Cargando…
Indirect treatment comparison of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in previously untreated metastatic melanoma patients
BACKGROUND: Metastatic melanoma is an aggressive form of skin cancer with a high mortality rate and the fastest growing global incidence rate of all malignancies. The introduction of BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations has yielded significant increases in PFS and OS for melanoma. However, at present, no...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5209913/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28052762 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13045-016-0369-8 |
_version_ | 1782490819573317632 |
---|---|
author | Daud, Adil Gill, Japinder Kamra, Sheily Chen, Lei Ahuja, Amit |
author_facet | Daud, Adil Gill, Japinder Kamra, Sheily Chen, Lei Ahuja, Amit |
author_sort | Daud, Adil |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Metastatic melanoma is an aggressive form of skin cancer with a high mortality rate and the fastest growing global incidence rate of all malignancies. The introduction of BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations has yielded significant increases in PFS and OS for melanoma. However, at present, no direct comparisons between different BRAF/MEK combinations have been conducted. In light of this, an indirect treatment comparison was performed between two BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination therapies for metastatic melanoma, dabrafenib plus trametinib and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib, in order to understand the relative efficacy and toxicity profiles of these therapies. METHODS: A systematic literature search identified two randomized trials as suitable for indirect comparison: the coBRIM trial of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib versus vemurafenib and the COMBI-v trial of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus vemurafenib. The comparison followed the method of Bucher et al. and analyzed both efficacy (overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS], and overall response rate [ORR]) and safety outcomes (adverse events [AEs]). RESULTS: The indirect comparison revealed similar efficacy outcomes between both therapies, with no statistically significant difference between therapies for OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68 − 1.30), PFS (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.79 − 1.40), or ORR (risk ratio [RR] 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 − 1.10). Dabrafenib plus trametinib differed significantly from vemurafenib plus cobimetinib with regard to the incidence of treatment-related AE (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 − 0.97), any AE grade ≥3 (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.60 − 0.85) or dose interruption/modification (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 − 0.99). Several categories of AEs occurred significantly more frequently with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib, while some occurred significantly more frequently with dabrafenib plus trametinib. For severe AEs (grade 3 or above), four occurred significantly more frequently with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib and no severe AE occurred significantly more frequently with dabrafenib plus trametinib. CONCLUSIONS: This indirect treatment comparison suggested that dabrafenib plus trametinib had comparable efficacy to vemurafenib plus cobimetinib but was associated with reduced adverse events. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5209913 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-52099132017-01-04 Indirect treatment comparison of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in previously untreated metastatic melanoma patients Daud, Adil Gill, Japinder Kamra, Sheily Chen, Lei Ahuja, Amit J Hematol Oncol Research BACKGROUND: Metastatic melanoma is an aggressive form of skin cancer with a high mortality rate and the fastest growing global incidence rate of all malignancies. The introduction of BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations has yielded significant increases in PFS and OS for melanoma. However, at present, no direct comparisons between different BRAF/MEK combinations have been conducted. In light of this, an indirect treatment comparison was performed between two BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination therapies for metastatic melanoma, dabrafenib plus trametinib and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib, in order to understand the relative efficacy and toxicity profiles of these therapies. METHODS: A systematic literature search identified two randomized trials as suitable for indirect comparison: the coBRIM trial of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib versus vemurafenib and the COMBI-v trial of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus vemurafenib. The comparison followed the method of Bucher et al. and analyzed both efficacy (overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS], and overall response rate [ORR]) and safety outcomes (adverse events [AEs]). RESULTS: The indirect comparison revealed similar efficacy outcomes between both therapies, with no statistically significant difference between therapies for OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68 − 1.30), PFS (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.79 − 1.40), or ORR (risk ratio [RR] 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 − 1.10). Dabrafenib plus trametinib differed significantly from vemurafenib plus cobimetinib with regard to the incidence of treatment-related AE (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 − 0.97), any AE grade ≥3 (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.60 − 0.85) or dose interruption/modification (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 − 0.99). Several categories of AEs occurred significantly more frequently with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib, while some occurred significantly more frequently with dabrafenib plus trametinib. For severe AEs (grade 3 or above), four occurred significantly more frequently with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib and no severe AE occurred significantly more frequently with dabrafenib plus trametinib. CONCLUSIONS: This indirect treatment comparison suggested that dabrafenib plus trametinib had comparable efficacy to vemurafenib plus cobimetinib but was associated with reduced adverse events. BioMed Central 2017-01-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5209913/ /pubmed/28052762 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13045-016-0369-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Daud, Adil Gill, Japinder Kamra, Sheily Chen, Lei Ahuja, Amit Indirect treatment comparison of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in previously untreated metastatic melanoma patients |
title | Indirect treatment comparison of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in previously untreated metastatic melanoma patients |
title_full | Indirect treatment comparison of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in previously untreated metastatic melanoma patients |
title_fullStr | Indirect treatment comparison of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in previously untreated metastatic melanoma patients |
title_full_unstemmed | Indirect treatment comparison of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in previously untreated metastatic melanoma patients |
title_short | Indirect treatment comparison of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in previously untreated metastatic melanoma patients |
title_sort | indirect treatment comparison of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in previously untreated metastatic melanoma patients |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5209913/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28052762 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13045-016-0369-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT daudadil indirecttreatmentcomparisonofdabrafenibplustrametinibversusvemurafenibpluscobimetinibinpreviouslyuntreatedmetastaticmelanomapatients AT gilljapinder indirecttreatmentcomparisonofdabrafenibplustrametinibversusvemurafenibpluscobimetinibinpreviouslyuntreatedmetastaticmelanomapatients AT kamrasheily indirecttreatmentcomparisonofdabrafenibplustrametinibversusvemurafenibpluscobimetinibinpreviouslyuntreatedmetastaticmelanomapatients AT chenlei indirecttreatmentcomparisonofdabrafenibplustrametinibversusvemurafenibpluscobimetinibinpreviouslyuntreatedmetastaticmelanomapatients AT ahujaamit indirecttreatmentcomparisonofdabrafenibplustrametinibversusvemurafenibpluscobimetinibinpreviouslyuntreatedmetastaticmelanomapatients |