Maintenance Therapies for Multiple Myeloma (MM): A Direct Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 4271-4271
Author(s):  
Helen Mahony ◽  
Ambuj Kumar ◽  
Rahul Mhaskar ◽  
Branko Miladinovic ◽  
Keith Wheatley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
American Society

Abstract Abstract 4271 Background: The role of various maintenance therapies in the management of MM is unclear and evidence on the efficacy of these regimens is conflicting. In order to provide the totality of available randomized evidence on the role of maintenance therapy in MM, we conduct a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of all RCTs studying maintenance therapy. Here, we report the pooled results of trials which directly examined the novel agents of bortezomib, lenalidomide, or thalidomide and reported the outcomes of overall survival (OS) and/or progression-free survival (PFS). Methods: A comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and meetings abstracts from American Society of Hematology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society for Medical Oncology and European Hematology Association was undertaken to identify all phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of maintenance therapy published until July 2012. We extracted data on OS and PFS. Time to event data were pooled under the random effects model as hazard ratios (HR) and its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the chi square test and I2statistic. All analyses were done in Review Manager 5.1. Results: Twenty-two RCTs met the inclusion criteria. (Figure 1) However, only data from the following RCTs were able to be pooled for the direct head-to-head comparison: 2 RCTs of bortezomib maintenance therapy enrolling 792 patients, 5 RCTs of lenalidomide maintenance therapy enrolling 1776 patients, 11 RCTs of thalidomide maintenance therapy enrolling 3952 patients. The pooled HR and 95% CI, number of RCTs, and number of patients for each comparison are presented in Figure 2. Only two trials compared the novel agents of bortezomib and thalidomide head-to-head. There was no significant different in terms of PFS. For the novel agent of lenalidomide, there was no significant difference is OS compared to placebo. The pooled PFS was in favor of lenalidomide maintenance compared to placebo. For thalidomide, OS was significantly in favor of the intervention when compared to placebo or prednisone/dexamethasone. There was no significant difference in OS between thalidomide maintenance when compared to interferon control. For the outcome of PFS, the pooled results favored thalidomide when compared to prednisone/dexamethasone or interferon control. There was no significant difference between thalidomide and placebo. Conclusion: To date, the largest number of trials has been among thalidomide as maintenance therapy. In our meta-analysis, thalidomide is the only agent which improves survival compared to no treatment. Other novel agents have been evaluated in a smaller number of trials and current data does not allow for firm conclusions that any agent is superior to the other. An indirect, network meta-analysis is called for to provide additional insights regarding comparative efficacy of the novel agents as the maintenance treatment for MM. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Maintenance Therapies for Multiple Myeloma (MM): A Network Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 236-236
Author(s):  
Helen Mahony ◽  
Ambuj Kumar ◽  
Rahul Mhaskar ◽  
Branko Miladinovic ◽  
Keith Wheatley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
American Society ◽  
Novel Agent

Abstract Abstract 236 Background: There is little consensus on which maintenance therapy clinicians should choose for their patients. Since 1999, the three novel agents of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and thalidomide have been approved for use among patients with MM. These agents have been increasingly used as maintenance therapy. To date, only two randomized controlled trials of maintenance therapy have examined the efficacy of these novel agents head-to-head. Here, we conduct a network meta-analysis of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and thalidomide to determine which of these novel agents could potentially increase overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Methods: A comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and meetings abstracts from American Society of Hematology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society for Medical Oncology and European Hematology Association was undertaken to identify all phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of maintenance therapy published until July 2012. We applied the Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) method under the random-effects model. The indirect comparisons were constructed from trials that have one treatment in common. For each included RCT, we calculated the hazard ratio (HR) and its corresponding standard error and used this to calculate the indirect estimates of HR and corresponding credible intervals (CrI). We also ranked the treatments according to the probability of best treatment and calculated the surface underneath the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). All analyses were conducted in WinBUGS 1.4.3 and Stata 11.2. Results: The network, number of trials for each comparison, and number of patients enrolled is shown in Figure 1. The network for OS was based on 12 RCTs enrolling 5542 patients and the network for PFS was constructed from 13 RCTs and 5784 patients. The MTC networks were consistent for both OS and PFS. For both OS and PFS, two comparisons were produced (Figure 2). For OS, the analysis showed that none of the treatments were superior. For PFS, lenalidomide was superior to thalidomide (HR = 0.58, 95% CrI [0.37, 0.94]). The estimates of SUCRA and rank probabilities (Figure 3) suggested that for OS bortezomib was best followed by lenalidomide and thalidomide. For PFS, lenalidomide was best followed by bortezomib and thalidomide. Conclusion: Using the MTC method, we found no evidence that any of the novel agents are superior to one another in terms of OS. Lenalidomide was the only novel agent which was superior to another active therapy (thalidomide). While these results provide preliminary evidence to which novel agent may be more beneficial as maintenance therapy, definitive conclusions cannot be reached until large, well designed RCTs evaluating these therapies head-to-head are conducted. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) in the era of novel agents: A meta-analysis of phase III randomized controlled trials.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8022-8022
Author(s):  
Binod Dhakal ◽  
Saurabh Chhabra ◽  
Mehdi Hamadani ◽  
Anita D'souza ◽  
Saad Zafar Usmani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Novel Agent

8022 Background: Given the unprecedented deep response rates with the novel agent induction, the role of high dose therapy (HDT) followed by ASCT in MM pts. has been questioned, and was re-evaluated in a number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Although, the results of most studies suggest the continued benefit of HDT/ASCT, some RCTs suggest no overall survival (OS) benefit. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase III randomized RCTs evaluating the role of HDT compared to standard therapy (SDT) in the context of novel agent induction Methods: We searched the PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Collection of Controlled Trial databases using the term myeloma combined with autologous or transplant or myeloablative or stem cell from 2000-2016. A total of 2480 articles identified, of which 4 large phase III RCTs compared upfront HDT with SDT with novel agents use. Two individuals independently extracted the data. Reported hazard ratio (HR) and survival data were pooled using random effects models (STATA v14, College Station, Tx). Heterogeneity was assessed using I2. Results: Four studies comprising 2421 patients were included (Table 1). One study did not report the HR for death and hence OS analysis was limited to 3 studies. The combined hazard for progression with HDT was 0.55 (95% CI 0.40-0.71) (p < 0.005). The combined hazard for death with HDT was 0.65 (95% CI 0.29-1.0) (p = 0.007). Sensitivity and sub-group analysis showed no difference in PFS (p = 0.06) and OS (p = 0.22) with HDT. Significant heterogeneity was demonstrated by I2 of 71.4% for PFS (p = 0.01) and 68.4% for OS (p = 0.04). Conclusions: Based on our analysis, even in the novel agent era, HDT appears to be beneficial and should be considered standard of care for all transplant eligible MM pts. [Table: see text]

Efficacy Of Novel Agents As Maintenance Therapy For Multiple Myeloma: A Direct and Network Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 1945-1945
Author(s):  
Tea Reljic ◽  
Ambuj Kumar ◽  
Helen Mahoney ◽  
Branko Miladinovic ◽  
Mohamed A Kharfan-Dabaja ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
Cumulative Probability ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Mixed Treatment ◽  
American Society

Abstract Background Multiple myeloma (MM) accounts for 10% of all hematological malignancies. While MM remains incurable, several life-extending treatments are available including maintenance treatments. The goal of maintenance therapy is to modulate residual MM after an initial response, thereby prolonging progression-free and overall survival by adding additional therapy following induction treatment. The role of maintenance therapies in the management of multiple myeloma is unclear and evidence on efficacy of novel regimens (e.g. bortezomib, lenalidomide, or thalidomide) remains conflicting. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of trials to assess the efficacy of novel agents used as maintenance therapy in management of multiple myeloma. Methods A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and meeting abstracts from American Society of Hematology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society for Medical Oncology and European Hematology Association was conducted to identify all phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of novel agents used as maintenance therapy for multiple myeloma published until May 2013. We extracted data on overall and progression-free survival (OS, PFS). Data were pooled using direct and network meta-analysis. Direct comparisons within trials were combined with indirect evidence from other trials using the Bayesian mixed treatment comparison method under the random-effects model. Indirect comparisons were constructed from trials which have one treatment in common. Results Of 2678 identified references, 23 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 12 studies (4832 patients) contributed data to the network. The network of direct comparisons for all included studies for the outcome of PFS is shown in figure 1A. The results for meta-analysis of novel agents for PFS is shown in figure 1B. The combination of lenalidomide with prednisone was superior to no treatment as well as prednisone alone in addition to lenalidomide as single agent compared with no treatment. Furthermore, combination bortezomib plus thalidomide and dexamethasone plus lenalidomide was superior to no treatment. None of the novel agents except thalidomide plus prednisone compared with prednisone alone showed a significant improvement in OS and therefore an indirect comparison for OS was not conducted. The results of mixed treatment comparisons are illustrated in figure 1C which shows non-superiority of any novel agent. The cumulative probability rank for PFS is shown in Figure 1D. The area under the cumulative probability rank curve was highest for bortezomib+prednisone (0.73), followed by lenalidomide and lenalidomide+dexamethasone (both 0.71). Conclusion This analysis is an important addition to prior direct comparisons of novel agents for maintenance in multiple myeloma. Looking at PFS, use of bortezomib+prednisone, lenalidomide and lenalidomide+dexamethasone appears to be superior to other agents. However, provided the small number of trials between each comparison, current data do not allow for strong conclusions on superiority of any one treatment and direct comparison in a RCT is warranted for more conclusive results. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Lenalidomide Maintenance Therapy In Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis Of Randomized Trials

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 407-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
Preet Paul Singh ◽  
Shaji K Kumar ◽  
Betsy R. LaPlant ◽  
Morie A Gertz ◽  
Angela Dispenzieri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Substantial Heterogeneity

Abstract Background Conflicting results have emerged, especially with respect to the impact on overall survival (OS), from trials evaluating lenalidomide maintenance (LM) therapy after induction therapy alone or post-autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing outcome data from LM trials to evaluate role of lenalidomide as maintenance strategy in MM. Patients and methods A comprehensive search of electronic databases and abstracts through June 2013 was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared LM vs. placebo/no maintenance. Single arm studies were excluded. Pooled hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random-effects model for clinical endpoints of progression free survival (PFS), OS, response rate (RR) and adverse events (AEs), including second primary malignancies (SPMs). Analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software Version 2. We assessed between-study heterogeneity with the Cochran Q test and quantified its extent with the I2 statistic. Results Overall, five RCTs, with data extractable from four phase III trials (3 publications and 1 abstract) were identified (n= 1935). All studies were RCTs with an adequate randomization. MRC MM XI study was excluded from analyses as survival data are not available. Two placebo controlled trials (IFM 05-02, CALGB 100104) addressed the role of LM post-ASCT, one placebo-controlled trial (MM-015) studied LM therapy in the non-transplant setting and the remaining trial (RV-MM-PI209) had a 2 X 2 design comprising of both ASCT and non-transplant randomized arms followed by a second randomization of LM versus no maintenance. There was no heterogeneity for estimate of PFS results (Cochran Q, p=0.68; I2=0%), but considerable heterogeneity for estimate of OS (Cochran Q, p=0.09; I2= 55%), among the studies. There was significant prolongation of both PFS (HR 0.49, 95% CI, 0.41–0.58, p<0.001) and OS (HR 0.77, 95% CI, 0.62–0.95, p=0.013) with LM vs. placebo/no maintenance (Figure 1). Best response during maintenance was reported only in 2 studies and odds of responding (very good partial response or better) were not significantly different with LM (OR 1.28, p=0.3). Grade 3-4 AEs data were available from 3 trials for calculation of pooled OR with LM compared with placebo. We observed a nearly two-fold increase in the risk of SPMs with LM (OR 1.99; 95% CI, 1.31–3.04; p=0.001). Patients on LM were more likely to have grade 3-4 AEs than placebo: neutropenia (OR 4.9, p<0.001), thrombocytopenia (OR 2.7, p<0.001), fatigue (OR 2.3, p=0.01) and venous thromboembolism (OR 3.2, p=0.02). Odds of discontinuing treatment were also significantly higher in patients on lenalidomide (OR 2.9, p<0.001). Conclusions Meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrates significant improvement in PFS and modest improvement in OS with LM. There is an increased risk of grade 3-4 adverse effects, including SPMs with LM. Substantial heterogeneity for estimate of OS among protocols is a limitation of this analysis. Lack of uniform access to lenalidomide upon disease progression in the placebo/no maintenance arms of the constituent studies should be taken into account while interpreting aggregate effect estimates for OS in this meta-analysis. OS: Cochran Q p=0.09, I2=55%, substantial heterogeneity PFS: Cochran Q p=0.68, I2=0%, minimal heterogeneity Disclosures: Off Label Use: Lenalidomide for maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma. Kumar:Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Millenium, Jansenn, Pfizer: Research Funding. Bergsagel:Onyx: Consultancy. Lacy:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Comparison of irinotecan and oxaliplatin as the first-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sadayuki Kawai ◽  
Nozomi Takeshima ◽  
Yu Hayasaka ◽  
Akifumi Notsu ◽  
Mutsumi Yamazaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
First Line ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
High Incidence

Abstract Background Irinotecan (IRI) and oxaliplatin (Ox) are standard therapeutic agents of the first-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that treatment with Ox-based compared with IRI-based regimens was associated with better overall survival (OS). However, these reports did not include trials of molecular targeting agents and did not take methods for the administration of concomitant drugs, such as bolus or continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil, into account. A systematic literature review was performed to compare the efficacy and toxicity profiles between IRI- and Ox-based regimens as the first-line treatments for mCRC. Methods This meta-analysis used data from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and SCOPUS. The primary endpoint was OS, and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). Results Nineteen trials involving 4571 patients were included in the analysis. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of OS, PFS, and ORR. There was no significant heterogeneity. Regarding ≥ grade 3 AEs, IRI-based regimens were associated with a high incidence of leukopenia, febrile neutropenia, and diarrhea. Moreover, there was a high incidence of thrombocytopenia and peripheral sensory neuropathy in patients who received Ox-based regimens. In a subgroup analysis, IRI combined with bevacizumab was correlated with a better PFS (HR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.82–0.98, P = 0.02), but not with OS (pooled HR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.80–1.03, P = 0.15). Conclusion Although the safety profiles of IRI- and Ox-based regimens varied, their efficacy did not significantly differ. The combination of anti-VEGF antibody and IRI was associated with better PFS compared with anti-VEGF antibody and Ox. Both regimens could be used as the first-line treatments for mCRC with consideration of the patients’ condition or toxicity profiles.

scholarly journals Short Segment versus Long Segment Pedicle Screws Fixation in Management of Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 150-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tarek Ahmed Aly
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pedicle Screw Fixation ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures ◽  
Burst Fractures ◽  
Significant Difference

<p>Posterior pedicle screw fixation has become a popular method for treating thoracolumbar burst fractures. However, it remains unclear whether additional fixation of more segments could improve clinical and radiological outcomes. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of fixation levels with pedicle screw fixation for thoracolumbar burst fractures. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Springer, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant randomized and quasirandomized controlled trials that compared the clinical and radiological efficacy of short versus long segment for thoracolumbar burst fractures managed by posterior pedicle screw fixation. Risk of bias in included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Based on predefined inclusion criteria, Nine eligible trials with a total of 365 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Results were expressed as risk difference for dichotomous outcomes and standard mean difference for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence interval. Baseline characteristics were similar between the short and long segment fixation groups. No significant difference was identified between the two groups regarding radiological outcome, functional outcome, neurologic improvement, and implant failure rate. The results of this meta-analysis suggested that extension of fixation was not necessary when thoracolumbar burst fracture was treated by posterior pedicle screw fixation. More randomized controlled trials with high quality are still needed in the future.</p>

Use of Prophylaxis for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Isolated Foot or Ankle Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 119 (10) ◽  
pp. 1686-1694 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bavand Bikdeli ◽  
Renuka Visvanathan ◽  
David Jimenez ◽  
Manuel Monreal ◽  
Samuel Z. Goldhaber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Foot And Ankle ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Ankle Surgery ◽  
Significant Difference

AbstractAlthough prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) is recommended after many surgeries, evidence base for use of VTE prophylaxis after foot or ankle surgery has been elusive, leading into varying guidelines recommendations and notable practice variations. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to determine if use of VTE prophylaxis decreased the frequency of subsequent VTE, including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), compared with control. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov through May 2018, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective controlled observational studies of VTE prophylaxis in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery. Our search retrieved 263 studies, of which 6 were finally included comprising 1,600 patients. Patients receiving VTE prophylaxis had lower risk for subsequent DVT (risk ratio [RR]: 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55–0.94) and subsequent VTE (RR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.55–0.94). There was only one case of nonfatal PE, no cases of fatal PE, and no change in all-cause mortality (RR: 3.51; 95% CI: 0.14–84.84). There was no significant difference in the risk for bleeding (RR: 2.12; 95% CI: 0.53–8.56). Very few RCTs exist regarding the efficacy and safety of VTE prophylaxis in foot and ankle surgery. Prophylaxis appears to reduce the risk of subsequent VTE, but the event rates are low and symptomatic events are rare. Future studies should determine the subgroups of patients undergoing foot or ankle surgery in whom prophylaxis may be most useful.

scholarly journals Blinding integrity in randomized sham-controlled trials of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for major depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 1173-1181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcelo T. Berlim ◽  
Hannah J. Broadbent ◽  
Frederique Van den Eynde
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Major Depression ◽  
Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Treatment Allocation ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a safe and effective treatment for major depression (MD). However, the perceived lack of a suitable sham rTMS condition might have compromised the success of blinding procedures in clinical trials. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind and sham-controlled trials (RCTs) on high frequency (HF-), low frequency (LF-) and bilateral rTMS for MD. We searched the literature from January 1995 to July 2012 using Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Scopus. The main outcome measure was participants' ability to correctly guess their treatment allocation at study end. We used a random-effects model and risk difference (RD). Overall, data were obtained from seven and two RCTs on HF- and bilateral rTMS, respectively. No RCT on LF-rTMS reporting on blinding success was found. HF- and bilateral rTMS trials enrolled 396 and 93 depressed subjects and offered an average of approximately 13 sessions. At study end, 52 and 59% of subjects receiving HF-rTMS and sham rTMS were able to correctly guess their treatment allocation, a non-significant difference (RD = −0.04; z = −0.51; p = 0.61). Furthermore, 63.3 and 57.5% of subjects receiving bilateral and sham rTMS were able to correctly guess their treatment allocation, also a non-significant difference (RD = 0.05; z = 0.49; p = 0.62). In addition, the use of angulation and sham coil in HF-rTMS trials produced similar results. In summary, existing sham rTMS interventions appear to result in acceptable levels of blinding regarding treatment allocation.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Radioimmunotherapy Consolidation for Untreated Patients with Follicular Lymphoma (FL)

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 101-101
Author(s):  
Adam C. Rose ◽  
Gia Garrett ◽  
Miray Seward ◽  
Pareen J Shenoy ◽  
Roy A Kucuk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Follicular Lymphoma ◽  
Annual Meeting ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
American Society

Abstract Abstract 101 Background: The disease course of FL is characterized by multiple relapses and progressively shorter response durations with subsequent therapies. As a result, numerous treatment strategies have been developed to reduce the risk of progression including consolidation with transplantation, radio-immunotherapy (RIT), or maintenance therapy with rituximab (R). At present, the optimal therapeutic strategy for FL patients (pts) remains undefined. R maintenance and RIT with an anti-CD20 antibody linked to iodine-131 (I131 Tositumomab) or to yttrium-90 (Y90-ibritumomab tiuxetan) have emerged as well tolerated treatments following induction. To quantify the benefits of consolidative RIT, we conducted a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis of selected studies. Methods: As part of a broader review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library Issue, 2011), MEDLINE (1/1966-6/2011), American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting abstracts (2004–2010), and American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting abstracts (2007–2010). Each database was searched using combinations of the term ‘follicular lymphoma' and the terms for treatment regimens. Inclusion criteria for studies were as follows: 1) reports on phase 2/3 studies; 2) n≥30; 3) previously untreated patients 4) treatment with RIT targeted at the CD20 antigen following an induction regimen; 5) original reporting in English of the following treatment outcome measures for pts with FL: CR/CR-unconfirmed, OR, and at least one form of survival data. Extracted data included pre-treatment disease status, pt characteristics, treatment regimen, progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), complete response (CR) and overall response (OR). Pooled estimates of the CR rate, OR rate, 2-year PFS and 5-year PFS for pts treated with consolidative RIT were computed using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Results: Over 1136 records were reviewed with 8 studies meeting inclusion criteria with 556 patients. Between 1998 and 2007, pts were accrued at multiple sites in all but one study. Median ages ranged from 49–57 years with 41–61% male subjects, among the studies reporting gender. A weighted average of 97.2% of patients had stage III/IV disease with 73–98% pts having grade 1/2 disease, among those studies reporting histology. Among studies reporting this information, 19–44% of patients had abnormal LDH values, and 25–100% had bulky lymph nodes. CR rates ranged from 51% to 97%, 2-year PFS ranged from 65% to 86%, and 5-year PFS ranged from 38% to 67%. The pooled estimates of the CR rate and OR rate following consolidative RIT were 78% (95% CI 66%–87%) and 98% (95% CI 92.9%–99.5%), respectively (Figure A). The pooled estimates for the 2-year and 5-year PFS were 77.0% (95% CI 70.5–82.4%) and 56.0% (95% CI 41.9–69.2%), respectively (Figure B). Conclusions: This analysis suggests that consolidative RIT is beneficial to patients with previously untreated FL with meaningful CR rates and 5-year PFS. In addition, consolidative RIT compares favorably to maintenance therapy with R given after chemotherapy (ECOG 1496) in both 2-year PFS (77.0% vs. 73.5%) and 5-year PFS (56.0% vs. 46.4%), and needs to be compared to maintenance R following R-chemotherapy induction. Disclosures: Flowers: Genentech/Roche (unpaid): Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document