A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Biologic Agents in the First Line Setting for Advanced Colorectal Cancer
| Autor: | Keya Shah, Marie Yan, Scott R. Berry, Kelvin K. W. Chan, Yoo-Joung Ko, Alexander Kumachev, Maria C. R. Martinez |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2015 |
| Předmět: |
Oncology
medicine.medical_specialty Bevacizumab Colorectal cancer medicine.medical_treatment Science law.invention Advanced colorectal cancer Biological Factors Growth factor receptor Randomized controlled trial law Internal medicine Medicine Humans Chemotherapy Clinical Trials as Topic Multidisciplinary business.industry Bayes Theorem medicine.disease Systematic review Meta-analysis business Colorectal Neoplasms medicine.drug Research Article |
| Zdroj: | PLoS ONE PLoS ONE, Vol 10, Iss 10, p e0140187 (2015) |
| ISSN: | 1932-6203 |
| Popis: | BackgroundEpithelial growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRis) and bevacizumab (BEV) are used in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared their relative efficacy on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of first-line RCTs comparing (1) EGFRis vs. BEV, with chemotherapy in both arms (2) EGFRis + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone, or (3) BEV + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone, using Cochrane methodology. Data on and PFS and OS were extracted using the Parmar method. Pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted to estimate the direct, indirect and combined PFS and OS hazard ratios (HRs) comparing EGFRis to BEV.ResultsSeventeen RCTs contained extractable data for quantitative analysis. Combining direct and indirect data using an NMA did not show a statistical difference between EGFRis versus BEV (PFS HR = 1.11 (95% CR: 0.92-1.36) and OS HR = 0.91 (95% CR: 0.75-1.09)). Direct meta-analysis (3 RCTs), indirect (14 RCTs) and combined (17 RCTs) NMA of PFS HRs were concordant and did not show a difference between EGFRis and BEV. Meta-analysis of OS using direct evidence, largely influenced by one trial, showed an improvement with EGFRis therapy (HR = 0.79 (95% CR: 0.65-0.98)), while indirect and combined NMA of OS did not show a difference between EGFRis and BEV Successive inclusions of trials over time in the combined NMA did not show superiority of EGFRis over BEV.ConclusionsOur findings did not support OS or PFS benefits of EGFRis over BEV in first-line mCRC. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|