Dataset Information

Network meta-analysis of the efficacy and adverse effects of several treatments for advanced/metastatic prostate cancer.

ABSTRACT: This network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and adverse effects of several treatments for advanced/metastatic prostate cancer (PC). The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of treatments for advanced/metastatic PC. Eighteen studies covering 6,340 patients were included in this analysis. The calculated were odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, and the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that overall survival rates achieved with radiotherapy or endocrine therapy were lower than obtained with radiotherapy + endocrine therapy. The endocrine therapy includes estrogen therapy, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (LHRH-A), anti-androgen therapy (ADT), ADT + LHRH-A and estrogen therapy + LHRH-A, and its SUCRA values indicated that for overall response rate, estrogen therapy + LHRH-A ranked the highest (92.6%); for overall survival rate, ADT ranked the highest (75.2%); for anemia, estrogen therapy ranked the highest (88.2%); and for diarrhea and hot flushes, ADT ranked the highest (diarrhea, 87.4%; hot flushes, 89.3%). Cluster analysis on the endocrine therapy showed that ADT + LHRH-A achieved the highest overall survival and overall response rates in the treatment of advanced/metastatic PC. Estrogen therapy and ADT had the lowest incidences of diarrhea and anemia. Thus, combined radiotherapy + endocrine therapy had higher overall survival rate, and among the endocrine therapy, in terms of overall response rate and overall survival rate, ADT + LHRH-A may be a better regimen in the treatment of advanced or metastatic PC.

SUBMITTER: Wu J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5601770 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Network meta-analysis of the efficacy and adverse effects of several treatments for advanced/metastatic prostate cancer.

Wu Jing J Chen Wei-Kang WK Zhang Wei W Zhang Jin-Song JS Liu Jian-He JH Jiang Yong-Ming YM Fang Ke-Wei KW

Oncotarget 20170802 35

This network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and adverse effects of several treatments for advanced/metastatic prostate cancer (PC). The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of treatments for advanced/metastatic PC. Eighteen studies covering 6,340 patients were included in this analysis. The calculated were odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, and the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve. Pairwise meta-analysis s ...[more]

PMID: 28938674

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMultiple systemic treatments are available for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), with unclear comparative effectiveness and safety and widely varied costs.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety determined in randomized clinical trials of systemic treatments for mCSPC.Data sourcesBibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central), regulatory documents (US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency), and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and European Union clinical trials register) were searched from inception through November 5, 2019.Study selection, data extraction, and synthesisEligible studies were randomized clinical trials evaluating the addition of docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, apalutamide, or enzalutamide to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for treatment of mCSPC. Two investigators independently performed screening. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus. A Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess trial quality. Relative effects of competing treatments were assessed by bayesian network meta-analysis and survival models. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was used.Main outcomes and measuresOverall survival, radiographic progression-free survival, and serious adverse events (SAEs).ResultsSeven trials with 7287 patients comparing 6 treatments (abiraterone acetate, apalutamide, docetaxel, enzalutamide, standard nonsteroidal antiandrogen, and placebo/no treatment) were identified. Ordered from the most to the least effective determined by results of clinical trials, treatments associated with improved overall survival when added to ADT included abiraterone acetate (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% credible interval [CI], 0.54-0.70), apalutamide (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51-0.89), and docetaxel (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89); treatments associated with improved radiographic progression-free survival when added to ADT included enzalutamide (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30-0.50), apalutamide (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.39-0.60), abiraterone acetate (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.45-0.58), and docetaxel (HR, 0.67; 95% CI 0.60-0.74). Docetaxel was associated with substantially increased SAEs (odds ratio, 23.72; 95% CI, 13.37-45.15), abiraterone acetate with slightly increased SAEs (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.83), and other treatments with no significant increase in SAEs. Risk of bias was noted for 4 trials with open-label design, 3 trials with missing data, and 2 trials with potential unprespecified analyses.Conclusions and relevanceIn this network meta-analysis, as add-on treatments to ADT, abiraterone acetate and apalutamide may provide the largest overall survival benefits with relatively low SAE risks. Although enzalutamide may improve radiographic progression-free survival to the greatest extent, longer follow-up is needed to examine the overall survival benefits associated with enzalutamide.

Project description:BackgroundOncolytic viruses (OVs) have shown prospects in advanced and metastatic cancer, and many clinical trials have been carried out. To compare OV therapies comprehensively and provide a categorized profile and ranking of efficacy and safety, a network meta-analysis was conducted.MethodsA total of 5948 studies were screened and 13 randomized controlled trials with 1939 patients, of whom 1106 patients received OV therapies, comparing four OVs (NTX-010, pexastimogene devacirepvec (Pexa-Vec), talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), and pelareorep) were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Eligible studies reported at least one of the following clinical outcome measures: objective response rate (ORR) and grade ≥ 3 adverse events.ResultsCompared to systemic treatments alone, talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) (OR 7.00, 95% CI 1.90-26.00) and T-VEC plus systemic treatment (2.90, 0.80-11.00) showed better objective response rates (ORRs), whereas Pexa-Vec 1 * 109 pfu plus systemic treatment (0.91, 0.26-3.00) and pelareorep plus systemic treatment (1.10, 0.61-2.00) were found to be comparable. The grade ≥ 3 adverse event ranking of the treatments from worst to best was as follows: T-VEC (ranking probability 24%), Pexa-Vec 1 * 109 pfu plus systemic treatment (21%), Pexa-Vec 1 * 109 pfu (17%), T-VEC plus systemic treatment (13%), pelareorep plus systemic treatment (13%), systemic treatments (18%), Pexa-Vec 1 * 108 pfu (12%), and NTX-010 (20%).ConclusionsCompared with other oncolytic virus therapies for patients with advanced or metastatic cancer, T-VEC and T-VEC plus systemic treatment appear to provide the best ORR therapy in terms of monotherapy and combination respectively, but should be given with caution to grade ≥ 3 adverse events. Conversely, combining OVs with chemotherapy or target agents was demonstrated not to improve efficacy compared with chemotherapy or target agents alone. Combining OV therapies with immune-checkpoint inhibitors, instead of chemotherapy or target agents, tended to provide better ORRs without causing severe adverse events. This study will guide treatment choice and optimize future trial designs for investigations of advanced or metastatic cancer.

Project description:Background: Lacking head-to-head trial, the optimal treatment for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after docetaxel failure is unclear. This study is to compare the efficacy and safety of systemic treatments in patients who progressed after docetaxel to aid clinical decision-making. Methods: Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to June 15th, 2021. The outcomes of interest include overall survival (OS), biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), and serious adverse events (SAEs). The Cochrane risk of bias tools were used to assess study quality. Indirect comparisons of competing treatments were performed via Bayesian network meta-analysis. Results: Five trials with 3,862 patients comparing four treatments (abiraterone, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel, and radium-223) were identified. All the four treatments were associated with improved OS and bPFS relative to best supportive care. Among them, enzalutamide (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.58, 95% credible interval [Crl]: 0.49-0.69) had the highest probability of ranking first in terms of OS, followed by cabazitaxel (HR = 0.70, 95% Crl: 0.59-0.83), radium-223 (HR = 0.71, 95% Crl: 0.56-0.90) and abiraterone (HR = 0.73, 95% Crl: 0.63-0.84). Similarly, enzalutamide (HR = 0.25, 95% Crl: 0.20-0.31) showed the greatest improvement of bPFS, followed by abiraterone (HR = 0.60, 95% Crl: 0.51-0.71) and cabazitaxel (HR = 0.75, 95% Crl: 0.63-0.89). In terms of safety, treatments ranked from the safest to the least safe were radium-223 (OR = 0.58, 95% Crl: 0.20-1.68), enzalutamide (OR = 0.80, 95% Crl: 0.28-2.29), abiraterone (OR = 0.94, 95% Crl: 0.39-2.27) and cabazitaxel (OR = 2.50, 95% Crl: 0.84-7.44). Conclusion: For patients with mCRPC who progressed after docetaxel, enzalutamide may offer the most significant survival benefits and satisfying safety. Cabazitaxel is effective in post-docetaxel settings but associated with a high risk of SAEs. Although network meta-analysis provides indirect comparisons and ranking probabilities, the results should be treated with caution as it cannot replace randomized direct comparison. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020223040, identifier CRD42020223040.

Project description:BackgroundThe objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different third-line treatment regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) through a comprehensive analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA). Additionally, the study aims to provide guidance on selecting appropriate third-line systemic treatment regimens for patients with mCRC.MethodsWe conducted a search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from January 1, 2005, to May 20, 2023, to include phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of third-line treatments for mCRC. The primary outcome assessed in the NMA was median overall survival (mOS), and other outcomes included median progression-free survival (mPFS), disease control rate (DCR), and grade 3 or higher adverse events (≥3AEs).ResultsUltimately, nine phase II/III RCTs involving five treatment regimens were included in this study. Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) plus bevacizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.41, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.32-0.52) was found to be the most effective treatment for mOS compared to best supportive care (BSC). TAS-102 plus bevacizumab also significantly improved mPFS compared to BSC (HR 0.20, 95% CrI 0.16-0.25). In terms of adverse events (AEs), TAS-102 (RR 0.52, 95% CrI 0.35-0.74) had a lower incidence of ≥3AEs compared to fruquintinib, but fruquintinib (RR 1.79, 95% CrI 1.10-3.11) showed better improvement in DCR than TAS-102. Subgroup analysis using the Bayesian surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) ranked the regimens based on the OS benefit. The results indicated that TAS-102 plus bevacizumab ranked first across age, gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.ConclusionTAS-102, fruquintinib, TAS-102 plus bevacizumab, the regorafenib standard dose regimen (regorafenib), and the regorafenib dose-escalation regimen (regorafenib 80+) all demonstrated improved OS and PFS compared to BSC in mCRC patients. However, TAS-102 plus bevacizumab may be the optimal choice for third-line treatment in mCRC patients.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php, CRD42023434929.

Dataset Information

Network meta-analysis of the efficacy and adverse effects of several treatments for advanced/metastatic prostate cancer.

Publications

Network meta-analysis of the efficacy and adverse effects of several treatments for advanced/metastatic prostate cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets