Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant Treatments for Resectable Gastroesophageal Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background: Several neoadjuvant treatments are available for patients with resectable gastroesophageal cancer. We did a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare available treatments, summarizing the direct and indirect evidence. Method: We searched relevant databases for randomized controlled trials of neoadjuvant treatments for resectable gastroesophageal cancer which compared two or more of the following treatments: surgery alone, perioperative docetaxel, oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (FLOT), and neoadjuvant treatments listed in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline. Then we performed a NMA to summarize the direct and indirect evidence to estimate the relative efficacy for outcomes including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival and R0 resection rate. We calculated odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) for dichotomous data and time-to-event data, respectively. We also calculated the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value of each intervention to obtain a hierarchy of treatments. Result: Eight eligible trials (2434 patients) were included in our NMA. The treatment with the highest probability of benefit on OS as compared with surgery alone was perioperative FLOT [HR = 0.58 with 95% CrI: (0.43, 0.78), SUCRA = 93%], followed by preoperative radiotherapy, paclitaxel, and carboplatin (RT/PC) [HR = 0.68 with 95% CrI: (0.53, 0.87), SUCRA = 72%], perioperative cisplatin with fluorouracil (CF) [HR = 0.70 with 95% CrI: (0.51, 0.95), SUCRA = 68%], and perioperative epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil or capecitabine (ECF/ECX) [HR = 0.75 with 95% CrI: (0.60, 0.94), SUCRA = 56%]. Conclusion: Compared with surgery alone, perioperative CF, perioperative ECF/ECX, perioperative FLOT, and preoperative RT/PC significantly improved survival. Perioperative FLOT is likely to be the most effective neoadjuvant treatment for the disease. Further clinical studies are needed and justified.

SUBMITTER: Cai Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6087755 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant Treatments for Resectable Gastroesophageal Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Cai Zhaolun Z Yin Yiqiong Y Zhao Zhou Z Xin Chunyu C Cai Zhaohui Z Yin Yuan Y Shen Chaoyong C Yin Xiaonan X Wang Jian J Chen Zhixin Z Zhou Ye Y Zhang Bo B

Frontiers in pharmacology 20180806

<b>Background:</b> Several neoadjuvant treatments are available for patients with resectable gastroesophageal cancer. We did a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare available treatments, summarizing the direct and indirect evidence. <b>Method:</b> We searched relevant databases for randomized controlled trials of neoadjuvant treatments for resectable gastroesophageal cancer which compared two or more of the following treatments: surgery alone, perioperative docetaxel, oxaliplatin, leuc ...[more]

PMID: 30127746

Similar Datasets

Project description:Different neoadjuvant therapy regimens are available for rectal cancer, but the relative effects are controversial. The aim of the present network meta-analysis (NMA) was to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant therapies for resectable rectal cancer. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials were searched for publications dated from 1946 up to June 2018. The present study included randomized clinical trials that compared treatments for resected rectal cancer: Surgery alone, surgery preceded by neoadjuvant radiotherapy (RT), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Direct pairwise comparisons and NMA were conducted. A total of 23 randomized controlled trials were included in the present study. RT had an overall survival (OS) benefit when compared with surgery alone [HR (hazard ratio), 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82-0.97; quality of evidence, high]. All three neoadjuvant regimens were associated with lower local recurrence (LR) when compared with surgery alone [RT: odds ratio (OR), 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35-0.65; quality of evidence, high; CRT: OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.23-0.56; quality of evidence, low and CT: OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11-1.00; quality of evidence, low]. There were no significant differences in OS and LR between CRT and RT (OS: OR, 1.10); 95% CI, 0.93-1.20; LR: OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.10). Ranking probabilities indicated that CRT was the best strategy for local control, with a surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) of 78.78%. Patients treated with RT had improved disease-free survival compared with those treated with surgery alone (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.64-1.00; quality of evidence, low). Neoadjuvant RT or CRT did not significantly improve distant metastases compared with surgery alone (RT: OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69-1.10 and CRT: OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.47-1.10). CRT had an improved pathological complete response rate compared with RT (OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 21.80-17.00; quality of evidence, low). No significant difference for the risk of anastomotic leak between each treatment was observed in the NMA. In conclusion, RT decreased the LR and improved OS compared with surgery alone for resected rectal cancer. CRT was the best neoadjuvant therapy analyzed and CT was likely the second best for all outcomes based on SUCRA. However, these findings were limited by overall low quality of evidence.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, 6-month oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy has been recommended as the preferred adjuvant treatment against high-risk stage 2 and stage 3 colon cancer patients.MethodsRecord retrieval was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology meeting libraries from inception to November 2019. Regarding survival and tolerability, randomized controlled trials comparing different adjuvant systemic regimens against high-risk stage 2 and stage 3 colon cancer were eligible. Disease-free survival was primary endpoint. Network calculation was based on a random-effects model, and relative ranking of each node was numerically indicated by p score.ResultsA total of 30 trials were included, corresponding to 54,109 patients. Regarding disease-free survival, none of the analyzed regimens displayed significant superiority against common comparator 6-month capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX), while 12-month [network hazard ratio (HR) 0.81 (0.60-1.10); 0.79 (0.57-1.10)] and 3-month XELOX [0.95 (0.86-1.04); 0.93 (0.83-1.05)] were top-ranking regimens showing non-inferiority among overall and stage 3 patients. Moreover, by pairwise meta-analysis, 3-month XELOX demonstrated significant superiority against 6-month XELOX among low-risk stage 3 patients [pairwise HR 0.78 (0.63-0.97)]. Concerning adverse events, 3-month oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy was significantly better than the 6-month counterpart with respect to peripheral sensory neuropathy, thrombocytopenia and fatigue. The 12-month capecitabine monotherapy failed to display non-inferiority among other major adverse events.ConclusionsThe 3-month XELOX treatment could be an alternative option of the 6-month regimen among low-risk stage 3 patients. Among high-risk stage 3 patients, 6-month oxaliplatin-based regimens still seem more competitive. In addition, clinical application of 12-month capecitabine monotherapy should be cautious, despite its top rankings, especially among non-Asian countries.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, perioperative chemotherapy and preoperative chemotherapy are recommended by NCCN, ESMO and Japanese guidelines respectively for resectable esophageal and junctional cancer. However, these recommendations are mainly based on esophageal cancer research. Therefore, specific for esophagogastric junction cancer, we conducted the first systematic review and network meta-analysis to rank all potential treatments simultaneously and hierarchically.MethodsRecord retrieval was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, ASCO and ESMO Meeting Library from inception to September 2018. Regarding time-to-event survival data, randomized controlled trials featuring comparisons between different multimodal treatments against resectable esophagogastric junction cancer were eligible. Overall survival was the endpoint. Network calculation was based on a random-effects model and the relative ranking of each node was numerically indicated by P-score (CRD42018110369, registration identifier of the meta-analysis in PROSPERO.).ResultsEight studies were included in our systematic review, corresponding to 1218 patients. Regarding overall survival, 'PreCRT' (preoperative chemoradiotherapy) topped the hierarchy (HR 1.00, P-score = 0.823), better than 'PeriCT' (perioperative chemotherapy; HR 1.32, P-score = 0.591) and 'PreCT' (preoperative chemotherapy; HR 1.54, P-score = 0.428). In sensitivity analyses, irrespective of interchanging to fixed-effects model or removing potentially heterogeneous studies, relative rankings remained stable and 'PreCRT' was still the optimal node.ConclusionPreoperative chemoradiotherapy could potentially be the optimal multimodal treatment, which displayed more overall survival benefits than perioperative chemotherapy and preoperative chemotherapy among resectable esophagogastric junction cancer patients. To further verify our pooled results, more randomized trials will be needed to compare preoperative chemoradiotherapy with perioperative chemotherapy (especially FLOT-based regimens).

Project description:BackgroundNeoadjuvant therapy for resectable gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction tumors is progressing slowly. Although immunotherapy for advanced gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction tumors has made great progress, the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for locally resectable gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction tumors have not been clearly demonstrated. Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy and advance the current research.MethodsOriginal articles describing the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for resectable gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction tumors published up until October 15, 2023 were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and other major databases. The odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for heterogeneity and subgroup analysis.ResultsA total of 1074 patients from 33 studies were included. The effectiveness of neoadjuvant immunotherapy was mainly evaluated using pathological complete remission (PCR), major pathological remission (MPR), and tumor regression grade (TRG). Among the included patients, 1015 underwent surgical treatment and 847 achieved R0 resection. Of the patients treated with neoadjuvant immunotherapy, 24% (95% CI: 19%-28%) achieved PCR and 49% (95% CI: 38%-61%) achieved MPR. Safety was assessed by a surgical resection rate of 0.89 (95% CI: 85%-93%), incidence of ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of 28% (95% CI: 17%-40%), and incidence of ≥ 3 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) of 19% (95% CI: 11%-27%).ConclusionNeoadjuvant immunotherapy, especially neoadjuvant dual-immunotherapy combinations, is effective and safe for resectable gastric/gastroesophageal junction tumors in the short term. Nevertheless, further multicenter randomized trials are required to demonstrate which combination model is more beneficial.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=358752, identifier CRD42022358752.

Project description:BackgroundImmunosuppressive agents in general are shown to prevent renal progression and all-cause mortality in idiopathic membranous nephropathy (IMN) patients with nephrotic syndrome. However, the efficacy and safety of different immunosuppressive treatments have not been systematic assessed and compared. A network meta-analysis was performed to compare different immunosuppressive treatment in IMN.MethodsCochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and trial register system were searched for randomized controlled trials reporting the treatments for IMN to May 3, 2016. Composite endpoint of mortality or end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), complete or partial proteinuria remission and withdrawal because of treatment adverse events were compared combing direct and indirect comparison using network meta-analysis. Ranking different immunosuppressive treatments in the outcomes were analyzed by using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).ResultsTotal 36 randomized controlled trials (n = 2018) covering 11 kinds of treatments were included. Compared with non-immunosuppressive treatment, only cyclophosphamide (CTX) and chlorambucil significantly reduced the risk of composite outcome of mortality or ESKD while combining the direct and indirect comparison (OR = 0.31, 95%CI: 0.12-0.81 and OR = 0.33, 95%CI: 0.12-0.92). CTX increased the composite outcome of complete remission (CR) or partial remission (PR) (OR = 4.29, 95%CI: 2.30-8.00) but chlorambucil did not (OR = 1.58, 95%CI: 0.80-3.12) as compared with non-immunosuppressive treatment. Chlorambucil also significantly increased the withdrawal risk (OR = 3.34, 95%CI: 1.37-8.17) as compared to CTX. Both tacrolimus (OR = 3.10, 95%CI: 1.36-7.09) and cyclosporine (CsA) (OR = 2.81, 95%CI: 1.08-7.32) also significantly increased the rate of CR or PR as compared with non-immunosuppressive treatment (without significant difference as compared with CTX), while ranking results showed that cyclosporine or tacrolimus was with less possibility of drug withdrawal as compared to CTX.ConclusionsCyclophosphamide and chlorambucil reduce risk of ESKD or death in IMN with nephrotic range proteinuria, but carry substantial toxicity that may be lower for cyclophosphamide. Tacrolimus and cyclosporine increase the possibility of proteinuria remission with less drug withdrawal, but the effects on kidney failure remain uncertain.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the most efficacious treatment for eradication of Helicobacter pylori with the lowest likelihood of some common adverse events among pre-recommended and newer treatment regimens.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesCochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase without language or date restrictions.Study selectionFull text reports of randomised controlled trials that compared different eradication treatments for H pylori among adults.ResultsOf the 15,565 studies identified, 143 were eligible and included. Data on 14 kinds of treatments were available. Of 91 possible comparisons for the efficacy outcome, 34 were compared directly and the following treatments performed better: seven days of concomitant treatment (proton pump inhibitor and three kinds of antibiotics administered together), 10 or 14 days of concomitant treatment, 10 or 14 days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment (standard triple treatment which is probiotic supplemented), 10 or 14 days of levofloxacin based triple treatment (proton pump inhibitor, levofloxacin, and antibiotic administered together), 14 days of hybrid treatment (proton pump inhibitor and amoxicillin used for seven days, followed by a proton pump inhibitor, amoxicillin, clarithromycin, and 5-nitroimidazole for another seven days), and 10 or 14 days of sequential treatment (five or seven days of a proton pump inhibitor plus amoxicillin, followed by five or seven additional days of a proton pump inhibitor plus clarithromycin and 5-nitroimidazole or amoxicillin). In terms of tolerance, all treatments were considered tolerable, but seven days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment and seven days of levofloxacin based triple treatment ranked best in terms of the proportion of adverse events reported.ConclusionComparison of different eradication treatments for H pylori showed that concomitant treatments, 10 or 14 days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment, 10 or 14 days of levofloxacin based triple treatment, 14 days of hybrid treatment, and 10 or 14 days of sequential treatment might be better alternatives for the eradication of H pylori.

Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant Treatments for Resectable Gastroesophageal Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Comparative Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant Treatments for Resectable Gastroesophageal Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets