scholarly journals Treatment of Advanced Gastro-Entero-Pancreatic Neuro-Endocrine Tumors: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Phase III Randomized Controlled Trials

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 358
Author(s):  
Claudio Ricci ◽  
Giuseppe Lamberti ◽  
Carlo Ingaldi ◽  
Cristina Mosconi ◽  
Nico Pagano ◽  
...  

Several new therapies have been approved to treat advanced gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP–NENs) in the last twenty years. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing two or more therapies for unresectable GEP–NENs. Network metanalysis was used to overcome the multiarm problem. For each arm, we described the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival and grade 3–4 of toxicity. We included nine studies involving a total of 2362 patients and 5 intervention arms: SSA alone, two IFN-α plus SSA, two Everolimus alone, one Everolimus plus SSA, one Sunitinib alone, one 177Lu-Dotatate plus SSA, and one Bevacizumab plus SSA. 177Lu-Dotatate plus SSA had the highest probability (99.6%) of being associated with the longest PFS. This approach was followed by Sunitinib use (64.5%), IFN-α plus SSA one (53.0%), SSA alone (46.6%), Bevacizumab plus SSA one (45.0%), and Everolimus ± SSA one (33.6%). The placebo administration had the lowest probability of being associated with the longest PFS (7.6%). Placebo or Bevacizumab use had the highest probability of being the safest (73.7% and 76.7%), followed by SSA alone (65.0%), IFN-α plus SSA (52.4%), 177Lu-Dotatate plus SSA (49.4%), and Sunitinib alone (28.8%). The Everolimus-based approach had the lowest probability of being the safest (3.9%). The best approaches were SSA alone or combined with 177Lu-Dotatate.

Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (11) ◽  
pp. 3632-3632
Author(s):  
Ambuj Kumar ◽  
Alan F. List ◽  
Rahul Mhaskar ◽  
Benjamin Djulbegovic

Abstract Background: With the FDA approval of two hypomethylating agents (HA) for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), both azacitidine (AZA-C) and decitabine have shown widespread usage. These agents improved response rates (RR) in phase III registration trials, however, overall survival (OS) was not significantly improved. Furthermore, head to head comparison of AZA-C versus decitabine is lacking. We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the efficacy of AZA-C and decitabine versus supportive care (SC), and AZA-C versus decitabine for the treatment of MDS. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library database was undertaken to identify all phase III randomized controlled trials (RCT) published through July 2008. Meetings abstracts from ASCO, ASH and European Society for Hematology were searched for the years 2006–2007. Data extraction and meta-analysis on benefits and harms of HA for MDS was performed as per the methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. Indirect comparison of AZA-C versus decitabine was conducted according to the methods developed by Bucher et al and Glenny et al and were extended to calculate hazard ratios (HR). We created the following chain of inference: we first pooled RCTs that compared AZA-C with SC, and decitabine versus SC. We then compared the pooled estimates to obtain the unbiased estimate in treatment differences between decitabine and AZA-C. Results: We found 4 RCTs assessing the efficacy of HA for the treatment of MDS. Two RCTs compared AZA-C versus SC, and 2 compared decitabine versus SC. The results from 1 trial describing the effects of decitabine versus SC were reported as a press release stating that OS was not significant between two arms, however, data were not available for this analysis. The results for all comparisons are summarized in the table below. Meta-analysis of RCTs comparing HA versus SC showed significantly better OS, EFS, and RR in favor of HA without a significant increase in treatment-related mortality (TRM). Comparison of AZA-C versus SC also showed significantly better OS, EFS and RR favoring AZA-C without significant risk of TRM. In one RCT comparing decitabine versus SC, RR was significantly superior in the decitabine arm. However, there was no difference in OS, EFS and TRM between decitabine and SC. Evaluation of decitabine versus AZA-C showed significantly better OS and RR favoring AZA-C, whereas EFS and TRM were similar. Conclusion: This first systematic review on the efficacy of HA versus SC shows that OS, EFS and RR are superior with HA without significant TRM. Additionally, use of AZA-C is associated with significantly improved OS and RR compared to decitabine. In order to definitively confirm these findings, a prospective RCT comparing AZA-C and decitabine is warranted. Results from this systematic review on the efficacy of AZA-C and decitabine should be considered the threshold against which efficacy of future agents in MDS should be tested. Outcome Comparisons Hypo-methylating agents versus supportive care (3 RCTs; N=719) Conclusion Azacitidine versus supportive care (2 RCTs; N= 549) Conclusion Decitabine versus supportive care (1 RCT; N=170) Conclusion Azacitadine versus Decitabine (Indirect comparison) Conclusion Overall Survival Hazard ratio (HR)(95% Confidence Intervals) P-value HR=0.79 (0.67, 0.95) p=0.01 Hypo- methylating agents better HR=0.62 (0.48, 0.78) p=0.00 Azacitidine better HR=1.064 (0.82, 1.38) p=0.636 No difference HR=0.579 (0.41, 0.82) p=0.002 Azacitidine better Event-free survival Hazard ratio (HR) (95% Confidence Intervals) P-value HR=0.59 (0.46, 0.75) p=0.00 Hypo- methylating agents better HR=0.58 (0.44, 0.76) p=0.00 Azacitidine better HR=0.64 (0.35, 1.19) p=0.16 No difference HR=0.89 (0.46, 1.80) p=0.753 No difference Response rate Risk ratio (RR) (95% Confidence Intervals) P-value RR=1.28 (1.19, 1.37) p=0.00 Hypo- methylating agents better RR=1.37 (1.25, 1.52) p=0.00 Azacitidine better RR=1.2 (1.08, 1.31) p=0.00 Decitabine better RR=1.15 (1.0, 1.314) p=0.05 Azacitidine better Treatment-related mortality Risk ratio (RR) (95% Confidence Intervals) P-value RR=0.69 (0.36, 1.32) p=0.264 No difference RR=2.79 (0.12, 67.64) p=0.528 No difference RR=0.65 (0.34, 1.26) p=0.203 No difference RR=4.29 (0.16, 111.1) p=0.381 No difference


Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 5125-5125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anat Gafter-Gvili ◽  
Ronit Gurion ◽  
Pia Raanani ◽  
Ofer Shpilberg ◽  
Liat Vidal

Abstract Background Bendamustine is a chemotherapeutic drug with structural similarities to both alkylating agents (nitrogen mustard derivative) and purine analogues (benzimidazole ring). Theoretically, due to its nucleoside-like properties it might be associated with more infections. Data in the literature is lacking regarding the infection-related adverse events of bendamustine-containing regimens. Thus, we aimed to assess this risk. Methods Systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing bendamustine containing regimens (alone or combined with other chemotherapeutic agents and/or rituximab) to any other regimens. Trials evaluating bendamustine for any indication (hematological as well as solid malignancies) were included.  A comprehensive search of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, conference proceedings and references was conducted until July 2013. Two reviewers appraised the quality of trials and extracted data. Outcomes assessed were: any infections, grade 3-4 infections, fatal infections, grade 3-4 neutropenia and grade 3-4 lymphopenia. For dichotomous data, relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and pooled. We used fixed effect model to pool data, unless there was significant heterogeneity, in which case we used the random effects model. Results Ten trials conducted between the years 1998 and 2013 and randomizing 2360 patients were included. We included 4 trials of patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (Rummel 2013, Rummel 2010, Herold 2006 and the Bright study 2013), 3 trials of CLL (Knauf 2009, Niederle 2013, LeBlond 2013), 1 trial of patients with multiple myeloma (Ponish 2006) and 2 trials of breast carcinoma patients. The bendamustine arm included: bendamustine alone (2 trials), bendamustine-rituximab (BR) (4 trials), bendamustine, vincristine, prednisone (BOP) (1 trial), bendamustine, MTX. 5FU (BMF) (2 trials) and bendamustine, prednisone (BP) (1 trial). The comparator arms in 8 of the trials included other alkylating agents: chlorambucil, R -CHOP,  cyclophosphamide, MTX, 5-FU (CMF) and melphalan-prednisone (MP) – each regimen used in 2 trials and COP used in 1 trial.  In 2 trials the comparator arm included fludarabine based regimens (alone or with rituximab). There was no statistically significant effect for bendamustine on the rate of any type of infection (RR 1.06 [95% CI 0.83, 1.34], 6 trials, figure). This analysis included only trials of hematological malignancies. There was no increase in the rate of grade 3-4 infections (RR 1.45 [95% CI 0.86, 2.45], 7 trials) or fatal infection (RR 0.69 [95% CI 0.30, 1.58], 3 trials). Data were too scarce to analyze by specific types of infections separately. There was no increase in the rate of grade 3-4 neutropenia in the bendamustine arm (RR 0.9 [95% CI 0.58, 1.42], 6 trials). This was true both when the comparator was alkylating agent containing regimens (RR 0.87 [95% CI 0.52, 1.48], 4 trials) or fludarabine containing regimens (RR 1.02 [95% CI 0.54, 1.91], 2 trials). There was a significant increase in grade 3-4 lymphopenia in the bendamustine arm compared to alkylating agent containing regimens (RR 1.95[95% CI 1.54, 2.47). Conclusions Our systematic review demonstrates no effect of bendamustine on the rate of infections when compared to either alkylating agents or fludarabine,  in hematological as well as in solid malignancies, despite an increase in lymphopenia. Thus, bendamustine remains a safe therapeutic option. The main drawback of this meta-analysis is the heterogeneity between malignancies and treatments. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7556-7556
Author(s):  
Yucai Wang ◽  
Shouhao Zhou ◽  
Fang Yang ◽  
Grzegorz S. Nowakowski ◽  
Thomas Matthew Habermann ◽  
...  

7556 Background: The frontline treatment for advanced follicular lymphoma has evolved with the introduction of maintenance therapy, bendamustine (Benda), obinutuzumab (G), and lenalidomide (Len). We conducted a network meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to identify the regimens with superior efficacy. Methods: Data were extracted from 7 RCTs (FOLL05, StiL NHL1, BRIGHT, PRIMA, GALLIUM, StiL NHL7, and RELEVANCE). Progression-free survival (PFS) was compared between 11 regimens with different immunochemotherapy and maintenance strategies. To incorporate direct and indirect comparisons, random-effects Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted after adjusting for study-wise variation. The posterior inference was derived based on Markov chain Monte Carlo methods and implemented using JAGS v4.3.0. Pairwise comparison of hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% credible intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: PFS HRs of other regimens compared to the reference regimen are summarized in the Table. Compared to Rituximab(R)-Benda, R-CHOP had inferior PFS, R-CHOP-R, G-CHOP-G, and R-Len-R had similar PFS, while R-Benda-R, R-Benda-R4 and G-Benda-G had better PFS. Compared to R-CHOP-R, G-CHOP-G and R-Len-R had similar PFS, while R-Benda-R, R-Benda-R4 and G-Benda-G had better PFS. In addition, the PFS for G-Benda-G was similar to R-Benda-R4 (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78-1.09) but better than R-Benda-R (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.75-0.97). Conclusions: Compared with the commonly used R-Benda and R-CHOP-R regimens, G-CHOP-G, R-Benda-R and R-Benda-R4 had better PFS, while the chemotherapy-free regimen R-Len-R had similar PFS. [Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document