Cargando…

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different third-line treatment regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) through a comprehensive analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA). Additionally, the study aims to provide guidance on selecting appropriat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gao, Loulu, Tang, Lin, Hu, Zixuan, Peng, Jieqiong, Li, Xiaoqian, Liu, Bo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10552753/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37810981
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1269203
_version_ 1785116024579817472
author Gao, Loulu
Tang, Lin
Hu, Zixuan
Peng, Jieqiong
Li, Xiaoqian
Liu, Bo
author_facet Gao, Loulu
Tang, Lin
Hu, Zixuan
Peng, Jieqiong
Li, Xiaoqian
Liu, Bo
author_sort Gao, Loulu
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different third-line treatment regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) through a comprehensive analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA). Additionally, the study aims to provide guidance on selecting appropriate third-line systemic treatment regimens for patients with mCRC. METHODS: We conducted a search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from January 1, 2005, to May 20, 2023, to include phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of third-line treatments for mCRC. The primary outcome assessed in the NMA was median overall survival (mOS), and other outcomes included median progression-free survival (mPFS), disease control rate (DCR), and grade 3 or higher adverse events (≥3AEs). RESULTS: Ultimately, nine phase II/III RCTs involving five treatment regimens were included in this study. Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) plus bevacizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.41, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.32-0.52) was found to be the most effective treatment for mOS compared to best supportive care (BSC). TAS-102 plus bevacizumab also significantly improved mPFS compared to BSC (HR 0.20, 95% CrI 0.16-0.25). In terms of adverse events (AEs), TAS-102 (RR 0.52, 95% CrI 0.35-0.74) had a lower incidence of ≥3AEs compared to fruquintinib, but fruquintinib (RR 1.79, 95% CrI 1.10-3.11) showed better improvement in DCR than TAS-102. Subgroup analysis using the Bayesian surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) ranked the regimens based on the OS benefit. The results indicated that TAS-102 plus bevacizumab ranked first across age, gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization. CONCLUSION: TAS-102, fruquintinib, TAS-102 plus bevacizumab, the regorafenib standard dose regimen (regorafenib), and the regorafenib dose-escalation regimen (regorafenib 80+) all demonstrated improved OS and PFS compared to BSC in mCRC patients. However, TAS-102 plus bevacizumab may be the optimal choice for third-line treatment in mCRC patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php, CRD42023434929.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10552753
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105527532023-10-06 Comparison of the efficacy and safety of third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis Gao, Loulu Tang, Lin Hu, Zixuan Peng, Jieqiong Li, Xiaoqian Liu, Bo Front Oncol Oncology BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different third-line treatment regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) through a comprehensive analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA). Additionally, the study aims to provide guidance on selecting appropriate third-line systemic treatment regimens for patients with mCRC. METHODS: We conducted a search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from January 1, 2005, to May 20, 2023, to include phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of third-line treatments for mCRC. The primary outcome assessed in the NMA was median overall survival (mOS), and other outcomes included median progression-free survival (mPFS), disease control rate (DCR), and grade 3 or higher adverse events (≥3AEs). RESULTS: Ultimately, nine phase II/III RCTs involving five treatment regimens were included in this study. Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) plus bevacizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.41, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.32-0.52) was found to be the most effective treatment for mOS compared to best supportive care (BSC). TAS-102 plus bevacizumab also significantly improved mPFS compared to BSC (HR 0.20, 95% CrI 0.16-0.25). In terms of adverse events (AEs), TAS-102 (RR 0.52, 95% CrI 0.35-0.74) had a lower incidence of ≥3AEs compared to fruquintinib, but fruquintinib (RR 1.79, 95% CrI 1.10-3.11) showed better improvement in DCR than TAS-102. Subgroup analysis using the Bayesian surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) ranked the regimens based on the OS benefit. The results indicated that TAS-102 plus bevacizumab ranked first across age, gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization. CONCLUSION: TAS-102, fruquintinib, TAS-102 plus bevacizumab, the regorafenib standard dose regimen (regorafenib), and the regorafenib dose-escalation regimen (regorafenib 80+) all demonstrated improved OS and PFS compared to BSC in mCRC patients. However, TAS-102 plus bevacizumab may be the optimal choice for third-line treatment in mCRC patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php, CRD42023434929. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-09-21 /pmc/articles/PMC10552753/ /pubmed/37810981 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1269203 Text en Copyright © 2023 Gao, Tang, Hu, Peng, Li and Liu https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Oncology
Gao, Loulu
Tang, Lin
Hu, Zixuan
Peng, Jieqiong
Li, Xiaoqian
Liu, Bo
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title Comparison of the efficacy and safety of third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_full Comparison of the efficacy and safety of third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of the efficacy and safety of third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the efficacy and safety of third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_short Comparison of the efficacy and safety of third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_sort comparison of the efficacy and safety of third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10552753/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37810981
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1269203
work_keys_str_mv AT gaoloulu comparisonoftheefficacyandsafetyofthirdlinetreatmentsformetastaticcolorectalcancerasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT tanglin comparisonoftheefficacyandsafetyofthirdlinetreatmentsformetastaticcolorectalcancerasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT huzixuan comparisonoftheefficacyandsafetyofthirdlinetreatmentsformetastaticcolorectalcancerasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT pengjieqiong comparisonoftheefficacyandsafetyofthirdlinetreatmentsformetastaticcolorectalcancerasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT lixiaoqian comparisonoftheefficacyandsafetyofthirdlinetreatmentsformetastaticcolorectalcancerasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT liubo comparisonoftheefficacyandsafetyofthirdlinetreatmentsformetastaticcolorectalcancerasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis