Comparative Efficacy of First Line Treatment of Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia (CML): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 3436-3436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart Mealing ◽  
Leticia Barcena ◽  
Neil Hawkins ◽  
James Clark ◽  
Catherine Davis

Abstract Abstract 3436 Introduction: Historically, interferon-alpha, hydroxyurea or chemotherapy were used as first line therapy for individuals newly diagnosed with CML. Current practice, however, recommends that tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) be used in this patient group, with imatinib (1st generation TKI) being the current standard of care. Recent publications provide data from randomized clinical trials on 2nd generation TKIs (dasatinib and nilotinib) in the first-line setting. In the absence of randomized head to head evidence for all three TKI's, a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis provides a means of indirectly estimating the treatment effect of one intervention relative to another. Methods: A systematic review identified RCTs that reported or summarized efficacy data for any of the treatments of interest in treatment-naive CML patients. In order to maximise the evidence network, RCT's of non-TKI's were also included in the review. Where reported, data was extracted for molecular, hematological and cytogenic response at three montly intervals. In addition, safety and progression free and overall survival data was extracted for all reported timepoints. Extracted data was analyzed in a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison using a fixed-effects model. The outputs from all analyses were expressed as odds ratios with Imatinib 400mg SID used as the baseline intervention in all analyses. Results: Overall, 44 articles arising from 19 distinct clinical trials were included in the review. The results for complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) at twelve months (expressed as both response probabilities and odds ratios) are presented in table 1. High dose imatinib performed no better than standard dose imatinib. However, response with both 2nd generation TKIs was significantly better than with standard dose imatinib with the effect size being doubled on all endpoints. Head to head results for nilotinib and dasatinib showed no statistically significant differences (p=0.05) between the two products on all endpoints (see table 2). Conclusions: Compared to Imatinib, the use of 2nd generation TKI's for the treatment of newly diagnosed CML results in a significant improvement in complete cytogenic response. However, the current evidence base is not rich enough to distinguish between the two 2nd generation TKIs either in terms of response or progression free survival. The analyses presented will be strengthened by the inclusion of additional RCT data that may become available in the future. Disclosures: Mealing: Oxford Outcomes: Employment. Barcena:Oxford Outcomes: Employment. Hawkins:Oxford Outcomes: Employment. Clark:Oxford Outcomes: Employment. Davis:Bristol Myers-Squibb: Employment.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16086-e16086
Author(s):  
Barbara Elizabeth Ratto ◽  
Sutirtha Chakraborty ◽  
Harini Chinthapatla ◽  
Manik Kalra

e16086 Background: The approval of newer agents in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has changed the treatment paradigm in first-line settings. The aim of this review was to compare pazopanib against current first-line treatments in RCC. Methods: A systematic review was conducted that assessed pazopanib against first-line agents in treatment naïve patients with mRCC. Relevant databases and conferences were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing treatment naïve adult patient (≥18 years). Frequentist mixed treatment comparison (MTC) method was applied for the pairwise comparisons among treatments for ITT population and favorable, intermediate, and poor risk subgroups. Results: Twenty-three RCTs met the eligibility criteria. The MTC results showed that pazopanib was comparable to sunitinib in terms of progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in ITT population. Cabozantinib was significantly better compared to pazopanib for PFS; however, there was heterogeneity in the patient population. Pazopanib was comparable to nivolumab + ipilimumab when assessed for PFS in ITT population; although, favorable risk patients treated with pazopanib achieved significantly higher PFS compared to nivolumab + ipilimumab (HR: 0.46, 95% CI: [0.37, 0.57]). Atezolizumab + bevacizumab and avelumab + axitinib were associated with significantly higher PFS compared to pazopanib. Cabozantinib and nivolumab + ipilimumab were associated with better OS compared to pazopanib. Conclusions: The newer agents i.e. cabozantinib and nivolumab + ipilimumab are approved for intermediate/poor risk patients. The results suggests that pazopanib is still a reliable option for treatment of patients in first-line settings, especially for favorable/intermediate risk patients.[Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document