The Effect of Statin Added to Systemic Anticancer Therapy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials

Preclinical studies have demonstrated that statins have anticancer properties and act in an additive or synergistic way when combined with anticancer therapy. We conducted this meta-analysis of randomized, controlled phase II or III trials to evaluate the effect of statins added to systemic anticancer therapy in patients with solid cancer. A systematic literature search was performed to identify all randomized trials that were designed to investigate the effect of statins in patients with cancer using PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Web of Science (up to August 2018). From eight randomized controlled trials, 1760 patients were included in the pooled analyses of odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for grade 3–5 adverse events (AEs) and overall response rate (ORR) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The addition of statin to anticancer agents did not significantly increase the incidence of grade 3–5 AEs (OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.81–1.29, p = 0.78). However, the combination of statin and anticancer agents did not improve ORR (OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.77–1.20, p = 0.72) compared with that of anticancer therapy alone. In addition, statins added to systemic anticancer therapy failed to prolong PFS (HR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.90–1.10, p = 0.92) and OS (HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.76–1.11, p = 0.52). In conclusion, this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials does not support clinical benefits of statins added to systemic anticancer therapy in patients with solid cancer.

Download Full-text

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

Cancers ◽

10.3390/cancers13020358 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 13 (2) ◽

pp. 358

Author(s):

Claudio Ricci ◽

Giuseppe Lamberti ◽

Carlo Ingaldi ◽

Cristina Mosconi ◽

Nico Pagano ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Neuroendocrine Neoplasms ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Endocrine Tumors ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Grade 3

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.

Download Full-text

Bortezomib-Based Consolidation/Maintenance Therapy for Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-113533 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 3293-3293

Author(s):

Shijia Zhang ◽

Yucai Wang ◽

Yvonne Datta ◽

Veronika Bachanova ◽

Sarah Cooley

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Maintenance Therapy ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Induction Therapy ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Sensory Neuropathy ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Background: Bortezomib is a proteasome inhibitor that can lead to cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis. Bortezomib-based regimens are widely used as induction therapy of multiple myeloma (MM). Unlike lenalidomide (an immunomodulatory drug), the role of bortezomib in the consolidation and maintenance therapy of multiple myeloma is less clear. This study aims to examine the efficacy and safety of bortezomib-based regimens as consolidation/maintenance therapy in MM patients following induction therapy with or without autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Methods: PubMed, ASH, and ASCO databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RTC) of bortezomib-based regimens (either single-agent or combination) as consolidation/maintenance therapy for MM patients through July 2018. Study endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AE). Pooled hazard ratios (HR) for survival outcomes and relative risks (RR) for dichotomous data with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated with a random effect model using MedCalc (MedCalc Software, Ostend, Belgium). For studies that did not report HRs for survival outcomes but provided graphical survival curves, the log HRs and variances were estimated based on the method by Parmar et al (Stat Med 1998; 17: 2815-2834). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic of inconsistency, with statistically significant heterogeneity defined as I2 > 50% or p-value < 0.1. Results: Eight randomized controlled trials (7 phase III, 1 phase II; 2 were published in a single article) were identified. Bortezomib-based regimens were administered as consolidation treatment in 5 RTCs and maintenance therapy in 3 RTCs, following induction therapy +/- ASCT. A total of 2439 patients were included: 1154 patients received bortezomib-based regimens, and 1285 patients received non-bortezomib-based regimens or observation. Two RCTs (1 for consolidation, 1 for maintenance) did not provide HRs, which were estimated as described as above. Pooled data from the 8 RCTs showed that bortezomib-based consolidation/maintenance therapy improved progression-free survival (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64-0.79, P < 0.001; I2 = 6.61%) and overall survival (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.94, P = 0.005; I2 = 0%) compared to observation or regimens without bortezomib. When the 2 RCTs that did not report HRs were excluded from the meta-analysis, it did not alter the favorable outcome of bortezomib-based consolidation/maintenance therapy: PFS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60-0.82, P < 0.001; I2 = 40.54%) and OS (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.91, P = 0.002; I2 = 0%). The PFS benefit was maintained in a subgroup analysis by the setting of treatment (consolidation, HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63-0.85, P < 0.001; I2 = 0%, maintenance, HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56-0.0.86, P = 0.001; I2 = 55.63%). Bortezomib-based therapy prolonged OS in the maintenance setting (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.86, P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) but not in the consolidation setting (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.77-1.33, P = 0.935; I2 = 0%). Regarding safety, bortezomib-based consolidation/maintenance therapy significantly increased the risk of grade 3 or 4 peripheral sensory neuropathy and neuralgia (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.11-3.95, p = 0.022; I2 = 52.64%) compared to observation or regimens without bortezomib. There was a trend toward increased rates of grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.95-2.52, p = 0.08; I2 = 21.67%), GI symptoms (RR 2.54, 95% CI 0.63-10.25, p = 0.19; I2 = 76.72%), vascular events (RR 1.90, 95% CI 0.80-4.53, p = 0.15; I2 = 0.00%), and fatigue (RR 2.10, 95% CI 0.83-5.30, p = 0.12; I2 = 0.00%) with bortezomib-based consolidation/maintenance, but these did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: Bortezomib-based consolidation/maintenance significantly improves PFS and OS in MM patients following induction therapy +/- ASCT. The OS benefit appears to be limited to the maintenance setting based on a subgroup analysis. Bortezomib-based regimen increases the risk of grade 3 or 4 peripheral sensory neuropathy and neuralgia. Disclosures Bachanova: Gamida Cell: Research Funding; GT Biopharma: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors (PARPi) for Patients With Advanced Breast Cancer: a Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

10.21203/rs.3.rs-48500/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

YongCheng Su ◽

XiaoGang Zheng

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Fixed Effects ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Parp Inhibitors ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Grade 3

Abstract BACKGROUND: Poly(ADP–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are new class of drugs that are currently being studied in several malignancies. However, datas about the efficacy and safety of the PARP inhibitors are limited. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) in patients with breast cancer.METHODS: Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) were searched for articles published from 2000 to June 2018.Summary incidences and the RR, HR with 95% confidence intervals, were calculated by using a random-effects or fixed-effects model.RESULTS: The summary HR indicated PARPi was not associated with OS (HR=0.83, 95%CI 0.66–1.06, Z=1.49, P=0.14), while it could significantly improve PFS ande time to deterioration (TTD) of global health status/quality of life(GHS/QoL) as compared with traditional standard therapy, the HR was 0.60(95%CI 0.50-0.72; Z=5.52, P＜0.00001) and 0.4 (95%CI 0.29–0.54,z=5.80 ,p=0.000),respectively.The RR of grade 3 or more anemia ,fatigue and headache was 3.02 (95% CI, 0.69–13.17;p = 0.14,,I2=90%),0.77 (95%CI, 0.34–1.73;p=0.52,I2=7%) and 1.13 (95% CI,0.30–4.18;p=0.86,I2=0%),respectively.CONCLUSION: The findings of this meta-analysis showed that PARPi has no significant effect on OS, while it could significantly improve in PFS and TTD of GHS/QoL for patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer.Furthermore,our findings also demonstrated that the PARPi treatment is connected with an increased risk of grade 3 or more anemia adverse events.

Download Full-text

Bendamustine Is Not Associated With An Increase In Infections – Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Of Randomized Controlled Trials

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.5125.5125 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 5125-5125 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Anat Gafter-Gvili ◽

Ronit Gurion ◽

Pia Raanani ◽

Ofer Shpilberg ◽

Liat Vidal

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Alkylating Agent ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Alkylating Agents ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Solid Malignancies ◽

Grade 3

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.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Neoadjuvant Targeted Therapy vs. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Stage IIIA EGFR-Mutant Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Frontiers in Surgery ◽

10.3389/fsurg.2021.715318 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 ◽

Author(s):

Dong Chen ◽

Zixian Jin ◽

Jian Zhang ◽

Congcong Xu ◽

Kanghao Zhu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Targeted Therapy ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Egfr Mutation ◽

Response Rate ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Stage Iiia ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Iiia Nsclc

Purpose: The role of targeted therapy in the neoadjuvant field of stage IIIA epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still controversial. We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant targeted therapy (NTT) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) used as a benchmark comparator.Methods: A systematic search was conducted in four databases (Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI) for eligible studies on NTT published before October 2020. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs). Statistical analysis and bias assessment were performed by RevMan 5.3.Results: A total of 319 patients, including 3 randomized controlled trials and 2 non-randomized controlled trials, were included in the meta-analysis. Perform the second subgroup analysis after excluding 2 non-randomized controlled trials. The meta-analysis reveals that, for EGFR mutation-positive stage IIIA NSCLC patients, compared with NCT, NTT can significantly increase ORR (relative risk [RR]:1.70, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.35–2.15; subgroup-RR:1.56, 95% CI 1.23–2.0) and significantly reduce grade 3/4 AEs (RR:0.5, 95% CI 0.34–0.75; subgroup-RR: 0.53, 95% CI 0.26–1.08). The OS of the NTT arm is slightly higher, but the difference is not significant (hazards ratio [HR]: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.43–1.27; subgroup-HR: 0.64 95% CI 0.40–1.03). No difference in PFS was found (HR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.27–2.44).Conclusion: In neoadjuvant setting, targeted therapy has a definitive effect on patients with EGFR mutation-positive stage IIIA NSCLC and is even better than chemotherapy in terms of toxicity and tumor response rate.Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42021221136.

Download Full-text

Comparison of Monoclonal Antibodies targeting CD38, SLAMF7 and PD-1/PD-L1 in combination with Bortezomib/Immunomodulators plus Dexamethasone/Prednisone for the treatment of Multiple Myeloma: An Indirect-Comparison Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

10.21203/rs.3.rs-132450/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Wu Ye ◽

Xia Wu ◽

Xiaoyan Liu ◽

Xue Zheng ◽

Jili Deng ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Monoclonal Antibodies ◽

Partial Response ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Group Versus ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Background In recent years, there were many clinical trials assessed the efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) in combination with proteasome inhibitors or immunomodulators plus dexamethasone/prednisoneare for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM). The treatment outcomes of comparing different MAbs in combination with above-mentioned agents remain unknown. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare indirectly the efficacy and safety of MAbs targeting CD38, SLAMF7 and PD-1/PD-L1 in combination with bortezomib/immunomodulators plus dexamethasone/ prednisone in patients with MM. Methods We electronically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which at least one of the three MAbs was included among multiple arms. We included eleven eligible RCTs with 5367 patients in the meta-analysis. Statistical analysis used StataMP14 and Indirect Treatment Comparisons software. Results We synthesized hazard ratios (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), relative risk (RR) for overall response rate, complete response (CR) or better, very good partial response (VGPR) or better, VGPR, partial response, stable disease and grade 3 or higher adverse events among the three groups. The HR for PFS of the CD38 group vs SLAMF7 group, CD38 group vs PD-1/PD-L1 group and SLAMF7 group vs PD-1/PD-L1 group were 0.662(95CI0.543-0.806), 0.317(95CI 0.221–0.454) and 0.479(95CI0.328-0.699) respectively. The HR for OS of the CD38 group vs SLAMF7 group was 0.812(0.584–1.127). The RR for CR or better in the CD38 group versus SLAMF7 group was 2.253(95CI1.284-3.955). The RR for neutropenia of the CD38 group versus SLAMF7 group was 1.818(95CI1.41-2.344). Conclusions Treatment with the CD38 group resulted in longer PFS and better treatment response than the SLAMF7 and PD-1/PD-L1 group. In addition, the SLAMF7 group prolonged PFS compared with the PD-1/PD-L1 group, and had a lower incidence of grade 3 or higher neutropenia than the CD38 and PD-1/PD-L1 group. In

Download Full-text

Second-line treatments for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

Clinical and Experimental Medicine ◽

10.1007/s10238-021-00727-7 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Antonio Giovanni Solimando ◽

Nicola Susca ◽

Antonella Argentiero ◽

Oronzo Brunetti ◽

Patrizia Leone ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Performance Status ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Second Line ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract Background & Aims A plethora of second-line therapies have been recently introduced for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment with promising results. A meta-analysis of second-line treatments for HCC has been performed to better tailor their use based on improved patient stratification and to identify the best available option. Methods Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating second-line treatment for advanced HCC in patients already treated with sorafenib. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and drug withdrawal due to adverse events. Network meta-analyses were performed considering placebo as the basis for comparison in efficacy and safety analyses. Subgroup stratification considered gender, age, sorafenib-responsiveness and drug tolerability, viral infection, macrovascular invasion, HCC extrahepatic spread, performance status, and alpha-fetoprotein levels. Results Fourteen phase II or III randomized controlled trials, involving 5,488 patients and 12 regimens, were included in the analysis. Regorafenib (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.50–0.79), cabozantinib (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.63–0.92), and ramucirumab (HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.70–0.76) significantly prolonged OS compared with placebo. Cabozantinib (HR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.36–0.52), regorafenib (HR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.37–0.56), ramucirumab (HR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.43–0.68), brivanib (HR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.42–0.76), S-1 (HR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.46–0.77), axitinib (HR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.44–0.87), and pembrolizumab (HR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.57–0.90) significantly improved PFS compared with placebo. None of the compared drugs deemed undoubtedly superior after having performed a patients’ stratification. Conclusions The results of this network meta-analysis suggest the use of regorafenib and cabozantinib as second-line treatments in HCC.

Download Full-text

Efficacy of front-line immunochemotherapy for follicular lymphoma: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Blood Cancer Journal ◽

10.1038/s41408-021-00598-x ◽

2022 ◽

Vol 12 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Yucai Wang ◽

Shouhao Zhou ◽

Xinyue Qi ◽

Fang Yang ◽

Matthew J. Maurer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Maintenance Therapy ◽

Follicular Lymphoma ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Similar Efficacy ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Front Line ◽

Free Survival ◽

Randomized Controlled

Abstract Front-line treatment for follicular lymphoma has evolved with the introduction of maintenance therapy, bendamustine (Benda), obinutuzumab (G), and lenalidomide (Len). We conducted a random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to identify the regimens with superior efficacy. Progression-free survival (PFS) was compared between 11 modern regimens with different immunochemotherapy and maintenance strategies. G-Benda-G resulted in with the best PFS, with an HR of 0.41 compared to R-Benda, a surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) of 0.97, a probability of being the best treatment (PbBT) of 72%, and a posterior ranking distribution (PoRa) of 1 (95% BCI 1–3). This was followed by R-Benda-R4 (HR = 0.49, PbBT = 25%, PoRa = 2) and R-Benda-R (HR = 0.60, PbBT = 3%, PoRa = 3). R-CHOP-R (HR = 0.96) and R-Len-R (HR = 0.97) had similar efficacy to R-Benda. Bendamustine was a better chemotherapy backbone than CHOP either with maintenance (R-Benda-R vs R-CHOP-R, HR = 0.62; G-Benda-G vs G-CHOP-G, HR = 0.55) or without maintenance therapy (R-Benda vs R-CHOP, HR = 0.68). Rituximab maintenance improved PFS following R-CHOP (R-CHOP-R vs R-CHOP, HR = 0.65) or R-Benda (R-Benda-R vs R-Benda, HR = 0.60; R-Benda-R4 vs R-Benda, HR = 0.49). In the absence of multi-arm RCTs that include all common regimens, this NMA provides an important and useful guide to inform treatment decisions.

Download Full-text

Efficacy of frontline treatment regimens in follicular lymphoma: A network meta-analysis of phase III randomized controlled trials.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2019.37.15_suppl.7556 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. 7556-7556

Author(s):

Yucai Wang ◽

Shouhao Zhou ◽

Fang Yang ◽

Grzegorz S. Nowakowski ◽

Thomas Matthew Habermann ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Follicular Lymphoma ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Pairwise Comparison ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Treatment Regimens ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Frontline Treatment

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]

Download Full-text