Dataset Information

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Third-Line Treatments for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review With Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although 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.

Methods

By 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.

Results

Eight 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.

Conclusions

Apatinib 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.

SUBMITTER: Huang M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8570109 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany options for third-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer (GC) or gastroesophageal junction carcinoma (GEJC) have been developed. Therapies including immunotherapy (nivolumab), chemotherapy (irinotecan, FTD/TPI), targeted therapy (apatinib), and antibody drug conjugates (ADC) have shown to increase the survival rates in patients, but few studies have compared the relative efficacy of these treatments. Here, we compared the efficacies of these regimens using network meta-analysis (NMA) to provide guides in selecting the best regimen and formulating a precise individualized treatment plan.MethodsThe published RCTs of phase II/III in PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase were searched. The median overall survival (mOS) was the primary outcome of NMA, and the other outcomes were median progression-free survival (mPFS), disease control rate (DCR) (proportion of patients with confirmed CR, PR, or stable disease (SD)) and incidence of grade 3 or above adverse events (≥3AEs).ResultsFive phase II/III RCTs involving 1674 patients and 7 treatment regimens were analyzed. It showed that Trastuzumab Deruxtecan (DS-8201) prolonged the OS of patients significantly comparing with chemotherapy (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.39-0.89) for the overall population. DS-8201 (HR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.17-0.42) and chemotherapy (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.47-0.7) improved the PFS significantly over nivolumab. Apatinib (RR: 3.04; 95% CI: 1.65-5.95) and DS-8201 (RR: 2.67; 95% CI: 1.51-4.83) were more effective than nivolumab in improving DCR. DS-8201 achieved greater OS benefits compared to chemotherapy (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.39-0.88) for patients who were HER2-positive. We ranked the Bayesian surface under the cumulative ranking curve according to OS benefit, and showed that ADC ranked first for the general patient population and for patients with a HER2-positive diagnosis, intestinal histopathology, previous gastrectomy history, gastric origination cancer, ages over 65 and ECOG PS=0/1, followed by nivolumab and apatinib. For patients with GEJC, nivolumab ranked first.ConclusionsNivolumab, apatinib, chemotherapy, and ADC all improved the OS of GC/GEJC patients significantly. ADC may be the best option for the overall population of GC, as well as for patients with HER2-overexpression, intestinal histopathology, previous gastrectomy history, gastric origination cancer, ages over 65 and ECOG PS=0/1, followed by nivolumab and apatinib. Nivolumab may be the first treatment option for GEJC patients.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42022364714.

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:Background: According to the 2023 guidelines for treating non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), first-line treatment and recently developed agents for the treatment of epidermal growth factor (EGFR) mutation-positive locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC were compared in this meta-analysis. Treatment regimens involved in the included studies included first, second, and third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), TKIs plus chemotherapy, TKIs plus angiogenesis inhibitors, and platinum-containing doublet chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. Considering the varying efficacy and safety of drugs in people of different ethnic origins, the optimal regimen should be determined, and the safety of first-line treatments should be assessed in the Asian population specifically. Methods: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were systematically searched to retrieve reports on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with research data published from inception to 1 February 2023. Adopting Asian patient populations as the target (including studies in which Asian patients accounted for more than 50% of the sample), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted for comparison of treatment regimens and treatments were ranked based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results: A total of 19 RCTs involving 5,824 patients and covering 14 treatment regimens were included. The primary outcome measure examined in this study was progression-free survival (PFS); other outcome measures examined were overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), objective response rate (ORR), occurrence of any adverse events (AE), occurrence of adverse events of grade 3 or above (≥3AE), and occurrence of serious adverse events (SAE). In terms of PFS, all regimens including TKIs (as a monotherapy or in combination with other therapies), as well as bevacizumab (Bev) plus chemotherapy (Ch) were found to be significantly superior to basic chemotherapy (HRs: 0.09-0.61, p < 0.05 in all cases compared with Ch alone). The highest-ranking therapies were erlotinib (Erl) plus Bev (SUCRA: 0.94) and Erl plus ramucirumab (Ram) (SUCRA: 0.93). Regarding OS, no significant differences was observed between first-line treatment strategies; the top four treatments based on SUCRA, in rank order, were Bev + Ch (0.87), gefitinib (Gef) plus Ch (0.81), dacomitinib (Dac) (0.79), and osimertinib (Osi) (0.69). Additionally, there were no significant differences between first-line treatment strategies in terms of DCR. Regarding ORR, the top three treatments based on SUCRA were Erl + Bev (0.85), Erl + Ram (0.76), and Gef + Ch (0.74). No significant difference between first-line treatment strategies was observed in terms of the risk of AE. However, based on SUCRA, Erl ranked highest on avoidance of ≥ 3AE (0.97), and Osi ranked highest on avoidance of SAE (0.91). Conclusion: Based on these analyses of survival benefits, tumor burden response, and safety, furmonertinib (Fur), Osi, and aumolertinib (Aum) may represent the best treatment regimen options for Asian patients, significantly prolonging survival (as measured by median PFS/OS), eliciting a greater tumor burden response, and exposing patients to a lower risk of adverse events. Although Erl + Bev and Erl + Ram are associated with the best survival benefits in terms of PFS, further clinical studies are still needed to identify ways to reduce the risk of adverse events. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php? ID=CRD42023407994, identifier CRD42023407994.