Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of oncolytic viruses in advanced or metastatic cancer: a network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Oncolytic 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.

Methods

A 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.

Results

Compared 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%).

Conclusions

Compared 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.

SUBMITTER: Xie R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8325792 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) and methotrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin, and cisplatin (MVAC) have been the first-line treatments for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (AMUC). However, their effects are unsatisfactory, and more drugs and regimens still need to be explored. Objective: We aimed to comprehensively compare all possible regimens with GC or MVAC in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by network meta-analysis. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for RCTs that evaluated regimens compared to GC or MVAC on AMUC patients. The major outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR). A network meta-analysis was used to assess the effectiveness and safety of the included treatment regimens, and the regimens were then clustered by the average linkage method. Results: A total of 19 trials that assessed 3,363 AMUC patients were included. For PFS, paclitaxel plus GC (PGC) was significantly superior to GC (log hazard ratio (HR): -0.16; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.32, 0.00) with a moderate level of reliability. However, there was no significant difference between PGC and MVAC (log HR: -0.03; 95% CI: -0.27, 0.20). For OS, PGC was significantly superior to GC (log HR:-0.17; 95% CI: -0.33, -0.00) with a moderate reliability level but not significantly different from MVAC (log HR: -0.10; 95% CI: -0.35, 0.15). Analysis of ORR showed that PGC was superior to MVAC (log odds ratio (OR): 0.59; 95% CI: 0.02, 1.16) with a low reliability level and GC (log OR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.12, 0.71) with a moderate reliability level. In the cluster results, PGC and sorafenib plus GC (GCS) exhibited relative advantages in efficiency, followed by MVAC and apatorsen plus GC (GCA); however, PGC, gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GP), and MVAC had more serious side effects. Conclusions: In our analysis, PGC was superior to MVAC and GC in only the ORR results and superior to GC in the OS and PFS results but was not significantly different from MVAC. More individualized therapies with targeted drugs need to be studied.

Project description:Background: Bevacizumab biosimilars are slowly making their way into cancer treatment, but the data on their efficacy and safety in cancer patients are still poor. We systematically summarized the current evidence for the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab biosimilars in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: This review searched CNKI, VIP, PubMed, Medline (Ovid), Embase, and Cochrane Library (Ovid) for randomized controlled trials of bevacizumab biosimilars treated in adults with advanced NSCLC or metastatic CRC. A pairwise meta-analysis and a Bayesian network meta-analysis based on the random-effect model were performed to summarize the evidence. We rated the certainty of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. Results: Ten eligible trials with a total of 5526 patients were included. Seven trials (n = 4581) were for the NSCLC population, while three trials (n = 945) were for patients with CRC. According to the pairwise meta-analysis, the efficacy (objective response rate: risk ratio (RR) 0.98 [0.92-1.04], p = 0.45; progression-free survival: hazard ratio (HR) 1.01 [0.92-1.10], p = 0.85; and overall survival: HR 1.06 [0.94-1.19], p = 0.35) and safety (incidence of grade 3-5 adverse events: odds ratio (OR) 1.03 [0.91-1.16], p = 0.65) of bevacizumab biosimilars performed no significant difference with reference biologics in patients with NSCLC as well as metastatic CRC patients (objective response rate: RR 0.97 [0.87-1.09], p = 0.60; overall survival: HR 0.94 [0.70-1.25], p = 0.66; incidence of grade 3-5 adverse events: OR 0.78 [0.59-1.02], p = 0.73). Network estimates displayed 7 types of bevacizumab biosimilars in the medication regime of NSCLC patients who had no significant difference among each other in terms of efficacy and safety. The certainty of the evidence was assessed as low to moderate. Three types of biosimilars were found to be clinically equivalent to each other in the patients with CRC, which were evaluated with very low to moderate certainty. Conclusion: In patients with advanced NSCLC or metastatic CRC, the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab biosimilars were found to be comparable with those of reference biologics and each other.

Project description:ObjectivePatients with breast cancer carrying BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic alterations show poor prognoses. However, the efficacy of pharmacotherapies for patients with advanced breast cancer carrying BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants remains unclear. This study aimed to conduct a network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of various pharmacotherapies for patients with metastatic, locally advanced, or recurrent breast cancer carrying BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants.MethodsA literature search was conducted using Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), from inception to 11th May 2022. The references of included articles were screened to identify relevant literature. This network meta-analysis included patients with metastatic locally advanced or recurrent breast cancer who received pharmacotherapy and carried deleterious variants of BRCA1/2. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for conducting and reporting this systematic meta-analysis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method was employed to evaluate evidential certainty. Frequentist random-effect model was applied. Results of objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and rates of any-grade adverse events were presented.ResultsNine randomized controlled trials were obtained comprising six treatment regimens, including 1912 patients with pathogenic variants of BRCA1 and BRCA2. The orchestration of PARP inhibitors with platinum-based chemotherapy was found to be the most effective with a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 3.52 (95% CI 2.14, 5.78) for ORR; 1.53 (1.34,1.76), 3.05 (1.79, 5.19), and 5.80 (1.42, 23.77) for 3-, 12-, and 24-month PFS, respectively, and 1.04 (1.00, 1.07), 1.76 (1.25, 2.49) and 2.31 (1.41, 3.77) for 3-, 12-, and 36-month OS, respectively compared to those receiving non-platinum-based chemotherapy. However, it posed an elevated risk of some adverse events. Platinum-based chemotherapy alone or PARP inhibitors markedly improved ORR, PFS, and OS compared to non-platinum-based chemotherapy. Interestingly, platinum-based chemotherapy surpassed PARP inhibitors in terms of efficacy. Evidence on programmed death-ligand 1(PD-L1) inhibitors and sacituzumab govitecan (SG) suggested low quality and insignificant results.ConclusionsAmong all treatment regimens, PARP inhibitors with platinum exhibited the best efficacy, although with a trade-off of elevated risk of some types of adverse events. Future research on direct comparisons between different treatment regimens specifically targeting patients with breast cancer carrying BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants with a pre-specified adequate sample size is warranted.