-
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) May 2023Colorectal cancer is the most prevalent gastrointestinal neoplasm. When metastatic, the disease has limited systemic treatment options. Novel targeted therapies have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Colorectal cancer is the most prevalent gastrointestinal neoplasm. When metastatic, the disease has limited systemic treatment options. Novel targeted therapies have expanded these options for subsets with specific molecular alterations, such as microsatellite instability (MSI)-high cancers, but additional treatments and combinations are in urgent need to improve outcomes and improve survival of this incurable disease. The fluoropyrimidine-derivative trifluridine, in combination with tipiracil, has been introduced as a third-line treatment, and more recently, it was studied in combination with bevacizumab. This meta-analysis reports on studies with this combination in clinical practice outside clinical trials.
METHODS
A literature search in the Medline/PubMed and Embase databases was executed for finding series of trifluridine/tipiracil with bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer. Criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis were English or French language of the report, inclusion of twenty or more patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with trifluridine/tipiracil in combination with bevacizumab outside of a trial and containing information regarding response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Information on the demographics of the patients and on adverse effects of treatment was also collected.
RESULTS
Eight series with a total of 437 patients were eligible for the meta-analysis. The performed meta-analysis discovered a summary response rate (RR) of 2.71% (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-4.32%) and a disease control rate (DCR) of 59.63% (95% CI: 52.06-67.21%). Summary PFS was 4.56 months (95% CI: 3.57-5.55 months), and summary OS was 11.17 months (95% CI: 10.15-12.19 months). Common adverse effects identified mirrored the adverse-effect profile of the two components of the combination.
CONCLUSION
The current systematic review and meta-analysis reports the efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil with bevacizumab in advanced lines of therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in the setting of clinical practice outside clinical trials. Discovery of predictive biomarkers of response to trifluridine/tipiracil with bevacizumab will promote the tailoring of this treatment to individual patients to maximize clinical benefit.
Topics: Humans; Bevacizumab; Uracil; Colorectal Neoplasms; Trifluridine; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Colonic Neoplasms; Rectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 37366880
DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30060397 -
International Immunopharmacology Oct 2023Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) with angiogenesis inhibitors have been used to treat advanced lung cancer. Their associated treatment-related adverse events (trAEs)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) with angiogenesis inhibitors have been used to treat advanced lung cancer. Their associated treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) are currently considered acceptable; however, no conclusion has been reached. We aimed to summarize the trAEs caused by ICIs combined with angiogenesis inhibitors in patients with advanced lung cancer.
METHODS
Pulled studies met the following criteria: patients with advanced lung cancer who received treatment involving ICIs combined with angiogenesis inhibitors (with or without chemotherapy) in interventional or observational studies. Results included the type and number of trAEs or immune-related adverse events (irAEs), treatment-associated discontinuation and mortality, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS).
PROSPERO
CRD42022337656.
RESULTS
The study enrolled 32 trials involving 2313 patients who had 7768 any-grade trAEs and 1078 grade ≥3 trAEs. The pooled incidences were 87.33% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 79.49-93.65; I = 94.04%) for any-grade trAEs, and 38.63% (95% CI: 28.28-49.50; I = 95.61%) for grade ≥3 trAEs. There were 132 kinds of any-grade trAEs involving 18 systems, and 99 kinds of grade ≥3 trAEs involving 16 systems. For all trAEs, we observed significant differences in the line of therapy, trial design, therapy combination, and types of angiogenesis inhibitors (all P < 0.05). The rate of trAEs increased with dosage and frequency of medication. Pooled incidences of discontinuation and mortality were 10.64% and 0.81%, respectively. Nearly 647 patients experienced irAEs, including 636 any-grade irAEs and 154 grade ≥3 irAEs.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the incidence of trAEs caused by ICIs combined with angiogenesis inhibitors is generally acceptable. These trAEs have a wide spectrum nearly covering the full range of adverse events. Grade ≥3 trAEs are more closely associated with angiogenesis inhibitors than any grade. However, treatment-associated mortality remains concerning.
Topics: Humans; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Lung Neoplasms; Progression-Free Survival
PubMed: 37598630
DOI: 10.1016/j.intimp.2023.110785 -
JAMA Network Open Oct 2023The high cost of biologics used to treat cancer has been an increasing burden in the world. In China, the recent approval of cancer biosimilar drugs to resolve this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The high cost of biologics used to treat cancer has been an increasing burden in the world. In China, the recent approval of cancer biosimilar drugs to resolve this problem is promising, but evidence of clinical benefits, price, and uptake for these drugs is still lacking.
OBJECTIVES
To compare characteristics of pivotal clinical trials in China and other countries for biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab and investigate the efficacy or effectiveness, safety, and immunogenicity outcomes of cancer biosimilars compared with reference drugs by meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
For this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for published studies from database inception to February 1, 2023, using the search topics (cancers) AND (biosimilars).
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials and cohort studies that included patients with cancer were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two authors independently extracted the outcome estimates and characteristics for each study. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to summarize the relative estimates with 95% CIs. This study was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Clinical trial characteristics were collected for biosimilars of bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab. The relative estimates of efficacy or effectiveness (objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival), safety, and immunogenicity outcomes were analyzed for biosimilars vs reference drugs. The weighted average price and uptake rate were evaluated for biosimilars relative to their reference drugs between 2015 and 2022.
RESULTS
A total of 39 RCTs (involving 18 791 patients) and 10 cohort studies (involving 1998 patients) were included. The biosimilars of bevacizumab (16 RCTs; risk ratio [RR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.01; P = .17), rituximab (12 RCTs; RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.08; P = .70), and trastuzumab (9 RCTs: RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97-1.12; P = .29) met equivalence with reference biologics in regard to the objective response rate. The results summarized from cohort studies were consistent with those from RCTs. In 2022, cancer biosimilars were priced at 69% to 90% of the costs for the reference drugs, and their uptake reached 54% to 83% in China.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that cancer biosimilars provided comparable clinical benefits at lower prices compared with reference drugs. These findings suggest the potential feasibility of expediting the transition from reference drugs to biosimilars to benefit more patients with cancer.
Topics: Humans; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Rituximab; Bevacizumab; Neoplasms; Trastuzumab
PubMed: 37824143
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.37348 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Aug 2016Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) is defined as the transformation of an epithelial cell into a spindle cell with the loss of membrane E-cadherin expression and... (Review)
Review
Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) is defined as the transformation of an epithelial cell into a spindle cell with the loss of membrane E-cadherin expression and the gain of mesenchymal markers positivity. In the field of colorectal cancer (CRC), first data about EMT was published in 1995 and more than 400 papers had been written up to March 2016. Most of them are focused on the molecular pathways and experimentally-proved chemoresistance. In the present article, an update in the field of EMT in CRC based on the review of the literature and personal experience of the authors is presented. The information about the molecular and immunohistochemical (IHC) particularities of these processes and their possible role in the prognosis of CRC were also up-dated. This article focuses on the IHC quantification of the EMT, the immunoprofile of tumor buds and on the relation between EMT, angiogenesis, and stem cells activation. The EMT-induced chemoresistance vs chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-induced EMT and cellular senescence was also synthesized for both conventional and targeted therapy. As a future perspective, the EMT-angiogenesis-stemness link could be used as a possible valuable parameter for clinical follow-up and targeted therapeutic oncologic management of patients with CRC. Association of dexamethasone and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors combined with conventional chemotherapies could have clinical benefits in patients with CRC. The main conclusion is that, although many studies have been published, the EMT features are still incompletely elucidated and newly discovered EMT markers provide confusing data in understanding this complicated process, which might have significant clinical impact.
Topics: Colorectal Neoplasms; Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition; Humans; Immunohistochemistry; Neoplasm Metastasis; Neovascularization, Physiologic
PubMed: 27570416
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i30.6764 -
Eye (London, England) Jan 2023This study aimed to compare efficacy and treatment burden of treat-and-extend (T&E) anti-VEGF against fixed and pro re nata (PRN) regimens for neovascular age-related... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study aimed to compare efficacy and treatment burden of treat-and-extend (T&E) anti-VEGF against fixed and pro re nata (PRN) regimens for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and EMBASE were searched. Randomized-controlled trials and observational studies comparing T&E to PRN or fixed dosing for treatment-naïve AMD patients were included. Mean difference (MD) for visual acuity (VA) and number of injections are presented. Risk of bias was assessed according to Cochrane guidelines. Methodology was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). VA improvement was similar with T&E and fixed dosing at one (MD -0.08 letters, p = 0.95) and two years (MD 0.58 letters, p = 0.62). In contrast, VA improvements were significantly greater for T&E when compared against a PRN regimen at one (MD 3.95 letters, p < 0.0001) and two years (MD 4.08 letters, p < 0.001). Significantly fewer ranibizumab injections were administered in the T&E arm at one (MD -2.42 injections, p < 0.0001) and two years (MD -6.06 injections, p < 0.00001) relative to fixed dosing. Fewer aflibercept injections were likewise administered to patients on a T&E regimen versus fixed dosing at one year (MD -0.78 injections, p < 0.0001). Low-certainty evidence from the present synthesis implies that T&E preserves VA similar to fixed schedules with significantly fewer injections at one and two years. Also, patients with T&E dosing achieved better VA outcomes than those on PRN regimen but T&E dosing was associated with more injections.
Topics: Humans; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Ranibizumab; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Clinical Protocols; Intravitreal Injections; Treatment Outcome; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Wet Macular Degeneration; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35396574
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-022-02020-7 -
BMC Pulmonary Medicine Jun 2023For patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutations, the suggested course of action is epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of EGFR-TKIs in combination with angiogenesis inhibitors as first-line therapy for advanced EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
For patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutations, the suggested course of action is epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs). Even with a high disease control rate, a majority of patients develop acquired EGFR-TKIs resistance and eventually advance. To increase the benefits of treatment, clinical trials are increasingly exploring the value of EGFR-TKIs combined with angiogenesis inhibitors as a first-line treatment in advanced NSCLC carrying EGFR mutations.
METHOD
Using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library, to locate published full-text articles in print or online, a thorough literature search was done from the database's inception to February 2021. Additionally, oral presentation RCTs from ESMO and ASCO were obtained. We sifted out RCTs that used EGFR-TKIs along with angiogenesis inhibitors as first-line therapy for advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC. ORR, AEs, OS, and PFS were the endpoints. Review Manager version 5.4.1 was used for data analysis.
RESULTS
One thousand eight hundred twenty-one patients were involved in 9 RCTs. According to the results, combining EGFR-TKIs with angiogenesis inhibitors therapy prolonged PFS of advanced EGFR-mutation NSCLC patients on the whole [HR:0.65 (95%CI: 0.59~0.73, P<0.00001)]. No significant statistical difference was identified between the combination group and single drug group in OS(P=0.20) and ORR (P=0.11). There are more adverse effects when EGFR-TKIs are used in combination with angiogenesis inhibitors than when used alone.
CONCLUSION
The combination of EGFR-TKIs and angiogenesis inhibitors prolonged PFS in patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC, but the OS and ORR benefit was not significant, and the risk of adverse events was higher, more pronounced with hypertension and proteinuria; PFS in subgroups suggested that the combination was associated with better PFS in the smoking, liver metastasis, and no brain metastasis groups, and the included studies suggested that the smoking group , liver metastasis group, and brain metastasis group may have a potential OS benefit.
Topics: Humans; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Lung Neoplasms; Liver Neoplasms; ErbB Receptors
PubMed: 37316870
DOI: 10.1186/s12890-023-02472-x -
Clinical Medicine & Research Dec 2023Lichen planus (LP) is a chronic autoimmune disease of skin and mucous membranes. World Health Organization has announced oral lichen planus (OLP) as a premalignant... (Review)
Review
Lichen planus (LP) is a chronic autoimmune disease of skin and mucous membranes. World Health Organization has announced oral lichen planus (OLP) as a premalignant lesion. The exact etiology of OLP remains unknown; however, different mechanisms may be involved in its immunopathogenesis. The upregulation of cytokines, chemokines, and adhesion molecules is consistent with a persistent and erratic immunological response to OLP-mediated antigens generated by oral keratinocytes and innate immune cells. These molecules attract T cells, and mast cells to the disease site and regulate complex interactions among cells that lead to death of keratinocytes, degradation of basement membrane, and chronicity of the disease. It is believed that CD8+ and CD4+ T helper 1 (Th1) cells are the main lymphocytes involved in this process, although recent evidence suggests implication of other T helper subgroups, such as Th23, Th17, and regulatory T cells (Tregs), proposing a more complex cellular immunity process to be involved in its pathogenesis. The emphasis of this research review is on the function of IL-17 in the pathophysiology of OLP and how current discoveries may point to future treatment strategies. This research protocol will follow Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA 2020) checklist. An electronic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane databases for articles published from 1960 to June 2022. Based on the eligibility criteria, 21 articles were enrolled. In comparison to healthy controls, the findings of this review demonstrated greater expression of IL-17 and Th-17 in the blood, saliva, and tissues of OLP and LP patients. Additionally, there was a strong link between the relative levels of IL-17 and IL-23 expression. Treatment with monoclonal antibodies against Th-17/Tc-17, IL-12/IL-23, and IL-23 would result in significant long-term improvement of LP symptoms.
Topics: Humans; Lichen Planus, Oral; Interleukin-17; Cytokines; Lichen Planus; Interleukin-23
PubMed: 38296640
DOI: 10.3121/cmr.2023.1822 -
Graefe's Archive For Clinical and... Oct 2020Intravitreal injection of VEGF inhibitors has become the standard of care for different macular diseases within the last years resulting in improved visual outcomes.... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Intravitreal injection of VEGF inhibitors has become the standard of care for different macular diseases within the last years resulting in improved visual outcomes. Under real-life conditions, however, the necessity for frequent retreatments and reexaminations poses a burden for patients and treatment centers. Non-adherence and non-persistence to intravitreal treatment may lead to inferior clinical outcomes, and knowledge of contributing factors is crucial to improve adherence. This systematic review analyzes current literature for potential factors involved in non-adherence and non-persistence.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Embase including three different aspects of intravitreal injection therapy: (1) diseases with intravitreal injections as treatment, (2) intravitreal injection, and (3) aspects of therapy adherence or therapy persistence. Data from identified quantitative studies were further extracted and grouped according to WHO criteria (condition, socio-economy, therapy, patient, and health system). The methodological quality of identified studies was graded. Identified qualitative studies (i.e., interviews) were descriptively analyzed and their findings narratively reported.
RESULTS
Twenty-four publications were included. In 16 of those publications, a quantitative data analysis was conducted, analyzing factors associated with non-adherence. Worse visual acuity at baseline and unfavorable development of visual acuity, higher age, and greater distance to the treatment center were associated with non-adherence, while there was inconsistent evidence for an association of comorbidity. In qualitative studies, high follow-up/treatment burden, fear and anxiety, disappointed patient expectations, and lack of motivation to continue treatment were reported as reasons for non-persistence.
CONCLUSIONS
Knowledge of potential barriers in IVT treatment may improve adherence and potentially clinical results. Improvements can be achieved particularly in the healthcare complex (organizational improvements) and the "patient" complex by establishing realistic expectations. Recurrent education of the patient may be necessary.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Humans; Intravitreal Injections; Ranibizumab; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 32572607
DOI: 10.1007/s00417-020-04798-2 -
Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation :... Jun 2023Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFis) have transformed the treatment of many retinal diseases, including diabetic maculopathy. Increasing evidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFis) have transformed the treatment of many retinal diseases, including diabetic maculopathy. Increasing evidence supports systemic absorption of intravitreal VEGFi and development of significant cardiorenal side effects.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42020189037) of randomised controlled trials of intravitreal VEGFi treatments (bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept) for any eye disease. Outcomes of interest were cardiorenal side effects (hypertension, proteinuria, kidney function decline and heart failure). Fixed effects meta-analyses were conducted where possible.
RESULTS
There were 78 trials (81 comparisons; 13 175 participants) that met the criteria for inclusion: 47% were trials in diabetic eye disease. Hypertension (29 trials; 8570 participants) was equally common in VEGFi and control groups {7.3 versus 5.4%; relative risk [RR] 1.08 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-1.28]}. New or worsening heart failure (10 trials; 3384 participants) had a similar incidence in VEGFi and control groups [RR 1.03 (95% CI 0.70-1.51)]. Proteinuria (5 trials; 1902 participants) was detectable in some VEGFi-treated participants (0.2%) but not controls [0.0%; RR 4.43 (95% CI 0.49-40.0)]. Kidney function decline (9 trials; 3471 participants) was similar in VEGFi and control groups. In participants with diabetic eye disease, the risk of all-cause mortality was higher in VEGFi-treated participants [RR 1.62 (95% CI 1.04-2.46)].
CONCLUSION
In trials of intravitreal VEGFi, we did not identify an increased risk of cardiorenal outcomes, although these outcomes were reported in only a minority of cases. There was an increased risk of death in VEGFi-treated participants with diabetic eye disease. Additional scrutiny of post-licensing observational data may improve the recognition of safety concerns in VEGFi-treated patients.
Topics: Humans; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Diabetic Retinopathy; Hypertension; Proteinuria
PubMed: 36318455
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfac305 -
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