A framework for living evidence synthesis in cancer: Living, interactive network meta-analysis for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 335-335
Author(s):  
Irbaz Bin Riaz ◽  
Huan He ◽  
Alexander J. Ryu ◽  
Rabbia Siddiqi ◽  
Syed Arsalan Ahmed Naqvi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Programming Languages ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Dynamic Features ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Treatment

335 Background: Systematic reviews are outdated quickly when the evidence is rapidly evolving as the process is laborious and there is little incentive for primary author team of an index SRMA to update the evidence. Consequently, there is an epidemic of redundant SRMAs performed by different teams—sometimes with conflicted results—for treatment of first line mRCC. Methods: We have created a living, interactive systematic review (LISR)and network meta-analysis(LINMA) for the treatment of first line mRCC using an Artificial intelligence (AI) assisted framework for evidence synthesis (Living, Interactive evidence synthesis framework) (LIvE) . The framework is implemented in five-layered architecture (application layer, shared module layer, core service layer, middleware layer, and storage layer) which work together to automate the identification of new studies and analysis and semi-automate the screening and data extraction. Dynamic features such as interactive tables, figures and evidence maps are enabled using Python and JavaScript programming languages. Results: We have maintained a living, interactive evidence profile for the first line treatment mRCC since September 2019 ( LIVING WEBSITE) . Living search strategy identifies new studies as they become available. As of October 13, 2020 LISR, includes data 14 clinical trials ( PRISMA ). Baseline characteristics are summarized in an interactive table ( TABLE) . Cabozantinib& Nivolumab (Cabo-Nivo) is the highest ranked drug for improving Overall Response (OR), Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) whereas Ipilimumab in combination with Nivolumab (Ipi-Nivo) is highest ranked drug for achieving complete response (CR). Ipi-Nivo and Atezolizumab & Bevacizumab (Ate-Bev) ranked highest and Cabo-Nivo ranked lowest for treatment related Adverse events (TRAEs). Results of network meta-analysis are summarized as interactive tables and plots ( NMA ), summary of findings tables ( MULTIPLE COMAPRISONS ) and evidence maps ( MAP ). Conclusions: LISRs can potentially reduce redundancy, increase transparency, reproducibility, enable shared-decision making (at a guideline level, or in a patient-clinician dyad) and support living guidelines.

Indirect Comparison of the Efficacy of Melphalan-Prednisone-Bortezomib Relative to Melphalan-Prednisone-Thalidomide and Melphalan-Prednisone for the First Line Treatment of Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (11) ◽  
pp. 2367-2367
Author(s):  
Yating Yeh ◽  
James Chambers ◽  
Sabine Gaugris ◽  
Jeroen Jansen
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Relative Efficacy ◽  
First Line ◽  
Overall Response ◽  
First Line Treatment

Abstract Melphalan-prednisone (MP) combination has been considered a standard of care for front line treatment of multiple myeloma in patients non eligible for transplant. Melphalan-prednisone-bortezomib (MPV) combination has been approved in the United States in patients non eligible for high-dose chemotherapy (HD-C) and has recently received a positive opinion from the CHMP in Europe. Melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (MPT) was approved in Europe in patients >65 or not eligible for HD-C. There is no head-to-head trial directly comparing MPV to MPT. The objective of the current study was to compare the efficacy of MPV to MP and MPT as first line treatment of multiple myeloma in patients non eligible for transplant. Six randomized placebo controlled trials investigating the efficacy of MPT (5) and MPV (1) relative to MP were identified with a systematic literature review. The endpoints of interest were overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS) and overall and complete response. Relative efficacy estimates of MPT versus MP as obtained from the MPT-MP trials were combined with meta-analysis techniques and simultaneously indirectly compared with the relative efficacy of MPV versus MP from the MPV-MP trial (VISTA). This adjusted indirect comparison was performed with Bayesian fixed and random effects models. As compared to frequentist approach, Bayesian meta-analysis offers a more informative summary of the likely value of efficacy after observing the data and allows for direct probabilistic inferences. Of the three interventions compared, there was an 81% probability that MPV was the most efficacious intervention in terms of overall response and a >99% probability in terms of complete response. With MPV a patient was two times more likely to show a complete response than with MPT (Relative Risk=2.15; 95%Credible Interval (CrI): 0.99–4.45). Both MPV and MPT showed greater OS than MP (HR=0.61; 95%CrI: 0.42–0.88 and HR=0.61; 95%CrI: 0.47–0.78 respectively); the indirect comparison showed similar efficacy in terms of OS between MPV and MPT (MPV vs MPT: Hazard Ratio=1.00; 95%CrI 0.64–1.57). Both MPV and MPT also displayed greater PFS than MP (MPV versus MP: HR=0.61; 95%CrI 0.49–0.76 and MPT versus MP HR=0.51; 95%CrI 0.41–0.63 respectively) and showed similar efficacy (MPV vs MPT: HR=1.19; 95%CrI: 0.87–1.63). In this study, both MPV and MPT are more efficacious than MP in terms of response, PFS and OS. MPV is expected to result in a greater complete and overall response than MPT. No difference in OS or PFS was displayed. Further analyses will need to be undertaken once evidence base data is more mature.

Is FOLFOXIRI alone or combined with targeted therapy administered as first-line treatment a reasonable choice for most patients with mCRC? Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15018-e15018
Author(s):  
Mingyi Zhou ◽  
Ping Yu ◽  
Dengue Hernick ◽  
Yanrong Li ◽  
Yuanhe Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Target Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Treatment

e15018 Background: Controversy surrounds the question of whether the prognosis of most patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is improved using intensive administration of folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) alone or combined with target therapy as first-line treatment. Methods: We queried PubMed, the Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, Cochrane Systematic Reviews, ClinicalTrials.gov, the databases of the European Society for Medical Oncology and the American Society of Clinical Oncology to identify abstracts of randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacies and toxicities of intensive therapies used for first-line treatment of patients with mCRC. The search included articles dated from the inception of these resources until December 31, 2016. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and relative risks (RRs) for the objective response rate (ORR), the R0 resection rate, and toxicities. Results: Nine RCTs comprising 2,256 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. The PFS of patients administered FOLFOXIRI plus target therapy experienced prolonged PFS and OS and improved ORRs compared with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus target therapy (PFS: HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46–0.91; OS: HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65–0.98; ORR: HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.16–2.49; R0 resection rate: HR 2.66, 95% CI 1.86–3.82). There were no significant differences between PFS, OS, ORRs, or R0 resection rates and toxicities of patients administered FOLFOXIRI and FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus target therapy. Further, FOLFOXIRI plus target therapy did not increase toxicities compared with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus target therapy, except for neutropenia. Conclusions: FOLFOXIRI plus target therapy when administered as first-line treatment of patients with mCRC is the best choice and did not significantly increase toxicities. FOLFOXIRI is as effective as FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus target therapy.

Phase II trial of fludarabine monophosphate as first-line treatment in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma: a multicenter study by the Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes de l'Adulte.

1996 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 514-519 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Solal-Céligny ◽  
P Brice ◽  
N Brousse ◽  
H Caspard ◽  
Y Bastion ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Follicular Lymphoma ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
World Health ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Fludarabine Monophosphate ◽  
First Line Treatment

PURPOSE Fludarabine monophosphate (FAMP) is a major drug in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and showed efficacy in selected groups of patients with low-grade lymphomas, most of them pretreated. The aim of this trial was to assess the efficacy and the toxicity of FAMP in untreated patients with follicular lymphoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Fifty-four untreated patients with advanced follicular lymphoma were treated with intravenous (i.v.) fludarabine at a dose of 25 mg/m2/d during 5 days every 4 weeks, to a maximum of nine cycles. RESULTS The toxicity of the drug was mild, mainly granulocytic. Granulocytopenia > or = 3 (World Health Organization [WHO]) was observed during 48 of 328 cycles (14.6%) and in 22 of 53 (41%) patients assessable for toxicity. Fludarabine had to be stopped prematurely because of toxicity in nine patients: marrow toxicity in five, peripheral neuropathy in two, and interstitial pneumonitis and hepatitis in one patient each. Among 49 patients assessable for response, the overall response rate was 65% and the complete response (CR) rate 37%. The median progression-free survival interval for all patients was 13.6 months. CONCLUSION These results confirm that fludarabine is active when used as first-line treatment in patients with follicular lymphoma and has a low toxicity rate. It may be used as single treatment in elderly patients. Associations of fludarabine with other drugs active against follicular lymphoma need to be determined.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Bevacizumab in the First-Line Treatment of Patients with RAS Mutations Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 361-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mingyi Zhou ◽  
Ping Yu ◽  
Jinglei Qu ◽  
Ying Chen ◽  
Yang Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Ras Mutations ◽  
The Difference ◽  
First Line Treatment

Background/Aims: Whether patients with RAS mutation metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) obtain benefits from bevacizumab added to first-line chemotherapy remains unclear. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology databases were searched to identify abstracts for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of bevacizumab for the first-line treatment of patients with RAS mutations mCRC from inception to the end of April 2016. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated. Results: Ten eligible papers reporting six RCTs were included. In the network meta-analysis of patients with RAS mutations, bevacizumab + chemotherapy prolonged PFS compared with chemotherapy alone (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.51-1.10), but the difference was not statistically significant. Bevacizumab + chemotherapy did not prolong OS compared with chemotherapy alone (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.73-1.66). Conclusion: There was insufficient evidence to definitively state that patients with RAS mutations mCRC could benefit from bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy as first-line treatment.

Cetuximab-based or bevacizumab-based first-line treatment in patients with KRAS p.G13D mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)? A meta-analysis of 54 cases.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 511-511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Volker Heinemann ◽  
Anke Reinacher-Schick ◽  
Sebastian Stintzing ◽  
Clemens Albrecht Giessen ◽  
Andrea Tannapfel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Treatment

511 Background: KRAS p.G13D mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been identified to represent a cetuximab-sensitive subtype of KRAS mutant mCRC. This analysis aims to answer the question whether first-line treatment of p.G13D mCRCs should contain cetuximab or bevacizumab. Methods: Fifty-four patients with p.G13D mutant mCRC were pooled in this analysis. All patients underwent systemic 1st-line treatment with a fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin/irinotecan that was combined with either cetuximab or bevacizumab. Results: Overall response rate was comparable between cetuximab- and bevacizumab-based regimens (58% vs 57%). Progression-free survival was comparable (8.0 months-cetuximab-group vs 8.7 months bevacizumab-group). Overall survival (OS) was longer in patients treated with cetuximab as first-line therapy (20.1 months vs 14.9 months). Logistic regressions modelling OS revealed oxaliplatin-based first-line treatment to correlate significantly with poor outcome (p=0.03). Moreover, a strong trend in favour of capecitabine compared to infusional 5-FU (p=0.06) was seen.. Responders among our cohort showed a benefit concerning PFS and OS undergoing cetuximab- but not bevacizumab-based regimen. Conclusions: This retrospective pooled analysis suggests that cetuximab-based first-line therapy in p.G13D mutant mCRC shows similar activity compared to bevacizumab-containing regimen. Infusional 5-FU and oxaliplatin may represent inferior options compared to capecitabine and irinotecan in p.G13D mutant mCRC 1st-line treatment.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of First-Line Everolimus Therapy Alone or in Combination with Octreotide in Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors. A Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG) Study

Biology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 51
Author(s):  
Anna Koumarianou ◽  
Dimitrios Pectasides ◽  
Georgia-Angeliki Koliou ◽  
Dimitrios Dionysopoulos ◽  
Dionysia Kolomodi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
First Line ◽  
Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
First Line Treatment

The purpose of this study was to explore the efficacy and safety of everolimus administered as a first-line treatment in newly diagnosed patients with metastatic or inoperable gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP NETs). This phase II, multicenter, single-arm study included patients with well-differentiated GEP NETs and a Ki67 < 20%. Everolimus, at 10 mg/day, was administered until disease progression; 18 patients (72%) concomitantly received octreotide long-acting release (LAR), at 30 mg/month. The primary endpoint was the 15-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. Twenty-five patients (grade 1: 11 patients, grade 2: 14 patients) were enrolled between August 2012 and October 2015. At a median follow-up of 58.1 months, the median PFS was 14.6 months, while the 15-month PFS rate was 48%; median overall survival had not been reached yet. Normal baseline chromogranin A (<4 nmol/l) confirmed a longer PFS (HR = 0.25, 95% CI 0.08–0.77, p = 0.016). Seven patients (28%) achieved an objective response (one complete response and six partial responses) in a median of 2.6 months. Twenty-three grade 3–4 events were recorded (14 patients). No fatal reactions occurred. This prospective phase II study unravels the notable activity of everolimus as a first-line treatment in patients with GEP NETS and contributes valuable information about the high activity of the combination of everolimus and octreotide LAR in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT01648465.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document