Dataset Information

Chemotherapy plus best supportive care versus best supportive care in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The use of chemotherapy has been proposed to increase the effectiveness of best supportive care (BSC) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Previous trials reported inconsistent findings regarding the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy on overall survival (OS) and treatment-related mortality. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of chemotherapy plus BSC versus BSC alone on survival of patients with NSCLC.

Methodology and principal findings

We systematically searched PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant literature. All eligible studies included patients with NSCLC who had received chemotherapy and BSC or BSC alone. All eligible studies measured at least 1 of the following outcomes: OS or treatment-related mortality. Overall, patients that received chemotherapy plus BSC had significant longer OS than those that received BSC alone (HR, 0.76; 95%CI, 0.69-0.84; P<0.001). Additionally, chemotherapy plus BSC as compared to BSC alone resulted in a 28% RR reduction (95%CI: 12-40; P = 0.001) in 6-month mortality, 11% RR reduction (95%CI: 8-15; P<0.001) in 12-month mortality, and 5% RR reduction (95%CI: 1-8; P = 0.02) in 2-year mortality. Toxicity was greater in patients that received chemotherapy plus BSC.

Conclusion/significance

Chemotherapy plus BSC increased the OS and reduced the 6-month, 12-month, and 2-year mortality of NSCLC patients.

SUBMITTER: Zhong C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3603584 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Chemotherapy plus best supportive care versus best supportive care in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Zhong Chenxi C Liu Hongcheng H Jiang Liyan L Zhang Wei W Yao Feng F

PloS one 20130313 3

<h4>Background</h4>The use of chemotherapy has been proposed to increase the effectiveness of best supportive care (BSC) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Previous trials reported inconsistent findings regarding the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy on overall survival (OS) and treatment-related mortality. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of chemotherapy plus BSC versus BSC alone on survival of patients with NSCLC.<h4>Methodology and ...[more]

PMID: 23555583

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMaintenance therapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) aims to extend disease control after first-line chemotherapy with active and well-tolerated agents. The utility of continuation maintenance therapy requires further research.MethodsThis multicenter, randomized, phase 2 study compared continuation maintenance therapy with pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 every 21 days) and best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced, non-squamous NSCLC who had not progressed after 4 cycles of induction chemotherapy with pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) and cisplatin (75 mg/m2). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) from randomization, was analyzed using a Cox model, stratified for the tumor response at the end of induction therapy, at a one-sided alpha of 0.2. Secondary endpoints: response and disease control rates, overall survival (OS), one year survival rates, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).ResultsA total of 106 patients commenced induction therapy, of whom 55 patients were randomized to maintenance pemetrexed/BSC (n = 28) or BSC (n = 27). Although the median PFS time for maintenance phase for both arms was 3.2 months, the one-sided p-value for the PFS HR comparison was less than the prespecified limit of 0.2 (HR = 0.76, two-sided 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42 to 1.37; one-sided p-value = 0.1815), indicating that PFS was sufficiently long in the pemetrexed/BSC arm to warrant further investigation. Similar PFS results were observed for the overall study period (induction plus maintenance) and when the PFS analysis was adjusted for sex, baseline disease stage, and the ECOG PS prior to randomization. The median OS for the maintenance phase was 12.2 months (95%CI: 5.6 to 20.6) for the pemetrexed/BSC arm and 11.8 months (95% CI: 6.3 to 25.6) for BSC arm. The one-year survival probabilities were similar for both arms for the maintenance phase and the overall study period. Both the induction and continuation maintenance therapies were generally well-tolerated, and similar proportion of patients in each arm experienced at least 1 grade 3/4 TEAE (pemetrexed/BSC, 17.9%; BSC, 18.5%).ConclusionsContinuation pemetrexed maintenance therapy resulted in promising PFS with an acceptable safety profile in a Middle Eastern population with advanced non-squamous NSCLC and is worthy of further investigation.Trial registrationNCT00606021.

Project description:BackgroundWhether a combination of chemotherapy and erlotinib is beneficial for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains controversial. This study aimed to summarize the currently available evidence and compare the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy plus erlotinib versus chemotherapy alone for treating advanced NSCLC.MethodsEMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant studies. Our protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42014015015).ResultsNine randomized controlled trials with a total of 3599 patients were included. Compared to chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus erlotinib was superior in PFS (HR = 0.76 [95% CI 0.62, 0.92], P = 0.006), and no statistically significant difference was observed in OS (HR = 0.94 [95% CI 0.86, 1.03], P = 0.16). Intercalated erlotinib plus chemotherapy demonstrated improvements in PFS (HR = 0.67 [95% CI 0.50, 0.91], P = 0.009) and OS (HR = 0.82 [95% CI 0.69, 0.98], P = 0.03). Continuous erlotinib plus chemotherapy treatment failed to demonstrate improvements in PFS (HR = 0.91 [95% CI 0.80, 1.04], P = 0.16) and OS (HR = 0.98 [95% CI 0.89, 1.09], P = 0.75). The association of chemotherapy plus erlotinib with improvement in PFS was significant in never smoking patients (HR = 0.46 [95% CI 0.37, 0.56], P<0.00001) but not in smoking patients (HR = 0.70 [95% CI 0.49, 1.00], P = 0.05). Among patients with EGFR mutant tumors, chemotherapy plus erlotinib demonstrated significant improvements in PFS (HR = 0.31 [95% CI 0.17, 0.58], P = 0.0002) and OS (HR = 0.52 [95% CI 0.30, 0.88], P = 0.01). Among patients with EGFR wild-type tumors, no statistically significant difference was observed with respect to PFS (HR = 0.87 [95% CI 0.70, 1.08], P = 0.21) and OS (HR = 0.78 [95% CI 0.59, 1.01], P = 0.06).ConclusionCombination of chemotherapy and erlotinib is a viable treatment option for patients with NSCLC, especially for patients who never smoked and patients with EGFR mutation-positive disease. In addition, intercalated administration is an effective combinatorial strategy.

Project description:ObjectivesSpasticity is an incurable chronic condition, and patients with spasticity frequently experience symptoms such as muscle stiffness, restricted mobility, fatigue, spasms, and pain. The study objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of abobotulinumtoxinA plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone for the early treatment of adult lower limb spasticity following an acute event (e.g. stroke or traumatic brain injury), from an Australian payer perspective.MethodsUsing clinical data from published pivotal trials, an economic model based on a Markov model was developed to capture changes in treatment costs, healthcare resource use costs, functional outcomes, and health-related quality of life over a lifetime horizon. Scenario analyses and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to explore the uncertainty in the model parameters and assumptions used in the base case.ResultsAbobotulinumtoxinA plus best supportive care was cost-effective versus best supportive care, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $35,721 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Sensitivity analyses confirm the robustness of the base case, with most results remaining below the commonly acceptable cost-effectiveness willingness-to-pay threshold of $75,000 per quality-adjusted life year for cost-effectiveness in Australia. Inputs and assumptions that produced the top four highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratios include the application of different health resource utilisation source, short time horizon, unweighted regression analyses to determine regression probabilities, and no stopping rule. AbobotulinumtoxinA plus best supportive care has a 74% probability of being cost-effective compared with best supportive care alone at the willingness to pay threshold.ConclusionAbobotulinumtoxinA plus best supportive care treatment is cost-effective in Australia for the management of adult lower limb spasticity in patients treated within 2 years of an acute event.

Dataset Information

Chemotherapy plus best supportive care versus best supportive care in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background

Methodology and principal findings

Conclusion/significance

Publications

Chemotherapy plus best supportive care versus best supportive care in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets