Dataset Information

Role of Systemic Treatment for Advanced/Metastatic Gastric Carcinoma in the Third-Line Setting: A Bayesian Network Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background: Increasing evidences from phase II or III trials have proved that salvage systematic therapy, including chemotherapy, target therapy, or checkpoint inhibitor therapy can prolong survival in patients who do not succeed with second line therapy, yet there are no guidelines for the optimum third-line treatments. To compare the effectiveness and safety of current third-line therapies for metastatic Gastric Cancer (mGC), we conducted this network analysis. Methods: Literature up to Sep 30, 2019 were systematically searched and analyzed by a Bayesian fixed-effect model. Results: This study included seven randomized clinical trails which involved 2,655 patients. It turns out that for overall survival, nivolumab has the highest probability to be the optimal choice for overall survival (OS). For patients with no peritoneal metastases, the network meta-analysis showed that Nivolumab (HR:0.64; 95% CI: 0.48-0.85) and Trifluridine/tipiacil (HR:0.66; 95% CI: 0.51-0.86) were associated with significantly higher improvement in OS than placebo. However, patients with peritoneal metastases could not benefit from nivolumab, ramucirumab, or Trifluridine/tipiacil, when compared with a placebo. For progression-free survival, apatinib (850 mg) was the most likely candidate, followed by ramucirumab. Statistically, Apatinib (850 mg), Trifluridine/tipiacil, and SLC had higher incidences of high-grade adverse events (AEs) than placebo. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that nivolumab has the best balance between acceptability and effectiveness in the third line therapy for mGC.

SUBMITTER: Pan WT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7191061 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Role of Systemic Treatment for Advanced/Metastatic Gastric Carcinoma in the Third-Line Setting: A Bayesian Network Analysis.

Pan Wen-Tao WT Zhou Su-Na SN Pan Meng-Xian MX Luo Qiu-Yun QY Zhang Lin L Yang Da-Jun DJ Qiu Miaozhen M

Frontiers in oncology 20200423

<b>Background:</b> Increasing evidences from phase II or III trials have proved that salvage systematic therapy, including chemotherapy, target therapy, or checkpoint inhibitor therapy can prolong survival in patients who do not succeed with second line therapy, yet there are no guidelines for the optimum third-line treatments. To compare the effectiveness and safety of current third-line therapies for metastatic Gastric Cancer (mGC), we conducted this network analysis. <b>Methods:</b> Literatur ...[more]

PMID: 32391262

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough various third-line treatments of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) significantly improved the overall survival, the optimal regimen has not been determined by now. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple third-line treatments of AGC via integrated analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) to provide valuable evidence for the optimal third-line systemic therapy for AGC.MethodsBy searching the databases of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from Jan 01, 2005 to Dec 31, 2020, we included phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of the third-line treatments for AGC to perform NMA. The main outcomes for NMA were median overall survival (mOS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), disease control rate (DCR) and adverse events (AEs). We also included phase IB/II non-RCTs and II/III RCTs of the third-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for integrated analysis for pooled mOS (POS), pooled mPFS (PPFS) and other outcomes.ResultsEight phase II/III RCTs and 2 ICIs-related phase IB/II non-RCTs were included for analysis, involving 9 treatment regimens and 3012 AGC patients. In terms of mOS, apatinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.48-0.78) and nivolumab (HR 0.62, 95% CrI 0.51-0.76) were the most effective treatments compared with placebo. Apatinib also significantly improved mPFS versus placebo (HR 0.38, 95% CrI 0.29-0.49). Nivolumab ranked first among all regimens for 1-year OS rate and achieved the best OS in patients with HER-2 positive tumor, patients with gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer and patients without gastrectomy history. TAS-102 (OR 7.46, 95% CrI 4.61-12.51) was the most toxic treatment in terms of AEs of grade 3 and higher (≥3 AEs). Pembrolizumab was more likely to cause immune related adverse event. Finally, the POS, pooled 1-year OS rate, pooled ORR and PPFS of AGC patients treated with third-line ICIs were 5.1 months, 25%, 10% and 1.71 months respectively.ConclusionsApatinib and nivolumab are the most effective treatments for the third-line treatment of AGC in contrast to the third-line chemotherapy. For AGC patients with HER-2 positive tumor, patients with GEJ cancer and patients without gastrectomy history, ICIs could be the optimal third-line treatment choice.

Project description:There is no standard third-line or further systemic treatment for patients with inoperable locoregionally advanced recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Metronomic oral cyclophosphamide provides an acceptable and cheap option for these heavily pretreated patients who had limited choices. We conducted a prospective phase II single-arm open-label study of metronomic oral cyclophosphamide. Patients with locoregionally advanced recurrent inoperable (rT3/T4, rN2-N3b) or metastatic (rM1) NPC who had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) (0-2) and had progressed after at least 2 lines of palliative systemic chemotherapy were eligible. They received oral cyclophosphamide between 50 and 150 mg once daily until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. Objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), biochemical response (two consecutive declines of plasma EBV DNA after treatment), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety profiles were evaluated. A total of 56 patients were recruited. Thirty-three, 13, 6, 3, and 1 patients received cyclophosphamide as 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th line of therapy respectively. After a median follow-up of 9.95 months (range 1.76-59.51 months), the ORR was 8.9% and the DCR was 57.1%. The median PFS and OS were 4.47 and 9.20 months, respectively. Those with PS 1 had longer median PFS (5.49 months) compared to those with PS 2 (3.75 months, P = .011). Besides, those who had locoregionally recurrent disease had better PFS (8.97 months, 95% CI, 0.53-17.41 months) compared to those who had distant metastases (4.14 months, 95% CI, 2.53-5.75 months, P = .020). Multivariable analysis revealed that PS 1 (vs 2) (P = .020) and locoregional recurrence (vs metastasis) (P = .029) were the only significant independent prognostic factors of PFS. Around 16 (28.6%) patients developed grade ≥3 adverse events, including malaise (5.4%), hematological (8.9%), gastrointestinal (3.6%), feverish (3.6%), and hemorrhagic (1.8%) events. The median cost of the whole drug treatment was 51.65 US dollars (USD) (range 4.15-142.75 USD) (1 USD = 7.8 HK dollars [HKD]). Metronomic oral cyclophosphamide is an acceptable third-line or beyond systemic therapy for locoregionally advanced recurrent or metastatic NPC with acceptable toxicity and limited financial burden.

Project description:BackgroundSystemic therapy is the standard treatment against advanced gastric cancer. Fluoropyrimidine plus platinum doublet has been recommended as the preferred first-line strategy. However, there is still a lack of a comprehensive and hierarchical evidence that compares all eligible literature simultaneously.MethodsRecord retrieval was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, ASCO, and ESMO meeting library from inception to October 2018. Randomized controlled trials featuring comparisons between different first-line systemic treatments against advanced gastric cancer were eligible. Overall survival was utilized as the primary endpoint. Pairwise and network calculations were based on a random-effects model and the hierarchical ranking was numerically indicated by P-score. All procedures were conducted according to Cochrane Handbook 5.1 and PRISMA for Network Meta-analysis (Registration identifier: CRD42018084951).ResultsA total of 119 studies were eligible for our pooled analysis. Concerning general analysis, 'fluoropyrimidine plus platinum-based triplet' topped the overall survival hierarchy (HR 0.91 [0.83-0.99], P-score = 0.903, p = 0.04) while it ranked in second place for progression-free survival and objective response rate. However, it displayed worse tolerability against 'fluoropyrimidine plus platinum doublet'. More specifically, 'Capecitabine plus cisplatin-based triplet plus targeted medication' topped the ranking among all fluoropyrimidine plus platinum-based regimens in additional analysis. Nevertheless, it did not reach statistical advantage against fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin doublet in terms of survival benefits, while still displaying significantly worse safety profile.ConclusionsTaken together, fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin doublet (especially capecitabine or S-1) should still be considered as the preferred first-line regimen owing to its comparable survival benefits and lower toxicity.

Project description:BackgroundThe optimal second-line systemic treatment model for recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC) remains controversial. A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to address this issue with regard to efficacy and toxicity.MethodsBy searching MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science, we extracted eligible studies. Efficacy, represented as overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and overall toxicity, represented as ≥ grade 3 severe acute events (sAE), were assessed to compare the following 7 treatment models through an NMA: standard-of-care therapy (SoC), single targeted therapy different from SoC (ST), double targeted therapy (DT), targeted therapy combined with chemotherapy (T+C), single immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (SI), double immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (DI) and single chemotherapy different from SoC (SC). Rank probabilities according to the values of the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were separately determined for efficacy and toxicity.ResultsIn total, 5285 patients from 24 eligible studies were ultimately screened, with 5184, 4532 and 4026 involved in the NMA of OS, PFS and sAE, respectively. All qualifying studies were absent from first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. In terms of OS, SI was superior to the other treatments, followed by DI, ST, T+C, SoC, DT and SC. Other than SI and SC, all treatments tended to be consistent, with hazard ratios (HRs) close to 1 between groups. For PFS, ST ranked first, while DT ranked last. For the toxicity profiles, compared with the other models, SI resulted in the lowest incidences of sAE, with statistical significance over SoC (odds ratio [OR] 0.31, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.11 to 0.90), ST (OR 0.23, 95% CrI 0.06 to 0.86) and DT (OR 0.11, 95% CrI 0.02 to 0.53), while DT was the worst. When the SUCRA values of OS and sAE were combined, a cluster plot illustrated the superiority of SI, which demonstrated the best OS and tolerability toward sAE.ConclusionFor R/M HNSCC patients without immune checkpoint inhibitors in the first-line setting, SI may serve as the optimal second-line systemic treatment model, demonstrating the best OS and least sAE.

Dataset Information

Role of Systemic Treatment for Advanced/Metastatic Gastric Carcinoma in the Third-Line Setting: A Bayesian Network Analysis.

Publications

Role of Systemic Treatment for Advanced/Metastatic Gastric Carcinoma in the Third-Line Setting: A Bayesian Network Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets