Cargando…

Comparison of different second line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: In metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC), first line treatment options usually include combination regimens of folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX or mFOLFIRINOX) or gemcitabine based regimens such as in combination with albumin-boun...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Petrelli, Fausto, Parisi, Alessandro, Tomasello, Gianluca, Mini, Emanuele, Arru, Marcella, Russo, Alessandro, Garrone, Ornella, Khakoo, Shelize, Ardito, Raffaele, Ghidini, Michele
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10278314/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37337148
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-023-02853-w
_version_ 1785060457991634944
author Petrelli, Fausto
Parisi, Alessandro
Tomasello, Gianluca
Mini, Emanuele
Arru, Marcella
Russo, Alessandro
Garrone, Ornella
Khakoo, Shelize
Ardito, Raffaele
Ghidini, Michele
author_facet Petrelli, Fausto
Parisi, Alessandro
Tomasello, Gianluca
Mini, Emanuele
Arru, Marcella
Russo, Alessandro
Garrone, Ornella
Khakoo, Shelize
Ardito, Raffaele
Ghidini, Michele
author_sort Petrelli, Fausto
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC), first line treatment options usually include combination regimens of folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX or mFOLFIRINOX) or gemcitabine based regimens such as in combination with albumin-bound paclitaxel (GEM + nab-PTX). After progression, multiple regimens including NALIRI + 5-FU and folinic acid, FOLFIRINOX, 5-FU-based oxaliplatin doublets (OFF, FOLFOX, or XELOX), or 5-FU-based monotherapy (FL, capecitabine, or S-1) are considered appropriate by major guidelines. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy of different treatment strategies tested as second-line regimens for patients with mPDAC after first-line gemcitabine-based systemic treatment. METHODS: Randomized phase II and III clinical trials (RCTs) were included if they were published or presented in English. Trials of interest compared two active systemic treatments as second-line regimens until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. We performed a Bayesian NMA with published hazard ratios (HRs) and 95%confidence intervals (CIs) to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different second-line therapies for mPDAC. The main outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints were grade 3–4 toxicities. We calculated the relative ranking of agents for each outcome as their surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA). A higher SUCRA score meant a higher ranking for efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: A NMA of 9 treatments was performed for OS (n = 2521 patients enrolled). Compared with 5-FU + folinic acid both irinotecan or NALIRI + fluoropyrimidines had a trend to better OS (HR = 0.76, 95%CI 0.21–2.75 and HR = 0.74, 95%CI 0.31–1.85). Fluoropyrimidines + folinic acid + oxaliplatin were no better than the combination without oxaliplatin. The analysis of treatment ranking showed that the combination of NALIRI + 5-FU + folinic acid was most likely to yield the highest OS results (SUCRA = 0.7). Furthermore, the NMA results indicated that with the highest SUCRA score (SUCRA = 0.91), NALIRI + 5-FU + folinic acid may be the optimal choice for improved PFS amongst all regimens studied. CONCLUSIONS: According to the NMA results, NALIRI + 5-FU, and folinic acid may represent the best second-line treatment for improved survival outcomes in mPDAC. Further evidence from prospective trials is needed to determine the best treatment option for this group of patients. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-023-02853-w.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10278314
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102783142023-06-20 Comparison of different second line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis Petrelli, Fausto Parisi, Alessandro Tomasello, Gianluca Mini, Emanuele Arru, Marcella Russo, Alessandro Garrone, Ornella Khakoo, Shelize Ardito, Raffaele Ghidini, Michele BMC Gastroenterol Research BACKGROUND: In metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC), first line treatment options usually include combination regimens of folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX or mFOLFIRINOX) or gemcitabine based regimens such as in combination with albumin-bound paclitaxel (GEM + nab-PTX). After progression, multiple regimens including NALIRI + 5-FU and folinic acid, FOLFIRINOX, 5-FU-based oxaliplatin doublets (OFF, FOLFOX, or XELOX), or 5-FU-based monotherapy (FL, capecitabine, or S-1) are considered appropriate by major guidelines. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy of different treatment strategies tested as second-line regimens for patients with mPDAC after first-line gemcitabine-based systemic treatment. METHODS: Randomized phase II and III clinical trials (RCTs) were included if they were published or presented in English. Trials of interest compared two active systemic treatments as second-line regimens until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. We performed a Bayesian NMA with published hazard ratios (HRs) and 95%confidence intervals (CIs) to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different second-line therapies for mPDAC. The main outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints were grade 3–4 toxicities. We calculated the relative ranking of agents for each outcome as their surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA). A higher SUCRA score meant a higher ranking for efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: A NMA of 9 treatments was performed for OS (n = 2521 patients enrolled). Compared with 5-FU + folinic acid both irinotecan or NALIRI + fluoropyrimidines had a trend to better OS (HR = 0.76, 95%CI 0.21–2.75 and HR = 0.74, 95%CI 0.31–1.85). Fluoropyrimidines + folinic acid + oxaliplatin were no better than the combination without oxaliplatin. The analysis of treatment ranking showed that the combination of NALIRI + 5-FU + folinic acid was most likely to yield the highest OS results (SUCRA = 0.7). Furthermore, the NMA results indicated that with the highest SUCRA score (SUCRA = 0.91), NALIRI + 5-FU + folinic acid may be the optimal choice for improved PFS amongst all regimens studied. CONCLUSIONS: According to the NMA results, NALIRI + 5-FU, and folinic acid may represent the best second-line treatment for improved survival outcomes in mPDAC. Further evidence from prospective trials is needed to determine the best treatment option for this group of patients. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-023-02853-w. BioMed Central 2023-06-19 /pmc/articles/PMC10278314/ /pubmed/37337148 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-023-02853-w Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Petrelli, Fausto
Parisi, Alessandro
Tomasello, Gianluca
Mini, Emanuele
Arru, Marcella
Russo, Alessandro
Garrone, Ornella
Khakoo, Shelize
Ardito, Raffaele
Ghidini, Michele
Comparison of different second line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title Comparison of different second line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_full Comparison of different second line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of different second line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of different second line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_short Comparison of different second line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_sort comparison of different second line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10278314/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37337148
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12876-023-02853-w
work_keys_str_mv AT petrellifausto comparisonofdifferentsecondlinetreatmentsformetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT parisialessandro comparisonofdifferentsecondlinetreatmentsformetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT tomasellogianluca comparisonofdifferentsecondlinetreatmentsformetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT miniemanuele comparisonofdifferentsecondlinetreatmentsformetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT arrumarcella comparisonofdifferentsecondlinetreatmentsformetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT russoalessandro comparisonofdifferentsecondlinetreatmentsformetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT garroneornella comparisonofdifferentsecondlinetreatmentsformetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT khakooshelize comparisonofdifferentsecondlinetreatmentsformetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT arditoraffaele comparisonofdifferentsecondlinetreatmentsformetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT ghidinimichele comparisonofdifferentsecondlinetreatmentsformetastaticpancreaticcancerasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis