture. Patients with CNS infiltration showed a lower occurrence of heart involvement and a higher incidence of bone, skin, retro-peritoneal, lung, aortic and renal infiltration. No difference in the therapeutic algorithm was found after stratification for CNS involvement. A better understanding of the disease pathogenesis, including BRAF deregulation, in keeping with improved prognostic criteria, will provide novel suggestions for the management of ECD.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Bone and Bones; Central Nervous System; Erdheim-Chester Disease; Humans; Kidney; Male; Myocardium; Point Mutation; Prognosis; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf
PubMed: 25744785
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2015.02.004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2018The prognosis of people with metastatic cutaneous melanoma, a skin cancer, is generally poor. Recently, new classes of drugs (e.g. immune checkpoint inhibitors and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The prognosis of people with metastatic cutaneous melanoma, a skin cancer, is generally poor. Recently, new classes of drugs (e.g. immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule targeted drugs) have significantly improved patient prognosis, which has drastically changed the landscape of melanoma therapeutic management. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2000.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to October 2017: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and the ASCO database in February 2017, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered RCTs of systemic therapies for people with unresectable lymph node metastasis and distant metastatic cutaneous melanoma compared to any other treatment. We checked the reference lists of selected articles to identify further references to relevant trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted data, and a third review author independently verified extracted data. We implemented a network meta-analysis approach to make indirect comparisons and rank treatments according to their effectiveness (as measured by the impact on survival) and harm (as measured by occurrence of high-grade toxicity). The same two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies according to Cochrane standards and assessed evidence quality based on the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 122 RCTs (28,561 participants). Of these, 83 RCTs, encompassing 21 different comparisons, were included in meta-analyses. Included participants were men and women with a mean age of 57.5 years who were recruited from hospital settings. Twenty-nine studies included people whose cancer had spread to their brains. Interventions were categorised into five groups: conventional chemotherapy (including single agent and polychemotherapy), biochemotherapy (combining chemotherapy with cytokines such as interleukin-2 and interferon-alpha), immune checkpoint inhibitors (such as anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies), small-molecule targeted drugs used for melanomas with specific gene changes (such as BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors), and other agents (such as anti-angiogenic drugs). Most interventions were compared with chemotherapy. In many cases, trials were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies producing the tested drug: this was especially true for new classes of drugs, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule targeted drugs.When compared to single agent chemotherapy, the combination of multiple chemotherapeutic agents (polychemotherapy) did not translate into significantly better survival (overall survival: HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16, 6 studies, 594 participants; high-quality evidence; progression-free survival: HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25, 5 studies, 398 participants; high-quality evidence. Those who received combined treatment are probably burdened by higher toxicity rates (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.71, 3 studies, 390 participants; moderate-quality evidence). (We defined toxicity as the occurrence of grade 3 (G3) or higher adverse events according to the World Health Organization scale.)Compared to chemotherapy, biochemotherapy (chemotherapy combined with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2) improved progression-free survival (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99, 6 studies, 964 participants; high-quality evidence), but did not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.06, 7 studies, 1317 participants; high-quality evidence). Biochemotherapy had higher toxicity rates (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.61, 2 studies, 631 participants; high-quality evidence).With regard to immune checkpoint inhibitors, anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies plus chemotherapy probably increased the chance of progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy alone (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92, 1 study, 502 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but may not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.01, 2 studies, 1157 participants; low-quality evidence). Compared to chemotherapy alone, anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies is likely to be associated with higher toxicity rates (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.42, 2 studies, 1142 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies (immune checkpoint inhibitors) improved overall survival (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.48, 1 study, 418 participants; high-quality evidence) and probably improved progression-free survival (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.61, 2 studies, 957 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies may also result in less toxicity than chemotherapy (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.97, 3 studies, 1360 participants; low-quality evidence).Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies performed better than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies in terms of overall survival (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.66, 1 study, 764 participants; high-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.60, 2 studies, 1465 participants; high-quality evidence). Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies may result in better toxicity outcomes than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.91, 2 studies, 1465 participants; low-quality evidence).Compared to anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies alone, the combination of anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies was associated with better progression-free survival (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.46, 2 studies, 738 participants; high-quality evidence). There may be no significant difference in toxicity outcomes (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.92, 2 studies, 764 participants; low-quality evidence) (no data for overall survival were available).The class of small-molecule targeted drugs, BRAF inhibitors (which are active exclusively against BRAF-mutated melanoma), performed better than chemotherapy in terms of overall survival (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.57, 2 studies, 925 participants; high-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.34, 2 studies, 925 participants; high-quality evidence), and there may be no significant difference in toxicity (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.33, 2 studies, 408 participants; low-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, MEK inhibitors (which are active exclusively against BRAF-mutated melanoma) may not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.25, 3 studies, 496 participants; low-quality evidence), but they probably lead to better progression-free survival (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.80, 3 studies, 496 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, MEK inhibitors probably have higher toxicity rates (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.41, 1 study, 91 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to BRAF inhibitors, the combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was associated with better overall survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.82, 4 studies, 1784 participants; high-quality evidence). BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was also probably better in terms of progression-free survival (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.71, 4 studies, 1784 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and there appears likely to be no significant difference in toxicity (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.20, 4 studies, 1774 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, the combination of chemotherapy plus anti-angiogenic drugs was probably associated with better overall survival (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.81; moderate-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; moderate-quality evidence). There may be no difference in terms of toxicity (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.32; low-quality evidence). All results for this comparison were based on 324 participants from 2 studies.Network meta-analysis focused on chemotherapy as the common comparator and currently approved treatments for which high- to moderate-quality evidence of efficacy (as represented by treatment effect on progression-free survival) was available (based on the above results) for: biochemotherapy (with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2); anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies; anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; BRAF inhibitors; MEK inhibitors, and BRAF plus MEK inhibitors. Analysis (which included 19 RCTs and 7632 participants) generated 21 indirect comparisons.The best evidence (moderate-quality evidence) for progression-free survival was found for the following indirect comparisons:• both combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.51) and small-molecule targeted drugs (HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.26) probably improved progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy;• both BRAF inhibitors (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.68) and combinations of small-molecule targeted drugs (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.39) were probably associated with better progression-free survival compared to anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies;• biochemotherapy (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.76 to 4.51) probably lead to worse progression-free survival compared to BRAF inhibitors;• the combination of small-molecule targeted drugs probably improved progression-free survival (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.68) compared to anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies;• both biochemotherapy (HR 5.05, 95% CI 3.01 to 8.45) and MEK inhibitors (HR 3.16, 95% CI 1.77 to 5.65) were probably associated with worse progression-free survival compared to the combination of small-molecule targeted drugs; and• biochemotherapy was probably associated with worse progression-free survival (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.11) compared to the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors.The best evidence (moderate-quality evidence) for toxicity was found for the following indirect comparisons:• combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (RR 3.49, 95% CI 2.12 to 5.77) probably increased toxicity compared to chemotherapy;• combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors probably increased toxicity (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.20 to 5.20) compared to BRAF inhibitors;• the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors probably increased toxicity (RR 3.83, 95% CI 2.59 to 5.68) compared to anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; and• biochemotherapy was probably associated with lower toxicity (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.71) compared to the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors.Network meta-analysis-based ranking suggested that the combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors is the most effective strategy in terms of progression-free survival, whereas anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies are associated with the lowest toxicity.Overall, the risk of bias of the included trials can be considered as limited. When considering the 122 trials included in this review and the seven types of bias we assessed, we performed 854 evaluations only seven of which (< 1%) assigned high risk to six trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found high-quality evidence that many treatments offer better efficacy than chemotherapy, especially recently implemented treatments, such as small-molecule targeted drugs, which are used to treat melanoma with specific gene mutations. Compared with chemotherapy, biochemotherapy (in this case, chemotherapy combined with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2) and BRAF inhibitors improved progression-free survival; BRAF inhibitors (for BRAF-mutated melanoma) and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies improved overall survival. However, there was no difference between polychemotherapy and monochemotherapy in terms of achieving progression-free survival and overall survival. Biochemotherapy did not significantly improve overall survival and has higher toxicity rates compared with chemotherapy.There was some evidence that combined treatments worked better than single treatments: anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies, alone or with anti-CTLA4, improved progression-free survival compared with anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies alone. Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies performed better than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies in terms of overall survival, and a combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was associated with better overall survival for BRAF-mutated melanoma, compared to BRAF inhibitors alone.The combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors (which can only be administered to people with BRAF-mutated melanoma) appeared to be the most effective treatment (based on results for progression-free survival), whereas anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies appeared to be the least toxic, and most acceptable, treatment.Evidence quality was reduced due to imprecision, between-study heterogeneity, and substandard reporting of trials. Future research should ensure that those diminishing influences are addressed. Clinical areas of future investigation should include the longer-term effect of new therapeutic agents (i.e. immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies) on overall survival, as well as the combination of drugs used in melanoma treatment; research should also investigate the potential influence of biomarkers.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antineoplastic Agents; Brain Neoplasms; CTLA-4 Antigen; Disease-Free Survival; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Immunotherapy; Interferon-alpha; Interleukin-2; Male; Melanoma; Middle Aged; Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin Neoplasms
PubMed: 29405038
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011123.pub2