Dataset Information

Could Camrelizumab Plus Chemotherapy Improve Clinical Outcomes in Advanced Malignancy? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Camrelizumab is a novel programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor. To determine the efficacy and safety of the combination treatment of camrelizumab+chemotherapy and camrelizumab monotherapy, and determine which is the most suitable malignancy type to be treated with camrelizumab, we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for published clinical trials from database inception until April 2021. Studies that compared camrelizumab+chemotherapy and camrelizumab monotherapy in patients with advanced malignancy were included. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) with credible intervals (CIs) using network meta-analysis with random effects.

Results

We included four clinical trials with 946 advanced malignancy patients. In terms of the efficacy evaluation of the objective response rate and progression-free survival, camrelizumab treatment for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), camrelizumab treatment for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), and camrelizumab+chemo treatment for HL always ranked first. In terms of safety evaluation from leukocytopenia, hypothyroidism, and asthenia, camrelizumab treatment for OSCC and chemo always ranked first. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42021249193.

Conclusions

Patients with advanced OSCC should be treated with camrelizumab. Patients with severely relapsed/refractory HL could use camrelizuma+chemo for combination treatment when they can tolerate adverse reactions.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=249193, PROSPERO (identifier, CRD42021249193).

SUBMITTER: Yang C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8415159 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveResults of CameL-sq has revealed the clinical benefits to patients with advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (sq-NSCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy to treat sq-NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.MethodsWe used a partitioned survival model with a lifetime horizon to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy in treating sq-NSCLC. Baseline characteristics of patients and key clinical data were extracted from CameL-sq. Costs and utilities were collected from the open-access database and published literature. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were chosen as economic outcome indicators. We also performed a sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and scenario analysis to verify the stability of the basic analysis results and explore the results under different scenarios.ResultsCombination therapy added 0.47 QALYS and 0.91 life-years with an incremental cost of $6,347.81 compared with chemotherapy, which had an ICER of $13,572 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that camrelizumab plus chemotherapy had a 37.8% probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of 1 time GDP per capital. When WTP was set as 3 times GDP per capital, combination therapy had significant cost-effectiveness. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that cost of the best supportive care was the factor with the greatest influence. The subgroup analysis found that combination therapy was associated with cost-effectiveness in several subgroups, namely, patients with disease stage IIIB/IIIC and with PD-L1 tumor proportion score ≤ 1%. Scenario analysis showed that ICER was positively correlated with the price of camrelizumab.ConclusionIn this economic evaluation, camrelizumab plus chemotherapy was unlikely to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy in the first line therapy of sq-NSCLC from a perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Reducing the price of camrelizumab and tailoring treatments based on individual patient factors might improve the cost-effectiveness. Our findings may provide evidence for clinicians in making optimal decisions in general clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundAdvanced pancreatic cancer confers poor prognosis and treatment advancement has been slow. Recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated survival benefits for combination therapy compared to gemcitabine alone. However, the comparative benefits and harms of available combination chemotherapy treatments are not clear. We therefore conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis to assess the comparative safety and efficacy of chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.MethodsMEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Registry of Clinical trials and abstracts from major scientific meetings were searched for RCTs published from 2002 to 2013. Key outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and safety including grade 3-4 febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue and sensory neuropathy. Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted to calculate survival and safety outcomes using gemcitabine (GEM) as the reference comparator. Effect estimates and 95% credible intervals were calculated for each comparison. Mean ranks and the probability of being best were obtained for each treatment analyzed in the network meta-analysis.ResultsThe search identified 23 studies involving 19 different treatment regimens and 9,989 patients. FOLFIRINOX, GEM/cisplatin/epirubicin/5FU (PEFG), GEM/NAB-paclitaxel (NAB-P), GEM/erlotinib+/-bevacizumab, GEM/capecitabine, and GEM/oxaliplatin were associated with statistically significant improvements in OS and PFS relative to gemcitabine alone and several other treatments. They were amongst the top ranked for survival outcomes amongst other treatments included. No significant differences were found for other combination chemotherapy treatments. Effect estimates from indirect comparisons matched closely to estimates derived from pairwise comparisons. Overall, combination therapies had greater risk for evaluated grade 3-4 toxicities over gemcitabine alone.ConclusionsIn the absence of head-to-head comparisons, we performed a mixed-treatment analysis to achieve high-quality information on the effectiveness and safety of each treatment. This study suggests that some combination therapies may offer greater benefits in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer than others. To more fully elucidate the comparative benefits and harms of different combination chemotherapy regimens, rigorously conducted comparative studies, or network meta-analysis of patient-level data are required.

Project description:ObjectiveWe aimed to compare the survival outcomes and adverse events of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IP)and intravenous chemotherapy (IP)for primary advanced ovarian cancer.MethodsPubMed, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials), Embase, Web of Science and Scopus were searched using multiple terms for primary advanced ovarian cancer, including randomized controlled trials and comparative studies in both Chinese and English (up to date 15 August 2022). Outcomes include overall survival, progression-free survival and adverse events. The data were pooled and reported as hazard ratio (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scales were used to assess the risk of bias in the included comparative study. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool was used for randomized controlled trials.ResultsIn total, 32 studies, including 6347 patients and 8 different platinum-based chemotherapy regimens, were included in this network meta-analysis. Our analysis results showed that HIPEC2 (carboplatin with area under the curve 10) exhibited a statistically significant OS benefit compared to IV, weekly dose-dense chemotherapy and HIPEC1 (cisplatin with 75/100 mg/m2). Intraperitoneal plus intravenous chemotherapy was associated with a statistically significantly better likelihood of overall survival compared to IV. For progression-free survival, our statistical results only suggest a better progression-free survival in ovarian cancer patients treated with HIPEC1 compared with weekly dose-dense chemotherapy. No evidence of difference was observed between the other comparison groups. Compared with the non-HIPEC group, HIPEC may had a higher incidence of electrolyte disturbances (≥grade 3).ConclusionOur statistical analysis suggests that the groups receiving HIPEC2 had a better OS than the groups receiving IV, weekly dose-dense chemotherapy and HIPEC1. For PFS, our analysis only showed HIPEC1 is better than IV. Moreover, HIPEC may lead to a higher incidence of electrolyte disturbances (≥grade 3). HIPEC therapy for advanced ovarian cancer is currently controversial.

Project description:BackgroundThe previous effects of acupuncture-related interventions in improving chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) symptoms and quality of life (QoL) remain unclear in terms of pairwise comparisons.AimsThis systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to determine the hierarchical effects of acupuncture-related interventions on symptoms, pain, and QoL associated with CIPN in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.MethodsNine electronic databases were searched, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Medline Ovid, Airiti Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Journal full-text database (CJFD), and Wanfang. Medical subject heading terms and text words were used to search for eligible randomized controlled trials published from database inception to May 2023.ResultsA total of 33 studies involving 2,027 participants were included. Pairwise meta-analysis revealed that acupuncture-related interventions were superior to usual care, medication, or dietary supplements in improving CIPN symptoms, CIPN pain, and QoL. Furthermore, network meta-analysis indicated that acupuncture plus electrical stimulation (acupuncture-E) had the greatest overall effect among the various interventions. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) revealed that acupuncture-E ranked the highest in improving CINP symptoms. Acupuncture alone was most effective in reducing CIPN pain, and acupuncture plus moxibustion (acupuncture-M) ranked highest in enhancing QoL.ConclusionThis finding suggests that acupuncture-related interventions can provide patients with benefits in improving CIPN symptoms, pain, and QoL. In particular, acupuncture-E could be the most effective approach in which the provided evidence offers diverse options for cancer patients and healthcare professionals.Implication for the profession and/or patient careThese findings provide valuable insights into the potential benefits of acupuncture-related interventions for managing symptoms, pain, and QoL associated with CIPN in patients undergoing chemotherapy. Among the various interventions studied, overall, acupuncture-E had the most significant impact and was effective for a minimum duration of 3 weeks. On the other hand, transcutaneous electrical acupoint/nerve stimulation (TEAS) was identified as a noninvasive and feasible alternative for patients who had concerns about needles or the risk of bleeding. It is recommended that TEAS interventions should be carried out for a longer period, preferably lasting 4 weeks, to achieve optimal outcomes.Trial registrationThe study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.Registration numberCRD42022319871.