Dataset Information

Second-line Treatments for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis of Overall Survival Using Parametric Modelling Methods.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is one of the most common forms of cancer and remains difficult to cure. There is currently no recommended therapy for second-line AGC in the UK despite the availability of various interventions. This paper aims to compare different interventions for treatment of second-line AGC using more complex methods to estimate relative efficacy, fitting various parametric models and to compare results to those published adopting conventional methods of synthesis.

Methods

Seven studies were identified in an existing literature review evaluating seven comparators, which formed a connected network of evidence. Citations were limited to randomised controlled trials in previously-treated AGC patients. Evidence quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Studies were assessed for the availability of Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival. Individual patient data (IPD) were recreated using digitisation software along with a published algorithm in R. The data were analysed using multi-dimensional network meta-analysis (NMA) methods. A series of parametric models were fitted to the pseudo-IPD. Both fixed and random-effects models were fitted to explore long-term survival prospects based on extrapolation methods and estimated mean survival.

Results

Relative efficacy estimates were compared to those previously reported, which utilised conventional NMA methods. Results presented were consistent within findings from other publications and identified ramucirumab plus paclitaxel as the best treatment; however, all the treatments assessed were associated with poor survival prospects with mean survival estimates ranging from 5.0 to 12.7 months.

Conclusion

Whilst the approach adopted in this paper does not adjust for differences in trial patient populations and is particularly data-intensive, use of such sophisticated methods of evidence synthesis may be more informative for subsequent cost-effectiveness modelling and may have greater impact when considering an indication where observed data is particularly immature or survival prospects are more positive, which may then lead to more informative decision-making for drug reimbursement.

SUBMITTER: Harvey RC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5488131 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSerum tumor markers including AFU, AFP, CEA, CA199, CA125 and CA724, are of great importance in the diagnosis, prognostic prediction and recurrence monitoring of gastrointestinal malignancies. However, their significance in gastric cancer (GC) patients with neoadjuvant therapy (NCT) is still uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictive value of these six tumor markers in locally advanced GC patients who underwent NCT and curative surgery.MethodsIn total, 290 locally advanced GC patients who underwent NCT and D2 radical gastrectomy were retrospectively analyzed. Data on their tumor markers before (pre-) and after (post-) NCT and pathological characteristics were extracted from the database of our hospital. The optimal cutoff values of the six tumor markers were calculated by the ROC curve and Youden index. Their predictive significance was analyzed and survival curves for overall survival (OS) were obtained by the Kaplan-Meier method. Associations between categorical variables were explored by the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. Multivariate analyses were performed by the Cox regression model.ResultsPre- and post-CA199, -CA125 and -CA724 could predict overall survival (all P?<?0.05), but only the change (diff-) of CA199 was related to prognosis (P?=?0.05). In the multivariable analysis, pre- (P?=?0.014) and post-CA724 (P?=?0.036) remained significant, though diff-CA724 was not an independent prognostic factor (P?=?0.581). In addition, pre- and post-CA199, -CA125 and -CA724 were associated with lymph node metastasis (N- vs N+) and pathological stage (I-II vs III) (all P?<?0.05). Moreover, post-CA724 was related to the vascular or lymphatic invasion (P?=?0.019), while pre-CA724 was not (P?=?0.082). However, AFU, AFP and CEA showed no association with survival (P?>?0.05).ConclusionsCA724 is an independent factor for prognosis and could be used to predict ypN and ypTNM stage in locally advanced GC patients undergoing NCT and curative resection.

Project description:PurposeTo identify baseline prognostic factors for survival in patients with disease progression, during or after chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer.Materials and methodsWe pooled data from patients randomized between 2009 and 2012 in 2 phase III, global double-blind studies of ramucirumab for the treatment of advanced gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma following disease progression on first-line platinum- and/or fluoropyrimidine-containing therapy (REGARD and RAINBOW). Forty-one key baseline clinical and laboratory factors common in both studies were examined. Model building started with covariate screening using univariate Cox models (significance level=0.05). A stepwise multivariable Cox model identified the final prognostic factors (entry+exit significance level=0.01). Cox models were stratified by treatment and geographic region. The process was repeated to identify baseline prognostic quality of life (QoL) parameters.ResultsOf 1,020 randomized patients, 953 (93%) patients without any missing covariates were included in the analysis. We identified 12 independent prognostic factors of poor survival: 1) peritoneal metastases; 2) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score 1; 3) the presence of a primary tumor; 4) time to progression since prior therapy <6 months; 5) poor/unknown tumor differentiation; abnormally low blood levels of 6) albumin, 7) sodium, and/or 8) lymphocytes; and abnormally high blood levels of 9) neutrophils, 10) aspartate aminotransferase (AST), 11) alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and/or 12) lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). Factors were used to devise a 4-tier prognostic index (median overall survival [OS] by risk [months]: high=3.4, moderate=6.4, medium=9.9, and low=14.5; Harrell's C-index=0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.68). Addition of QoL to the model identified patient-reported appetite loss as an independent prognostic factor.ConclusionsThe identified prognostic factors and the reported prognostic index may help clinical decision-making, patient stratification, and planning of future clinical studies.