Cargando…
Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Third-Line Treatments for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review With Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND: Although various third-line treatments of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) significantly improved the overall survival, the optimal regimen has not been determined by now. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple third-line treatments of AGC via integrated analysis an...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8570109/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34745955 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.734323 |
_version_ | 1784594775553343488 |
---|---|
author | Huang, Miao Li, Jisheng Yu, Xuejun Xu, Qian Zhang, Xue Dai, Xin Li, Song Sheng, Lei Huang, Kai Liu, Lian |
author_facet | Huang, Miao Li, Jisheng Yu, Xuejun Xu, Qian Zhang, Xue Dai, Xin Li, Song Sheng, Lei Huang, Kai Liu, Lian |
author_sort | Huang, Miao |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Although various third-line treatments of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) significantly improved the overall survival, the optimal regimen has not been determined by now. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple third-line treatments of AGC via integrated analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) to provide valuable evidence for the optimal third-line systemic therapy for AGC. METHODS: By searching the databases of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from Jan 01, 2005 to Dec 31, 2020, we included phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of the third-line treatments for AGC to perform NMA. The main outcomes for NMA were median overall survival (mOS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), disease control rate (DCR) and adverse events (AEs). We also included phase IB/II non-RCTs and II/III RCTs of the third-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for integrated analysis for pooled mOS (POS), pooled mPFS (PPFS) and other outcomes. RESULTS: Eight phase II/III RCTs and 2 ICIs-related phase IB/II non-RCTs were included for analysis, involving 9 treatment regimens and 3012 AGC patients. In terms of mOS, apatinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.48-0.78) and nivolumab (HR 0.62, 95% CrI 0.51-0.76) were the most effective treatments compared with placebo. Apatinib also significantly improved mPFS versus placebo (HR 0.38, 95% CrI 0.29-0.49). Nivolumab ranked first among all regimens for 1-year OS rate and achieved the best OS in patients with HER-2 positive tumor, patients with gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer and patients without gastrectomy history. TAS-102 (OR 7.46, 95% CrI 4.61-12.51) was the most toxic treatment in terms of AEs of grade 3 and higher (≥3 AEs). Pembrolizumab was more likely to cause immune related adverse event. Finally, the POS, pooled 1-year OS rate, pooled ORR and PPFS of AGC patients treated with third-line ICIs were 5.1 months, 25%, 10% and 1.71 months respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Apatinib and nivolumab are the most effective treatments for the third-line treatment of AGC in contrast to the third-line chemotherapy. For AGC patients with HER-2 positive tumor, patients with GEJ cancer and patients without gastrectomy history, ICIs could be the optimal third-line treatment choice. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8570109 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85701092021-11-06 Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Third-Line Treatments for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review With Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis Huang, Miao Li, Jisheng Yu, Xuejun Xu, Qian Zhang, Xue Dai, Xin Li, Song Sheng, Lei Huang, Kai Liu, Lian Front Oncol Oncology BACKGROUND: Although various third-line treatments of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) significantly improved the overall survival, the optimal regimen has not been determined by now. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple third-line treatments of AGC via integrated analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) to provide valuable evidence for the optimal third-line systemic therapy for AGC. METHODS: By searching the databases of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from Jan 01, 2005 to Dec 31, 2020, we included phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of the third-line treatments for AGC to perform NMA. The main outcomes for NMA were median overall survival (mOS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), disease control rate (DCR) and adverse events (AEs). We also included phase IB/II non-RCTs and II/III RCTs of the third-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for integrated analysis for pooled mOS (POS), pooled mPFS (PPFS) and other outcomes. RESULTS: Eight phase II/III RCTs and 2 ICIs-related phase IB/II non-RCTs were included for analysis, involving 9 treatment regimens and 3012 AGC patients. In terms of mOS, apatinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.48-0.78) and nivolumab (HR 0.62, 95% CrI 0.51-0.76) were the most effective treatments compared with placebo. Apatinib also significantly improved mPFS versus placebo (HR 0.38, 95% CrI 0.29-0.49). Nivolumab ranked first among all regimens for 1-year OS rate and achieved the best OS in patients with HER-2 positive tumor, patients with gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer and patients without gastrectomy history. TAS-102 (OR 7.46, 95% CrI 4.61-12.51) was the most toxic treatment in terms of AEs of grade 3 and higher (≥3 AEs). Pembrolizumab was more likely to cause immune related adverse event. Finally, the POS, pooled 1-year OS rate, pooled ORR and PPFS of AGC patients treated with third-line ICIs were 5.1 months, 25%, 10% and 1.71 months respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Apatinib and nivolumab are the most effective treatments for the third-line treatment of AGC in contrast to the third-line chemotherapy. For AGC patients with HER-2 positive tumor, patients with GEJ cancer and patients without gastrectomy history, ICIs could be the optimal third-line treatment choice. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-10-22 /pmc/articles/PMC8570109/ /pubmed/34745955 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.734323 Text en Copyright © 2021 Huang, Li, Yu, Xu, Zhang, Dai, Li, Sheng, Huang 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 Huang, Miao Li, Jisheng Yu, Xuejun Xu, Qian Zhang, Xue Dai, Xin Li, Song Sheng, Lei Huang, Kai Liu, Lian Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Third-Line Treatments for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review With Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis |
title | Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Third-Line Treatments for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review With Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis |
title_full | Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Third-Line Treatments for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review With Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Third-Line Treatments for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review With Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Third-Line Treatments for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review With Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis |
title_short | Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Third-Line Treatments for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review With Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis |
title_sort | comparison of efficacy and safety of third-line treatments for advanced gastric cancer: a systematic review with bayesian network meta-analysis |
topic | Oncology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8570109/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34745955 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.734323 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT huangmiao comparisonofefficacyandsafetyofthirdlinetreatmentsforadvancedgastriccancerasystematicreviewwithbayesiannetworkmetaanalysis AT lijisheng comparisonofefficacyandsafetyofthirdlinetreatmentsforadvancedgastriccancerasystematicreviewwithbayesiannetworkmetaanalysis AT yuxuejun comparisonofefficacyandsafetyofthirdlinetreatmentsforadvancedgastriccancerasystematicreviewwithbayesiannetworkmetaanalysis AT xuqian comparisonofefficacyandsafetyofthirdlinetreatmentsforadvancedgastriccancerasystematicreviewwithbayesiannetworkmetaanalysis AT zhangxue comparisonofefficacyandsafetyofthirdlinetreatmentsforadvancedgastriccancerasystematicreviewwithbayesiannetworkmetaanalysis AT daixin comparisonofefficacyandsafetyofthirdlinetreatmentsforadvancedgastriccancerasystematicreviewwithbayesiannetworkmetaanalysis AT lisong comparisonofefficacyandsafetyofthirdlinetreatmentsforadvancedgastriccancerasystematicreviewwithbayesiannetworkmetaanalysis AT shenglei comparisonofefficacyandsafetyofthirdlinetreatmentsforadvancedgastriccancerasystematicreviewwithbayesiannetworkmetaanalysis AT huangkai comparisonofefficacyandsafetyofthirdlinetreatmentsforadvancedgastriccancerasystematicreviewwithbayesiannetworkmetaanalysis AT liulian comparisonofefficacyandsafetyofthirdlinetreatmentsforadvancedgastriccancerasystematicreviewwithbayesiannetworkmetaanalysis |