-
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Oct 2019To compare the efficacy and safety of first line treatments for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of first line treatments for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor mutated, non-small cell lung cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of first line treatments for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and several international conference databases, from inception to 20 May 2019.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing two or more treatments in the first line setting for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC were included in a bayesian network meta-analysis. Eligible studies reported at least one of the following clinical outcome measures: progression free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, and adverse events of grade 3 or higher.
RESULTS
18 eligible trials involved 4628 patients and 12 treatments: EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs; osimertinib, dacomitinib, afatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib, and icotinib), pemetrexed based chemotherapy, pemetrexed free chemotherapy, and combination treatments (afatinib plus cetuximab, erlotinib plus bevacizumab, gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy, and gefitinib plus pemetrexed). Consistent with gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0.95, 95% credible interval 0.72 to 1.24), osimertinib showed the most favourable progression free survival, with significant differences versus dacomitinib (0.74, 0.55 to 1.00), afatinib (0.52, 0.40 to 0.68), erlotinib (0.48, 0.40 to 0.57), gefitinib (0.44, 0.37 to 0.52), icotinib (0.39, 0.24 to 0.62), pemetrexed based chemotherapy (0.24, 0.17 to 0.33), pemetrexed free chemotherapy (0.16, 0.13 to 0.20), afatinib plus cetuximab (0.44, 0.28 to 0.71), and gefitinib plus pemetrexed (0.65, 0.46 to 0.92). Osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy were also consistent (0.94, 0.66 to 1.35) in providing the best overall survival benefit. Combination treatments caused more toxicity in general, especially erlotinib plus bevacizumab, which caused the most adverse events of grade 3 or higher. Different toxicity spectrums were revealed for individual EGFR-TKIs. Subgroup analyses by the two most common EGFR mutation types indicated that osimertinib was associated with the best progression free survival in patients with the exon 19 deletion, and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy was associated with the best progression free survival in patients with the Leu858Arg mutation.
CONCLUSIONS
These results indicate that osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy were associated with the best progression free survival and overall survival benefits for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC, compared with other first line treatments. The treatments resulting in the best progression free survival for patients with the exon 19 deletion and Leu858Arg mutations were osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy, respectively.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42018111954.
Topics: Biomarkers, Tumor; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; ErbB Receptors; Humans; Mutation; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 31591158
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l5460 -
Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Sep 2019Platinum-based chemotherapy is the mainstay of first-line (1L) therapy for advanced non-small cell cancer (NSCLC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Platinum-based chemotherapy is the mainstay of first-line (1L) therapy for advanced non-small cell cancer (NSCLC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the relative efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of carboplatin- versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy in 1L NSCLC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A meta-analysis by the Cochrane group (2013) was updated. Systematic searches of CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database, clinicaltrials.gov and conference proceedings were conducted to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2013-January 2018 which compared carboplatin and cisplatin combined with: gemcitabine, vinorelbine, docetaxel, paclitaxel, irinotecan, or pemetrexed. Endpoints included overall survival (OS), one-year OS, objective response rate (ORR), grade 3/4 drug-related toxicities, and HRQoL.
RESULTS
Twelve RCTs (2,048 patients) were identified from 4,139 records for inclusion in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in OS (hazards ratio [HR]: 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96, 1.21) and one-year OS (relative risk [RR]: 0.97, CI: 0.89, 1.07) between carboplatin- and cisplatin-based chemotherapy. A small effect on ORR favouring cisplatin was detected (RR = 0.88; CI: 0.78, 0.99). Differences in drug-related toxicities were observed between carboplatin- and cisplatin-based chemotherapy for thrombocytopenia, anaemia, neurotoxicity, and the risk of nausea/vomiting. Three RCTs comparing HRQoL between carboplatin- and cisplatin-based chemotherapy found no significant differences.
CONCLUSIONS
This updated evidence base corroborates findings of previous meta-analyses showing no difference in OS between carboplatin- and cisplatin-based chemotherapy, despite a slight benefit in ORR for cisplatin. Toxicity profiles should be considered alongside patients' comorbidities in the choice of therapy.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carboplatin; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Cisplatin; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Odds Ratio; Publication Bias; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31446995
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.07.010 -
Cancer Apr 2023This study compares the safety and efficacy of first-line treatments for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of first-line treatments for patients with advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutated, non-small cell cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
This study compares the safety and efficacy of first-line treatments for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. Abstracts related to lung cancer presented at important international conferences were also reviewed. Randomized clinical trials that qualified the inclusion criteria were subjected to Bayesian network meta-analysis and systematically reviewed.
RESULTS
The authors included a total of nine studies including 2441 patients and seven first-line treatments (ensartinib, brigatinib, crizotinib, lorlatinib, alectinib, ceritinib, and pemetrexed-based chemotherapy). Overall, lorlatinib appeared to confer the best progression-free survival (PFS) (probability of being the best [Prbest], 90%; surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA], 98%), and the same conclusion was obtained on paired comparisons (lorlatinib vs. ceritinib [hazard ratio (HR), 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20-0.47); lorlatinib vs. chemotherapy [HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.12-0.23]; crizotinib vs. lorlatinib [HR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-5.2]; and brigatinib vs. lorlatinib [HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.8]). Alectinib conferred the best overall survival (OS) and safety profile. In the Asian population, ensartinib conferred the best PFS (Prbest 50%, SUCRA 87%), and for patients with brain metastases at baseline, lorlatinib showed the best PFS (Prbest 70%, SUCRA 93%).
CONCLUSIONS
For first-line treatment of patients with ALK-positive NSCLC, lorlatinib was associated with the best PFS and objective response rate, but poorer safety profile, whereas alectinib demonstrated the best OS and safety profile. In Asians, ensartinib conferred the best PFS benefit, and in the brain baseline metastasis population, lorlatinib conferred the best PFS benefit.
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY
Among the many molecularly targeted drugs currently used to treat anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer, lorlatinib may be one of the most effective targeted drugs. Lung cancer has long been at the top of cancer rankings in terms of incidence and mortality. Today, the treatment of lung cancer has moved into the era of precision therapy. In this article, we use a statistical approach to compare the efficacy and safety of targeted drugs that have been used in the first-line treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutations to improve the reference for clinicians to make treatment decisions in the real world.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Lung Neoplasms; Crizotinib; Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Lactams, Macrocyclic; Protein Kinase Inhibitors
PubMed: 36748799
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34664 -
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness... Feb 2023In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing immunotherapies for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NsqNSCLC), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing immunotherapies for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NsqNSCLC), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the relative efficacy of these treatments. A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials evaluating first-line-to-progression and second-line treatments for advanced NsqNSCLC informed Bayesian NMAs for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) end points. Among first-line-to-progression treatments, pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + platinum showed the greatest OS benefit versus other regimens and a PFS benefit versus all but three regimens. Among second-line treatments, an OS benefit was seen for atezolizumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab versus docetaxel. Pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + platinum showed the maximum OS benefit in the first-line setting. In the second-line setting, anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 monotherapies were better than docetaxel.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Lung Neoplasms; Docetaxel; Pemetrexed; Network Meta-Analysis; Platinum; Bayes Theorem; Immunotherapy; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 36621905
DOI: 10.2217/cer-2022-0016 -
PloS One 2016Gemcitabine and pemetrexed have been used as maintenance therapy. However, few systematic reviews and meta-analyses have assessed their effects in the newest studies.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Gemcitabine and pemetrexed have been used as maintenance therapy. However, few systematic reviews and meta-analyses have assessed their effects in the newest studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the role of gemcitabine and pemetrexed in the maintenance treatment of non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC).
METHODS
We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases from their inceptions to September 16, 2015. We also searched the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) databases from 2008 to 2015. Two authors independently extracted the data. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias graph was used to assess the risk of bias. The GRADE system was used to assess the grading of evidence, and a meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 11.0 software.
RESULTS
Eleven randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies were collected. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis and divided into the following 4 groups: gemcitabine vs. best supportive care (BSC)/observation, pemetrexed vs. BSC/placebo, pemetrexed + bevacizumab vs. bevacizumab and pemetrexed vs. bevacizumab. Gemcitabine exhibited significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with BSC (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.62, p = 0.000). Pemetrexed exhibited significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.54, p = 0.000) and OS (HR = 0.75, p = 0.000) compared with BSC. Pemetrexed + bevacizumab almost exhibited significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.71, p = 0.051) compared with bevacizumab. Pemetrexed exhibited no improvement in PFS or overall survival (OS) compared with bevacizumab. Regarding the grade, the GRADE system indicated that the gemcitabine group was "MODERATE", the pemetrexed group was "HIGH", and both the pemetrexed + bevacizumab vs. bevacizumab groups and pemetrexed vs. B groups were "LOW".
CONCLUSIONS
Gemcitabine or pemetrexed compared with BSC/observation/placebo significantly improved PFS or OS. Whether pemetrexed + bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab alone significantly improves PFS requires further investigation.
Topics: Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Deoxycytidine; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Pemetrexed; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Rate; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 26954503
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149247 -
BMC Medicine Oct 2017Docetaxel, pemetrexed, erlotinib, and gefitinib are recommended as second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with wild-type or unknown status... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Comparative efficacy and safety of second-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with wild-type or unknown status for epidermal growth factor receptor: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Docetaxel, pemetrexed, erlotinib, and gefitinib are recommended as second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with wild-type or unknown status for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). However, the number of published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on this topic is increasing. Our objective was to assess the comparative effectiveness and tolerability of all second-line treatments for advanced NSCLC with wild-type or unknown status for EGFR by a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the US Food and Drug Administration website, as well as other sources, were searched for available reports up to June 6, 2017. Two reviewers independently selected published and unpublished reports of RCTs comparing any second-line treatments, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of all included trials. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included objective response (ObR), the number of serious adverse events, and quality of life.
RESULTS
We included 102 RCTs involving 36,058 patients (62% male, median age 61 years, 81% with stage IV cancer, 80% smokers, and 92% with performance status 0-1). We revealed a differential reporting of outcomes between efficacy and safety outcomes. Half of the trials reported safety outcomes and less than 20% quality of life. For OS, nivolumab was more effective than docetaxel (hazard ratio (HR) 0.69, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.56-0.83), pemetrexed (0.67, 0.52-0.83), erlotinib (0.68, 0.53-0.86), and gefitinib (0.66, 0.53-0.83). Pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and pemetrexed plus erlotinib were also significantly more effective than docetaxel, pemetrexed, erlotinib, and gefitinib. For PFS, erlotinib plus cabozantinib was more effective than docetaxel (HR 0.39, 95% CrI 0.18-0.84), pemetrexed (0.38, 0.18-0.82), erlotinib (0.37, 0.18-0.78), and gefitinib (0.38, 0.18-0.82). Cabozantinib and pemetrexed plus erlotinib were also significantly more effective than the four recommended treatments. For ObR, no treatment was significantly more effective. The effectiveness of the four recommended treatments was similar and they were ranked among the 25 less-effective treatments. For safety, evidence is insufficient to draw certain conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS
Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and pemetrexed plus erlotinib may be the most effective second-line treatments for NSCLC in terms of OS. The four recommended treatments seem to have relatively poor performance. However, the impact on life expectancy of immunotherapy versus other treatments should be further explored by future analyses, and more trials comparing the novel treatments are needed to reduce uncertainty in these results.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Registration number: PROSPERO ( CRD42015017592 ).
Topics: Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Female; Genes, erbB-1; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged
PubMed: 29082855
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-017-0954-x -
Chinese Medical Journal Nov 2023The brain is a common metastatic site in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), resulting in a relatively poor prognosis. Systemic therapy with epidermal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The brain is a common metastatic site in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), resulting in a relatively poor prognosis. Systemic therapy with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is recommended as the first-line treatment for EGFR -mutated, advanced NSCLC patients. However, intracranial activity varies in different drugs. Thus, brain metastasis (BM) should be considered when choosing the treatment regimens. We conducted this network meta-analysis to explore the optimal first-line therapeutic schedule for advanced EGFR -mutated NSCLC patients with different BM statuses.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials focusing on EGFR-TKIs (alone or in combination) in advanced and EGFR -mutant NSCLC patients, who have not received systematic treatment, were systematically searched up to December 2021. We extracted and analyzed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). A network meta-analysis was performed with the Bayesian statistical model to determine the survival outcomes of all included therapy regimens using the R software. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compare intervention measures, and overall rankings of therapies were estimated under the Bayesian framework.
RESULTS
This analysis included 17 RCTs with 5077 patients and 12 therapies, including osimertinib + bevacizumab, aumolertinib, osimertinib, afatinib, dacomitinib, standards of care (SoC, including gefitinib, erlotinib, or icotinib), SoC + apatinib, SoC + bevacizumab, SoC + ramucirumab, SoC + pemetrexed based chemotherapy (PbCT), PbCT, and pemetrexed free chemotherapy (PfCT). For patients with BM, SoC + PbCT improved PFS compared with SoC (HR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.17-0.95), and osimertinib + bevacizumab was most likely to rank first in PFS, with a cumulative probability of 34.5%, followed by aumolertinib, with a cumulative probability of 28.3%. For patients without BM, osimertinib + bevacizumab, osimertinib, aumolertinib, SoC + PbCT, dacomitinib, SoC + ramucirumab, SoC + bevacizumab, and afatinib showed superior efficacy compared with SoC (HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.20-0.90; HR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.31-0.68; HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.34-0.77; HR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.38-0.66; HR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.43-0.89; HR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.44-0.94; HR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.48-0.76; HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.50-1.00), PbCT (HR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11-0.74; HR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.15-0.62; HR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.17-0.69; HR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.18-0.64; HR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.21-0.82; HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.22-0.87; HR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.22-0.74; HR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.31-0.75), and PfCT (HR = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.06-0.32; HR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.09-0.26; HR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.09-0.29; HR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.10-0.26; HR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.12-0.35; HR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.12-0.39; HR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.12-0.31; HR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.16-0.34) in terms of PFS. And, SoC + apatinib showed relatively superior PFS when compared with PbCT (HR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.22-0.92) and PfCT (HR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.12-0.39), but similar PFS to SoC (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.42-1.03). No statistical differences were observed for PFS in patients without BM between PbCT and SoC (HR = 1.49, 95% CI: 0.84-2.64), but both showed favorable PFS when compared with PfCT (PfCT vs. SoC, HR = 3.09, 95% CI: 2.06-4.55; PbCT vs. PfCT, HR = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.06-0.32). For patients without BM, osimertinib + bevacizumab was most likely to rank the first, with cumulative probabilities of 47.1%. For OS, SoC + PbCT was most likely to rank first in patients with and without BM, with cumulative probabilities of 46.8%, and 37.3%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Osimertinib + bevacizumab is most likely to rank first in PFS in advanced EGFR -mutated NSCLC patients with or without BM, and SoC + PbCT is most likely to rank first in OS.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Afatinib; Lung Neoplasms; Bevacizumab; Bayes Theorem; Network Meta-Analysis; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Pemetrexed; ErbB Receptors; Brain Neoplasms; Mutation
PubMed: 37160733
DOI: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000002468 -
Cancers Oct 2022(1) Background: Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted in combination with Efficacy and Safety of Epidermal Growth Factor... (Review)
Review
Efficacy and Safety of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR)-Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Combination Therapy as First-Line Treatment for Patients with Advanced -Mutated, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.
(1) Background: Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted in combination with Efficacy and Safety of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor(EGFR)-Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (TKI) for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer; however, head-to-head comparisons of combination therapies are still lacking. Therefore, this study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of various combination treatments. (2) Methods: We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE for relevant RCTs. (3) Results: TKI combined with antiangiogenic therapy, chemotherapy, or radiation achieved a significant benefit compared with TKI alone for progression free survival (PFS). A combination with radiation yielded better benefits in PFS than any other treatment. In terms of overall survival (OS), only the combination with pemetrexed and carboplatin (HR = 0.63, 95% credible interval 0.43-0.86)/radiation (0.44, 0.23-0.83) was superior to TKI alone. All of the combination therapies may increase the incidence of ≥Grade 3 AEs, as the pooled RRs are over 1; different toxicity spectrums were revealed for individual treatments. (4) Conclusions: The TKI combination of radiation/pemetrexed and carboplatin could provide the best antitumor effects among the first generation TKI-based treatments. Considering safety, ramucirumab and bevacizumab may be the ideal additions to TKIs (systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022350474).
PubMed: 36230817
DOI: 10.3390/cancers14194894 -
Respiratory Medicine Aug 2018Advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is generally treated with platinum/pemetrexed-based first-line therapy. Once the disease progresses, evidence for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is generally treated with platinum/pemetrexed-based first-line therapy. Once the disease progresses, evidence for the efficacy of palliative treatments is lacking, and platinum re-challenge or single-agent chemotherapy are commonly used. To assess the effects of cytostatic or targeted therapy for treating MPM, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched to identify published articles on second-line treatments for recurrent or advanced mesothelioma. Inclusion criteria were publication in the English language, describing clinical trials with 20 or more patients, and evaluability for efficacy and for receiving second-line systemic therapies. Data were pooled using number of events/number of evaluable patients, median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), according to a fixed or random effect model. Pooled median OS was the primary endpoint.
RESULTS
A total of 49 eligible studies (n = 3938 patients; range, 12-400) were identified. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.4 months (95%CI 2.87-3.93). Median pooled OS was 7.86 (95%CI 7.01-8.72). The pooled overall response rate (ORR) was 8.63% (95%CI 6-11.26), and the pooled disease control rate (DCR) was 54.8% (95%CI 48.9-60.6). Median pooled OS with platinum- and pemetrexed-based chemotherapy were 7.93 and 7.78 months, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
There remains uncertainty about the ideal second-line agent for MPM. Based on this meta-analysis, palliative chemotherapy or other experimental agents can be considered for patients with MPM who desire further treatment after their disease has progressed, during or after first-line therapy.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Female; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Mesothelioma; Mesothelioma, Malignant; Pemetrexed; Platinum; Progression-Free Survival; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30053976
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2018.06.026 -
Cancers Dec 2021Patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) have very poor prognoses, and pemetrexed plus platinum is the standard first-line therapy. However, the second-line... (Review)
Review
Patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) have very poor prognoses, and pemetrexed plus platinum is the standard first-line therapy. However, the second-line therapy for relapsed MPM remains controversial. A comprehensive search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating various second-line regimens in patients with relapsed MPM. Indirect comparisons of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were performed using network meta-analysis. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values were used to rank the included treatments according to each outcome. Nivolumab alone or nivolumab plus ipilimumab provided significantly longer OS than placebo (hazard ratio (HR): 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.55-0.94 for nivolumab alone; HR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.31-0.92 for nivolumab plus ipilimumab). The best SUCRA ranking for OS was identified for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (SUCRA: 90.8%). Tremelimumab, vorinostat, nivolumab alone, chemotherapy (CTX), asparagine-glycine-arginine-human tumor necrosis factor plus CTX, and nivolumab plus ipilimumab all produced noticeable PFS benefits compared with placebo. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab had the best PFS ranking (SUCRA: 92.3%). Second-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab provided the OS and PFS outcomes for patients with relapsed MPM.
PubMed: 35008346
DOI: 10.3390/cancers14010182