-
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Jan 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the prognostic role of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Eligible studies reported... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the prognostic role of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Eligible studies reported differences in overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by cfDNA status. The random effect model yielded the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Detection of circulant-tumor DNA (ctDNA), KRAS mutations and other cfDNA alterations constitute detectable cfDNA biomarkers. Altogether, 38 studies (3,318 patients) were eligible. Progression-free and overall survival were decreased with detectable ctDNA (HR = 1.92, 95 %CI:(1.29,2.86); HR = 2.25, 95 %CI:(1.73,2.92)) and KRAS mutations (HR = 1.88, CI:1.22,2.92,); HR = 1.52, 95 %CI:(1.22,1.90)) respectively, across various stages. In unresectable cases, ctDNA (HR = 2.50, 95 %CI:(1.94,3.23)), but not KRAS mutations (HR = 1.16, 95 %CI:(0.46,2.94)) signaled risk for progression. Detectable cfDNA biomarkers correlated with worse prognosis in resectable cases and if detected during treatment. In conclusion, cfDNA biomarkers indicate accelerated progression and decreased survival in PDAC. Significance of KRAS mutations detection in unresectable cases is to be determined.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Biomarkers, Tumor; Cell-Free Nucleic Acids; DNA, Neoplasm; Humans; Mutation; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prognosis; Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)
PubMed: 34843928
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103548 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Many energy metabolism pathways exist in cancer, including glycolysis, amino acid metabolism, fatty acid oxidation, and mitochondrial respiration. Tumor cells mainly...
Many energy metabolism pathways exist in cancer, including glycolysis, amino acid metabolism, fatty acid oxidation, and mitochondrial respiration. Tumor cells mainly generate energy through glycolysis to maintain growth and biosynthesis of tumor cells under aerobic conditions. Natural products regulate many steps in glycolysis and targeting glycolysis using natural products is a promising approach to cancer treatment. In this review, we exemplify the relationship between glycolysis and tumors, demonstrate the natural products that have been discovered to target glycolysis for cancer treatment and clarify the mechanisms involved in their actions. Natural products, such as resveratrol mostly found in red grape skin, licochalcone A derived from root of Glycyrrhiza inflate, and brusatol found in Brucea javanica and Brucea mollis, largely derived from plant or animal material, can affect glycolysis pathways in cancer by targeting glycolytic enzymes and related proteins, oncogenes, and numerous glycolytic signal proteins. Knowledge of how natural products regulate aerobic glycolysis will help illuminate the mechanisms by which these products can be used as therapeutics to inhibit cancer cell growth and regulate cellular metabolism. : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/, https://clinicaltrials.gov/, http://lib.zzu.edu.cn/.
PubMed: 36386122
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1036502 -
BMC Cancer Nov 2023RAS mutations affect prognosis in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and have been identified as strong negative predictive markers for anti-epidermal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
RAS mutations affect prognosis in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and have been identified as strong negative predictive markers for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody (anti-EGFR mAb) therapy, but many tumors containing wild-type RAS genes still do not respond to these therapies. Some additional biomarkers may have prognostic or predictive roles, but conclusions remain controversial.
METHODS
We performed a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing anti-EGFR mAb therapy with alternative therapy that investigated the prognostic and predictive impact of additional biomarkers in RAS wild-type (wt) mCRC patients. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) and odds ratios (ORs) for objective response rate (ORR) were calculated. The prognostic value of biomarkers was investigated by separately pooling HR and OR for different treatment groups in an individual study. The predictive value was assessed by pooling study interactions between treatment effects and biomarker subgroups.
RESULTS
Thirty publications reporting on eighteen trials were selected, including a total of 13,507 patients. In prognostic analysis, BRAF mutations were associated with poorer PFS [HRs = 3.76 (2.47-5.73) and 2.69 (1.82-3.98)] and OS [HRs = 2.66 (1.95-3.65) and 2.45 (1.55-3.88)] in both the experimental and control arms; low miR-31-3p expression appeared to have longer PFS and OS. In terms of predictive effect, a lack of response to anti-EGFR therapy was observed in patients with BRAF mutant tumors (P < 0.01 for PFS). Patients with tumors with any mutation in the KRAS/NRAS/BRAF/PIK3CA gene also showed similar results compared with all wild-type tumors (P for PFS, OS, and ORR were < 0.01, < 0.01 and 0.01, respectively). While low miR-31-3p expression could predict PFS (P = 0.01) and OS (P = 0.04) benefit. The prognostic and predictive value regarding PIK3CA mutations, PTEN mutations or deletions, EGFR, EREG/AREG, HER2, HER3, and HER4 expression remains uncertain.
CONCLUSIONS
In RAS wt mCRC patients receiving EGFR-targeted therapy, BRAF mutation is a powerful prognostic and therapy-predictive biomarker, with no effect found for PIK3CA mutation, PTEN mutation or deletion, but the combined biomarker KRAS/NRAS/BRAF/PIK3CA mutations predict resistance to anti-EGFR therapy. Low miR-31-3p expression may have positive prognostic and therapy predictive effects. Evidence on the prognostic and predictive roles of EGFR and its ligands, and HER2/3/4 is insufficient.
Topics: Humans; Prognosis; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf; Colorectal Neoplasms; Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras); ErbB Receptors; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Colonic Neoplasms; Rectal Neoplasms; Biomarkers; Class I Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinases; Mutation; MicroRNAs; Biomarkers, Tumor
PubMed: 37974093
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-11600-z -
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 -
Radiotherapy and Oncology : Journal of... Sep 2023In recent years, the treatment landscape for breast cancer has undergone significant advancements, with the introduction of several new anticancer agents. One such agent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
In recent years, the treatment landscape for breast cancer has undergone significant advancements, with the introduction of several new anticancer agents. One such agent is trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1), an antibody drug conjugate that has shown improved outcomes in both early and advanced breast cancer. However, there is currently a lack of comprehensive evidence regarding the safety profile of combining T-DM1 with radiation therapy (RT). In this study, we aim to provide a summary of the available data on the safety of combining RT with T-DM1 in both early and metastatic breast cancer settings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis project is part of the consensus recommendations by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) Guidelines Committee on integrating RT with targeted treatments for breast cancer. A thorough literature search was conducted using the PUBMED/MedLine, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify original studies focusing on the safety profile of combining T-DM1 with RT.
RESULTS
After applying eligibility criteria, nine articles were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled data from these studies revealed a high incidence of grade 3 + radionecrosis (17%), while the rates of grade 3 + radiation-related pneumonitis (<1%) and skin toxicity (1%) were found to be very low.
CONCLUSION
Although there is some concern regarding a slight increase in pneumonitis when combining T-DM1 with postoperative RT, the safety profile of this combination was deemed acceptable for locoregional treatment in non-metastatic breast cancer. However, caution is advised when irradiating intracranial sites concurrently with T-DM1. There is a pressing need for international consensus guidelines regarding the safety considerations of combining T-DM1 and RT for breast cancer.
Topics: Humans; Female; Ado-Trastuzumab Emtansine; Trastuzumab; Receptor, ErbB-2; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Maytansine; Treatment Outcome; Breast Neoplasms
PubMed: 37437610
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109805 -
Annals of Oncology : Official Journal... Dec 2015Breastfeeding is inversely associated with overall risk of breast cancer. This association may differ in breast cancer subtypes defined by receptor status, as they may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Breastfeeding is inversely associated with overall risk of breast cancer. This association may differ in breast cancer subtypes defined by receptor status, as they may reflect different mechanisms of carcinogenesis. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control and prospective cohort studies to investigate the association between breastfeeding and breast cancer by estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status.
DESIGN
We searched the PubMed and Scopus databases and bibliographies of pertinent articles to identify relevant articles and used random-effects models to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
This meta-analysis represents 27 distinct studies (8 cohort and 19 case-control), with a total of 36 881 breast cancer cases. Among parous women, the risk estimates for the association between ever (versus never) breastfeeding and the breast cancers negative for both ER and PR were similar in three cohort and three case-control studies when results were adjusted for several factors, including the number of full-term pregnancies (combined OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.82-0.99), with little heterogeneity and no indication of publication bias. In a subset of three adjusted studies that included ER, PR, and HER2 status, ever breastfeeding showed a stronger inverse association with triple-negative breast cancer (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.66-0.91) among parous women. Overall, cohort studies showed no significant association between breastfeeding and ER+/PR+ or ER+ and/or PR+ breast cancers, although one and two studies (out of four and seven studies, respectively) showed an inverse association.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis showed a protective effect of ever breastfeeding against hormone receptor-negative breast cancers, which are more common in younger women and generally have a poorer prognosis than other subtypes of breast cancer. The association between breastfeeding and receptor-positive breast cancers needs more investigation.
Topics: Breast Feeding; Breast Neoplasms; Case-Control Studies; Cohort Studies; Female; Humans; Prospective Studies; Receptor, ErbB-2; Receptors, Estrogen; Receptors, Progesterone; Risk Factors
PubMed: 26504151
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdv379 -
International Journal of Molecular... Nov 2023Studying primary melanoma and its corresponding metastasis has twofold benefits. Firstly, to better understand tumor biology, and secondly, to determine which sample... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Studying primary melanoma and its corresponding metastasis has twofold benefits. Firstly, to better understand tumor biology, and secondly, to determine which sample should be examined in assessing drug targets. This study systematically analyzed all the literature on primary melanoma and its matched metastasis. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched multiple medical databases for relevant publications from January 2000 to December 2022, assessed the quality of the primary-level studies using the QUIPS tool, and summarized the concordance rate of the most reported genes using the random-effects model. Finally, we evaluated the inter-study heterogeneity using the subgroup analysis. Thirty-one studies investigated the concordance of and in 1220 and 629 patients, respectively. The pooled concordance rate was 89.4% [95% CI: 84.5; 93.5] for and 97.8% [95% CI: 95.8; 99.4] for . When high-quality studies were considered, only mutation status consistency increased. Five studies reported the concordance status of c (93%, 44 patients) and promoter (64%, 53 patients). Lastly, three studies analyzed the concordance of cancer genes involved in the signaling pathways, apoptosis, and proliferation, such as (25%, four patients), (44%, nine patients), and (20%, five patients). Our study found that the concordance of known drug targets (mainly ) during melanoma progression is higher than in previous meta-analyses, likely due to advances in molecular techniques. Furthermore, significant heterogeneity exists in the genes involved in the melanoma genetic makeup; although our results are based on small patient samples, more research is necessary for validation.
Topics: Humans; Melanoma; Skin Neoplasms; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf; Mutation; Melanoma, Cutaneous Malignant
PubMed: 38003476
DOI: 10.3390/ijms242216281 -
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) Jun 2023Patients with HER2+ breast cancer (BC) frequently develop leptomeningeal metastases (LM). While HER2-targeted therapies have demonstrated efficacy in the neoadjuvant,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients with HER2+ breast cancer (BC) frequently develop leptomeningeal metastases (LM). While HER2-targeted therapies have demonstrated efficacy in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic settings, including for parenchymal brain metastases, their efficacy for patients with LM has not been studied in a randomized controlled trial. However, several single-armed prospective studies, case series and case reports have studied oral, intravenous, or intrathecally administered HER2-targeted therapy regimens for patients with HER2+ BC LM.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data to evaluate the efficacy of HER2-targeted therapies in HER2+ BC LM in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Targeted therapies evaluated were trastuzumab (intrathecal or intravenous), pertuzumab, lapatinib, neratinib, tucatinib, trastuzumab-emtansine and trastuzumab-deruxtecan. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), with CNS-specific progression-free survival (PFS) as a secondary endpoint.
RESULTS
7780 abstracts were screened, identifying 45 publications with 208 patients, corresponding to 275 lines of HER2-targeted therapy for BC LM which met inclusion criteria. In univariable and multivariable analyses, we observed no significant difference in OS and CNS-specific PFS between intrathecal trastuzumab compared to oral or intravenous administration of HER2-targeted therapy. Anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody-based regimens did not demonstrate superiority over HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors. In a cohort of 15 patients, treatment with trastuzumab-deruxtecan was associated with prolonged OS compared to other HER2-targeted therapies and compared to trastuzumab-emtansine.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this meta-analysis, comprising the limited data available, suggest that intrathecal administration of HER2-targeted therapy for patients with HER2+ BC LM confers no additional benefit over oral and/or IV treatment regimens. Although the number of patients receiving trastuzumab deruxtecan in this cohort is small, this novel agent offers promise for this patient population and requires further investigation in prospective studies.
Topics: Female; Humans; Ado-Trastuzumab Emtansine; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptor, ErbB-2; Trastuzumab; Meningeal Neoplasms
PubMed: 37156650
DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2023.04.008 -
Cancer Treatment Reviews Nov 2022The objective of this study was to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic melanoma using a network meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparative efficacy and safety of targeted therapies for BRAF-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma: Results from a systematic literature review and a network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The objective of this study was to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic melanoma using a network meta-analysis (NMA).
METHODS
A systematic literature review (SLR) identified studies in Medline, Embase and Cochrane published until November 2020. Screening used prespecified eligibility criteria. Following a transitivity assessment across included studies, Bayesian NMA was conducted.
RESULTS
A total of 43 publications reporting 15 targeted therapy trials and 42 reporting 18 immunotherapy trials were retained from the SLR and considered for the NMA. Due to substantial between-study heterogeneity with immunotherapy trials, the analysis considered a network restricted to targeted therapies. Among combination therapies, encorafenib + binimetinib was superior to dabrafenib + trametinib for overall response rate (OR = 1.86; 95 % credible interval [CrI] 1.10, 3.17), superior to vemurafenib + cobimetinib with fewer serious adverse events (SAEs) (OR = 0.51; 95 % CrI 0.29, 0.91) and fewer discontinuations due to AEs (OR = 0.45; 95 % CrI 0.21, 0.96), and superior to atezolizumab + vemurafenib + cobimetinib with fewer SAEs (OR = 0.41; 95 % CrI 0.21, 0.82). Atezolizumab + vemurafenib + cobimetinib and encorafenib + binimetinib were generally comparable for efficacy endpoints. Among double combination therapies, encorafenib + binimetinib showed high probabilities of being better for all efficacy and safety endpoints.
CONCLUSIONS
This NMA confirms that combination therapies are more efficacious than monotherapies. Encorafenib + binimetinib has a favourable efficacy profile compared to other double combination therapies and a favourable safety profile compared to both double and triple combination therapies.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bayes Theorem; Benzimidazoles; Carbamates; Humans; Melanoma; Mutation; Neoplasms, Second Primary; Network Meta-Analysis; Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf; Skin Neoplasms; Sulfonamides; Vemurafenib
PubMed: 36099854
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2022.102463 -
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