Efficacy and Safety of Bevacizumab Combined with Chemotherapy for Managing Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Li Q
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4621503 | biostudies-literature | 2015
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Efficacy and Safety of Bevacizumab Combined with Chemotherapy for Managing Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Li Qin Q Yan Han H Zhao Pengfei P Yang Yifan Y Cao Bangwei B
Scientific reports 20151027
Although the FDA revoked metastatic breast cancer (MBC) from bevacizumab (BEV) indication in 2011, BEV combined with paclitaxel has been written in the breast cancer NCCN guidelines. This systematic assessment was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BEV + chemotherapy (CHE) for managing MBC. PubMed and EMBASE were searched for original articles written in English and published before July, 2015. Progression-free survival was significantly improved in the CHE + BEV arms compared to t ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeResults from previous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating whether the addition of bevacizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) could statistically significantly increase the pathological complete response (pCR) and to identify which subgroup would benefit most from such regimens have produced conflicting results. This meta-analysis was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone in the neoadjuvant setting.MethodsA literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library was performed to identify eligible studies. The primary endpoint of interest was pCR. The secondary endpoints were clinical complete rate (cCR), surgery rate, breast-conserving surgery (BCS) rate, and toxicity. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software version 5.3.ResultsNine RCTs matched the selection criteria, yielding a total of 4967 patients (bevacizumab plus chemotherapy: 50.1%, chemotherapy alone: 49.9%). The results of this meta-analysis demonstrated that the addition of bevacizumab to NAC significantly increased the pCR rate (odds ratio [OR] = 1.34 [1.18-1.54]; P < 0.0001) compared with chemotherapy alone. Subgroup analysis showed that the effect of bevacizumab was more pronounced in patients with HER2-negative cancer (OR = 1.34 [1.17-1.54]; P < 0.0001) compared with HER2-positive cancer (OR = 1.69 [0.90-3.20]; P = 0.11). Similarly, in patients with HER2-negative cancer, the effect of bevacizumab was also more pronounced in patients with HR-negative cancer (OR = 1.38 [1.09-1.74]; P = 0.007) compared with HR-positive cancer (OR = 1.36 [0.78-2.35]; P = 0.27). No significant differences were observed between the groups with respect to cCR, surgery rate, or BCS rate. Additionally bevacizumab was associated with a higher incidence of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and hand-foot syndrome.ConclusionsHigher proportions of patients achieved pCR when bevacizumab was added to NAC compared with when they received chemotherapy alone; acceptable toxicities were also found. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients with histologically confirmed HER2-negative and HR-negative breast cancer benefited the most.
| S-EPMC4699216 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of bevacizumab in patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is controversial. This meta-analysis was carried out to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the regimen including bevacizumab among patients with pretreated MBC.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials evaluating bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy for previously treated MBC patients. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). The secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and toxicity. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the identified studies. This study was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist.ResultsFour studies involving 1,640 individuals were included. Pooling results showed that the PFS of bevacizumab-containing groups (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.73-0.93, p = 0.002) was significantly better than that of the control groups, especially when bevacizumab was administered as the second-line treatment for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative MBC (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.66-0.88, p = 0.0002). The ORR in the bevacizumab-containing group was superior to that in the control group, both in the general (RR 1.45; 95% CI 1.18-1.78, p = 0.0004) and HER2-negative groups (RR 1.30; 95% CI 1.03-1.63, p = 0.03). However, no significant effect on OS was demonstrated for the addition of bevacizumab to the second-line treatment for HER2-negative MBC (HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.79-1.10, p = 0.39). Comparatively, proteinuria was more common in the bevacizumab-containing group. In addition, the application of bevacizumab tended to result in therapy discontinuation due to treatment-related toxicity.ConclusionsBevacizumab-containing chemotherapy, in light of its favorable effects on clinical outcomes, could be a preferred therapeutic option for patients with MBC, for whom the disease must be rapidly relieved. Further studies are warranted for exploring the advantageous patients with the receipt of bevacizumab in multiline treatment.
| S-EPMC9677857 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResearchers have demonstrated that the combined use of taxanes and chemotherapy drugs, especially paclitaxel-based treatment, appeared to clinically benefit on advanced triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). This meta-analysis aims to obtain the existent evidence on efficacy and safety for taxanes-based combination therapy to treat advanced TNBC.MethodsFrom 1991 to June 2022, seven databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase VIP, Wanfang, and CNKI databases) were comprehensively searched with no restricted language and region. The included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared taxanes-based combination therapy versus taxanes or other chemotherapy drugs. Statistical analysis was conducted using random-effect model, and the quality of RCTs was assessed using the tool of Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias.ResultsTwenty-six RCTs with a total of 8,236 advanced TNBC patients were included. Compared with taxanes monotherapy, taxanes-based combination therapy significantly prolonged progression-free survival (HR=0.79, 95%CI=0.74-0.83, I2= 0.0%, p=0.000) and overall survival (HR=0.88, 95%CI=0.82-0.94, I2= 9.3%, p=0.000) and increased the risk of vomiting (RR=1.26, 95%CI=1.07-1.48) and diarrhea (RR=1.82, 95%CI=1.22-2.70, I2= 90.3%, p=0.003). No statistical differences were observed in complete response rate (CRR), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and progressive disease (PD) indexes (CRR: RR=1.38, 95%CI=0.96-1.99; ORR: RR=1.20, 95%CI=0.73-1.98; DCR: RR=1.09, 95%CI=1.00-1.19; PD: RR=0.70, 95%CI=0.47-1.04). Compared with other chemotherapy drugs, taxanes plus other chemotherapy drugs significantly reduced the incidence of vomiting (RR=0.60, 95%CI=0.44-0.84, I2= 12.3%, p=0.002) and neutropenia (RR=0.58, 95%CI=0.35-0.96, I2= 73.0%, p=0.036) during the treatment period.ConclusionsTaxanes-based combination therapy is evidently effective and well-tolerated in advanced TNBC, indicating that it might be a recommended option for treating advanced TNBC patients to some extent.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022337802.
| S-EPMC9471016 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTriple-negative breast cancer constitutes approximately 12%-17% of all breast cancer cases, and >33% of patients develop distant metastases. Systemic cytotoxic chemotherapy is the primary treatment for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer; however, the role of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in these patients remains controversial. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of platinum-based first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.MethodsWe systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Clinical Trials registry databases up to June 1, 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials that investigated platinum-based vs. first-line platinum-free chemotherapy in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. We used fixed and random effects models to calculate pooled hazard ratios and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for progression-free and overall survival, objective response rates, and grade 3 and 4 adverse events.ResultsFour randomized controlled trials (N = 590 patients) were included. Platinum-based chemotherapy significantly increased the objective response rates from 43.1% to 62.7% (odds ratio 2.34, 95% confidence interval 1.66-3.28, P < 0.001). Three randomized controlled trials (N = 414 patients) reported survival outcomes. Patients administered platinum-based regimens showed significantly longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.82, P = 0.004) and a nonsignificant trend toward improved overall survival (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.57-1.00, P = 0.05). Only 2 studies reported the rates of grade 3 and 4 adverse events; grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia was more commonly associated with platinum-based chemotherapy (odds ratio 7.54, 95% confidence interval 1.37-41.60, P = 0.02) and grade 3-4 fatigue with platinum-free chemotherapy (odds ratio 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.68, P = 0.008).ConclusionsFirst-line platinum-based chemotherapy was associated with significantly increased objective response rates, longer progression-free survival, and a nonsignificant trend toward improved overall survival in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer at the high risk of grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia.
| S-EPMC8120541 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer deaths in both sexes in the world. Improvement of existing therapy modalities and implementing new ones in order to improve survival of patients with colorectal cancer represents a great challenge for medicine. The aim of this paper was to assess the impact that adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy has on survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, compared to the use of chemotherapy alone.MethodsHazard ratios (HRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined from the studies and pooled. Two-sided p values were reported and considered to indicate statistical significance if less than 0.05.ResultsA total of 12 studies that meet the inclusion criteria were identified in the literature search, 3 phase II studies and 9 phase III studies. Based on the random effects meta-analysis, a statistically significant improvement was identified for both overall survival (HR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.74-0.94; p = 0.003) and progression free survival (HR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.55-0.73; p<0.00001) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when bevacizumab was added to chemotherapy, compared to chemotherapy treatment alone.ConclusionThe findings of this meta analysis confirm the benefit of adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy in terms of survival and progression free survival, but the magnitude of this effect is not consistent throughout the included studies. This suggests the need for further research of interaction of bevacizumab with chemotherapeutic agents as well as recognition of patients' characteristics important for the treatment selection criteria.
| S-EPMC5006969 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis meta-analysis was updated with results from a new trial and final data to reassess the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in ovarian cancer (OC).MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane clinical trials, Web of Science and clinicaltrial.gov databases. Outcomes included the progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and common adverse events. The hazard ratio (HR), risk ratio (RR) and odds ratio (OR) were pooled when the meta-analysis was performed.ResultsFive RCTs with 4994 patients were included. In overall newly diagnosed OC, bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy did not significantly improve PFS (HR 0.85, 95%CI 0.70-1.02) or OS (HR 0.94, 95%CI 0.84-1.05). In the high-risk progression subgroup, the addition of bevacizumab significantly improved PFS (HR 0.76, 95%CI 0.68-0.84) and OS (HR 0.85, 95%CI 0.74-0.96). In recurrent OC, the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy significantly extended PFS (HR 0.53, 95%CI 0.45-0.63) and OS (HR 0.87, 95%CI 0.77-0.99). The ORR was improved (OR 2.37, 95%CI 1.99-2.82) in the overall population. Bevacizumab increased the incidence of hypertension (RR 21.27, 95%CI 9.42-48.02), proteinuria (RR 4.77, 95%CI 2.15-10.61), bleeding (RR 3.16, 95%CI 1.59-6.30), GI perforations (RR 2.76, 95%CI 1.51-5.03), arterial thrombosis events (RR 2.39, 95%CI 1.39-4.10) and venous thrombosis events (RR 1.43, 95%CI 1.04-1.96).ConclusionsBevacizumab combined with chemotherapy significantly improved PFS and OS in both patients with high-risk of progression and patients with recurrent OC, with an increased incidence of common adverse events. However, no statistically significant survival benefit was identified in the front-line settings.
| S-EPMC5354693 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Panitumumab and bevacizumab have been widely used in combination with chemotherapy for patients with wild type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Whether panitumumab or bevacizumab was the optimal option remained controversial. Thus, we conducted a meta-anaylsis to evaluate chemotherapy plus panitumumab (C?+?P) versus chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (C?+?B) in wild type RAS mCRC. Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, were searched. This meta-analysis estimated the progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and adverse events (AEs). Three randomized controlled trials with a total number of 577 patients were included. In wild type RAS population, PFS [hazard ratio (HR)?=?0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.76 to 1.15] and OS (HR?=?0.90; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.27) and ORR [relative ratio (RR)?=?2.06; 95% CI, 0.86 to 4.90] appeared similar between the two treatments, the incidence of AEs slightly increased (RR?=?1.16; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.26). In conclusion, there was insufficient evidence to precisely conclude that combination treatment of C?+?P had an improved efficacy compared with C?+?B. Further large-scale and better-designed clinical trials are still needed to evaluate the combination treatment of C?+?P in patients with wild type RAS mCRC.
| S-EPMC5764984 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of our meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy and safety of the target combined chemotherapy for the patients with unresectable advanced or recurrent gastric cancer.In accordance with the standard meta-analysis procedures, the patients included in our study were with unresectable advanced or recurrent gastric cancer and allocated randomly to receive target combined chemotherapy or the traditional chemotherapy. The search was applied to PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, Cocran's library (from inception to February 2016). All analyses were performed by STATA 12.0, with the odds ratio, hazard ratio, and 95 % confidence interval as the effect measures.Fourteen studies were included in this meta-analysis. A total of 5067 patients with advanced gastric cancer were divided into two arms: traditional chemotherapy arm and target combined chemotherapy arm. A significant improvement for overall survival (hazard ratio was 0.89, 95 % confidence interval: 0.83-0.95) and overall response rate (odds ratio was 1.44, 95 % confidence interval: 1.15-1.81) was observed, but no significant difference was found for progression-free survival (hazard ratio was 0.89, 95 % confidence interval: 0.77-1.00) in the target combined chemotherapy arm. In subgroup analysis, increasing benefits regarding overall survival and progression-free survival were found in anti epidermal growth factor receptor target drugs for selected patients subgroup and anti vascular endothelial growth factor receptor target drugs for unselected patients subgroup, but not in anti epidermal growth factor receptor target drugs for unselected patients subgroup. Besides, some adverse events were increased in the target combined chemotherapy arm.The target combined chemotherapy represented a better overall survival benefit and treatment efficiency and higher incidence of some grade 3-4 adverse events than the traditional chemotherapy for patients with unresectable advanced or recurrence gastric cancer. The anti vascular endothelial growth factor receptor drugs can improve the efficacy in the whole patients with unresectable advanced or recurrence gastric cancer and the anti epidermal growth factor receptor target drugs can only improve the efficacy in the epidermal growth factor receptor positive patients.
| S-EPMC5025570 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background: Biomarkers predicting response to bevacizumab in breast cancer are still missing. Since epigenetic modifications can contribute to an aberrant regulation of angiogenesis and treatment resistance, we investigated the influence of DNA methylation patterns on bevacizumab efficacy. Methods: Genome-wide methylation profiling using the Illumina Infinium HumanMethylation450 BeadChip was performed in archival FFPE specimens of 36 patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer treated with chemotherapy in combination with bevacizumab as first-line therapy (learning set). Based on objective response and progression-free survival (PFS) and considering ER expression, patients were divided in responders (R) and non-responders (NR). Significantly differentially methylated gene loci (CpGs) with a strong change in methylation levels (Δβ>0.15 or Δβ<-0.15) between R and NR were identified and further investigated in 80 bevacizumab-treated breast cancer patients (optimization set) and in 15 patients treated with chemotherapy alone (control set) using targeted deep amplicon bisulfite sequencing. Methylated gene loci were considered predictive if there was a significant association with outcome (PFS) in the optimization set but not in the control set using Spearman rank correlation, Cox regression, and logrank test. Results: Differentially methylated loci in 48 genes were identified, allowing a good separation between R and NR (odds ratio (OR) 101, p<0.0001). Methylation of at least one cytosine in 26 gene-regions was significantly associated with progression-free survival (PFS) in the optimization set, but not in the control set. Using information from the optimization set, the panel was reduced to a 9-gene signature, which could divide patients from the learning set into 2 clusters, thereby predicting response with an OR of 40 (p<0.001) and an AUC of 0.91 (LOOCV). A further restricted 3-gene methylation model showed a significant association of predicted responders with longer PFS in the learning and optimization set even in multivariate analysis with an excellent and good separation of R and NR with AUC=0.94 and AUC=0.86, respectively. Conclusion: Both a 9-gene and 3-gene methylation signature can discriminate between R and NR to a bevacizumab-based therapy in MBC and could help identify patients deriving greater benefit from bevacizumab.
| S-EPMC5928889 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The efficacy and safety of bevacizumab with modified irinotecan, leucovorin bolus, and 5-fluorouracil intravenous infusion (mIFL) in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has not been well evaluated in randomized clinical trials in Chinese patients. We conducted a phrase III trial in which patients with previously untreated mCRC were randomized 2:1 to the mIFL [irinotecan (125 mg/m(2)), leucovorin (20 mg/m(2)) bolus, and 5-fluorouracil intravenous infusion (500 mg/m(2)) weekly for four weeks every six weeks] plus bevacizumab (5 mg/kg every two weeks) group and the mIFL group, respectively. Co-primary objectives were progression-free survival (PFS) and 6-month PFS rate. In total, 214 patients were enrolled. Our results showed that addition of bevacizumab to mIFL significantly improved median PFS (4.2 months in the mIFL group vs. 8.3 months in the bevacizumab plus mIFL group, P < 0.001), 6-month PFS rate (25.0% vs. 62.6%, P < 0.001), median overall survival (13.4 months vs. 18.7 months, P = 0.014), and response rate (17% vs. 35%, P = 0.013). Grades 3 and 4 adverse events included diarrhea (21% in the mIFL group and 26% in the bevacizumab plus mIFL group) and neutropenia (19% in the mIFL group and 33% in the bevacizumab plus mIFL group). No wound-healing complications or congestive heart failure occurred. Our results suggested that bevacizumab plus mIFL is effective and well tolerated as first-line treatment for Chinese patients with mCRC. Clinical benefit and safety profiles were consistent with those observed in pivotal phase III trials with mainly Caucasian patients.
| S-EPMC4012268 | biostudies-literature