Dataset Information

How to Deal with Second Line Dilemma in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Monoclonal antibodies targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) have demonstrated efficacy with chemotherapy (CT) as second line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The right sequence of the treatments in all RAS (KRAS/NRAS) wild type (wt) patients has not precisely defined. We evaluated the impact of aforementioned targeted therapies in second line setting, analyzing efficacy and safety data from phase III clinical trials. We performed both direct and indirect comparisons between anti-EGFR and anti-VEGF. Outcomes included disease control rate (DCR), objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and G3-G5 toxicities. Our results showed significantly improved OS (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72-0.94) and DCR (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04-1.54) favouring anti-VEGF combinations in overall population; no statistically significant differences in all RAS wt patients was observed (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70-1.09). Anti-EGFR combinations significantly increased ORR in all patients (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.96), showing a trend also in all RAS wt patients (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48-0.83). No significant difference in PFS and DCR all RAS was registered. Our results provided for the first time a strong rationale to manage both targeted agents in second line setting.

SUBMITTER: Galvano A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6721481 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How to Deal with Second Line Dilemma in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Galvano Antonio A Incorvaia Lorena L Badalamenti Giuseppe G Rizzo Sergio S Guarini Aurelia A Cusenza Stefania S Castellana Luisa L Barraco Nadia N Calò Valentina V Cutaia Sofia S Currò Giuseppe G Silvestris Nicola N Beretta Giordano Domenico GD Bazan Viviana V Russo Antonio A

Cancers 20190815 8

Monoclonal antibodies targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) have demonstrated efficacy with chemotherapy (CT) as second line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The right sequence of the treatments in all RAS (KRAS/NRAS) wild type (wt) patients has not precisely defined. We evaluated the impact of aforementioned targeted therapies in second line setting, analyzing efficacy and safety data from phase III clinical trials. We p ...[more]

PMID: 31443300

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:The evidence base for optimum third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is not conclusive. Recent studies have demonstrated the efficacy of regorafenib as third-line therapy in mCRC. This indirect meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of regorafenib with other available third-line therapies for mCRC. Methods:A literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of fruquintinib, regorafenib, TAS-102, and nintedanib as third-line therapies in patients with mCRC. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were the primary outcomes, while objective response rate (ORR) and safety were the secondary outcomes. Hazard ratio (HR) and relative risk (RR) with their respective 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for analysis of survival, clinical response, and safety data. An adjusted indirect meta-analysis with placebo as the common comparator was performed. Results:We identified eight RCTs comparing regorafenib (two studies), fruquintinib (two studies), TAS-102 (three studies), and nintedanib (one study) against placebo. The OS with regorafenib was significantly better when compared with nintedanib (HR?=?0.66; 95% CI: 0.45, 0.95, p?=?0.02) but was similar to that of fruquintinib (HR?=?1.01; 95% CI: 0.67, 1.52, p?=?0.94) and TAS-102 (HR?=?0.97; 95% CI: 0.68, 1.38, p?=?0.88). The PFS and ORR for regorafenib were slightly better than those of TAS-102 (PFS: HR?=?0.86, 95% CI: 0.54, 1.37, p?=?0.5; ORR: RR?=?1.13, 95% CI: 0.11, 11.05, p?=?0.92) and nintedanib (PFS: HR?=?0.68, 95% CI: 0.42, 1.10, p?=?0.12; ORR: not reported) but were lower than those for fruquintinib (PFS: HR?=?1.53, 95% CI: 0.93, 2.52, p?=?0.08; ORR: RR?=?0.68269, 95% CI: 0.045, 10.32, p?=?0.79). Safety analysis showed that the RR of adverse events (AEs) was lesser in patients treated with regorafenib in comparison with that in patients treated with fruquintinib, but was similar to that in patients treated with nintedanib and TAS-102. Conclusion:Regorafenib has efficacy similar to that of TAS-102 and better safety when compared with fruquintinib. Considering the mechanism of action of regorafenib, which targets multiple factors in the angiogenic pathway, it could be an ideal option for treatment in the beyond second-line setting.

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.

Project description:BackgroundCirculating DNA can be detected and quantified in the blood of cancer patients and used for detection of tumor-specific genetic alterations. The clinical utility has been intensively investigated for the past 10 years. The majority of reports focus on analyzing the clinical potential of tumor-specific mutations, whereas the use of total cell-free DNA (cfDNA) quantification is somehow controversial and sparsely described in the literature, but holds important clinical information in itself. The purpose of the present report was to present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prognostic value of total cfDNA in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with chemotherapy. In addition, we report on the overall performance of cfDNA as source for KRAS mutation detection.Materials and methodsA systematic literature search of PubMed and Embase was performed by two independent investigators. Eligibility criteria were (a) total cfDNA analysis, (b) mCRC, and (c) prognostic value during palliative treatment. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and meta-analysis applied on both aggregate data extraction and individual patients' data.ResultsTen eligible cohorts were identified, including a total of 1,076 patients. Seven studies used quantitative polymerase chain reaction methods, two BEAMing [beads, emulsification, amplification, and magnetics] technology, and one study digital droplet polymerase chain reaction. The baseline levels of cfDNA was similar in the presented studies, and all studies reported a clear prognostic value in favor of patients with lowest levels of baseline cfDNA. A meta-analysis revealed a combined estimate of favorable overall survival hazard ratio (HR) in patients with levels below the median cfDNA (HR = 2.39, 95% confidence interval 2.03-2.82, p < .0001).ConclusionThe total cfDNA levels are high in patients with mCRC and bear strong prognostic information, which should be tested prospectively by using a predefined cut-off value based on normal values in healthy cohorts. Finally, the potential use of cfDNA for detection of tumor-specific mutations was emphasized in a large individual patients' data meta-analysis.Implications for practiceReliable prognostic markers could help to guide patients and treating physicians regarding the relevance and choice of systemic therapy. Small fragments of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) can be measured in a simple blood sample. This report presents the first meta-analysis of the prognostic value of total cfDNA measurement in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Data from 1,076 patients confirmed that patients with the lowest pre-treatment levels of cfDNA had a significantly higher chance of longer survival than those with higher levels. Cell-free DNA analysis can also be used for detection of tumor-specific mutations, and hold potential as a valuable tool in colorectal cancer treatment.

Dataset Information

How to Deal with Second Line Dilemma in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

How to Deal with Second Line Dilemma in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets