Cargando…

Systematic review and network meta-analyses of third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND: Limited treatment options are available in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The objective was to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) and exploratory network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the tolerability and effectiveness of SIRT with Y-90 resin micr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Walter, Thomas, Hawkins, Neil S., Pollock, Richard F., Colaone, Fabien, Shergill, Suki, Ross, Paul J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7467965/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32715436
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00432-020-03315-6
_version_ 1783578122410524672
author Walter, Thomas
Hawkins, Neil S.
Pollock, Richard F.
Colaone, Fabien
Shergill, Suki
Ross, Paul J.
author_facet Walter, Thomas
Hawkins, Neil S.
Pollock, Richard F.
Colaone, Fabien
Shergill, Suki
Ross, Paul J.
author_sort Walter, Thomas
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Limited treatment options are available in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The objective was to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) and exploratory network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the tolerability and effectiveness of SIRT with Y-90 resin microspheres, regorafenib, TAS-102 (trifluridine/tipiracil), and best supportive care (BSC) as third-line treatment in patients with mCRC. METHODS: An SLR was conducted to identify studies comparing two or more of the treatments and reporting overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, tumor response, or adverse event (AE) incidence. An exploratory NMA was conducted to compare hazard ratios (HRs) for OS using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques. RESULTS: Seven studies were identified in the SLR: two double-blind randomized-controlled trials (RCT) for each drug, one open-label RCT, and two non-randomized comparative studies for SIRT. Patient selection criteria differed between studies, with SIRT studies including patients with liver-dominant colorectal metastases. Nausea and vomiting were more frequent with TAS-102 than regorafenib or SIRT; diarrhea was more common with TAS-102 and regorafenib than SIRT. The exploratory NMA suggested that all active treatments improved OS, with HRs of 0.48 (95% CrI 0.30–0.78) for SIRT with Y-90 resin microspheres, 0.63 (0.38–1.03) for TAS-102, and 0.67 (0.40–1.08) for regorafenib each compared to BSC. CONCLUSIONS: Regorafenib, TAS-102 and SIRT using Y-90 resin microspheres are more effective than BSC in third-line treatment of mCRC; however, study heterogeneity made comparisons between active treatments challenging. SIRT is a viable treatment for third-line mCRC and its favorable AE profile should be considered in the therapeutic decision-making process. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00432-020-03315-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7467965
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74679652020-09-15 Systematic review and network meta-analyses of third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer Walter, Thomas Hawkins, Neil S. Pollock, Richard F. Colaone, Fabien Shergill, Suki Ross, Paul J. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Review – Clinical Oncology BACKGROUND: Limited treatment options are available in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The objective was to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) and exploratory network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the tolerability and effectiveness of SIRT with Y-90 resin microspheres, regorafenib, TAS-102 (trifluridine/tipiracil), and best supportive care (BSC) as third-line treatment in patients with mCRC. METHODS: An SLR was conducted to identify studies comparing two or more of the treatments and reporting overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, tumor response, or adverse event (AE) incidence. An exploratory NMA was conducted to compare hazard ratios (HRs) for OS using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques. RESULTS: Seven studies were identified in the SLR: two double-blind randomized-controlled trials (RCT) for each drug, one open-label RCT, and two non-randomized comparative studies for SIRT. Patient selection criteria differed between studies, with SIRT studies including patients with liver-dominant colorectal metastases. Nausea and vomiting were more frequent with TAS-102 than regorafenib or SIRT; diarrhea was more common with TAS-102 and regorafenib than SIRT. The exploratory NMA suggested that all active treatments improved OS, with HRs of 0.48 (95% CrI 0.30–0.78) for SIRT with Y-90 resin microspheres, 0.63 (0.38–1.03) for TAS-102, and 0.67 (0.40–1.08) for regorafenib each compared to BSC. CONCLUSIONS: Regorafenib, TAS-102 and SIRT using Y-90 resin microspheres are more effective than BSC in third-line treatment of mCRC; however, study heterogeneity made comparisons between active treatments challenging. SIRT is a viable treatment for third-line mCRC and its favorable AE profile should be considered in the therapeutic decision-making process. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00432-020-03315-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-07-27 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7467965/ /pubmed/32715436 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00432-020-03315-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis 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/.
spellingShingle Review – Clinical Oncology
Walter, Thomas
Hawkins, Neil S.
Pollock, Richard F.
Colaone, Fabien
Shergill, Suki
Ross, Paul J.
Systematic review and network meta-analyses of third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer
title Systematic review and network meta-analyses of third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer
title_full Systematic review and network meta-analyses of third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer
title_fullStr Systematic review and network meta-analyses of third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review and network meta-analyses of third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer
title_short Systematic review and network meta-analyses of third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer
title_sort systematic review and network meta-analyses of third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer
topic Review – Clinical Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7467965/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32715436
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00432-020-03315-6
work_keys_str_mv AT walterthomas systematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysesofthirdlinetreatmentsformetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT hawkinsneils systematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysesofthirdlinetreatmentsformetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT pollockrichardf systematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysesofthirdlinetreatmentsformetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT colaonefabien systematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysesofthirdlinetreatmentsformetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT shergillsuki systematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysesofthirdlinetreatmentsformetastaticcolorectalcancer
AT rosspaulj systematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysesofthirdlinetreatmentsformetastaticcolorectalcancer