scholarly journals Response Rates and Durations of Response for Biomarker-Based Cancer Drugs in Nonrandomized Versus Randomized Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bishal Gyawali ◽  
Elvira D’Andrea ◽  
Jessica M. Franklin ◽  
Aaron S. Kesselheim
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Targeted Drugs ◽  
Cancer Drugs ◽  
Fda Approval ◽  
The Given

Background: Many new targeted cancer drugs have received FDA approval based on durable responses in nonrandomized controlled trials (non-RCTs). The goal of this study was to evaluate whether the response rates (RRs) and durations of response (DoRs) of targeted cancer drugs observed in non-RCTs are consistent when these drugs are tested in RCTs. Methods: We used the FDA’s Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling to identify cancer drugs that were approved based on changes in biomarker endpoints through December 2017. We then identified the non-RCTs and RCTs for these drugs for the given indications and extracted the RRs and DoRs. We compared the RRs and median DoR in non-RCTs versus RCTs using the ratio of RRs and the ratio of DoRs, defined as the RRs (or DoRs) in non-RCTs divided by the RRs (or DoRs) in RCTs. The ratio of RRs or DoRs was pooled across the trial pairs using random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Of the 21 drug–indication pairs selected, both non-RCTs and RCTs were available for 19. The RRs and DoRs in non-RCTs were greater than those in RCTs in 63% and 87% of cases, respectively. The pooled ratio of RRs was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.95–1.20), and the pooled ratio of DoRs was 1.17 (95% CI, 1.03–1.33). RRs and DoRs derived from non-RCTs were also poor surrogates for overall survival derived from RCTs. Conclusions: The RRs were not different between non-RCTs and RCTs of cancer drugs approved based on changes to a biomarker, but the DoRs in non-RCTs were significantly higher than in RCTs. Caution must be exercised when approving or prescribing targeted drugs based on data on durable responses derived from non-RCTs, because the responses could be overestimates and poor predictors of survival benefit.

scholarly journals The Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Immunotherapy for Gastric Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis and Literature Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 107327482199743
Author(s):  
Ke Chen ◽  
Xiao Wang ◽  
Liu Yang ◽  
Zheling Chen
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
And Control

Background: Treatment options for advanced gastric esophageal cancer are quite limited. Chemotherapy is unavoidable at certain stages, and research on targeted therapies has mostly failed. The advent of immunotherapy has brought hope for the treatment of advanced gastric esophageal cancer. The aim of the study was to analyze the safety of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy and the long-term survival of patients who were diagnosed as gastric esophageal cancer and received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy. Method: Studies on anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy of advanced gastric esophageal cancer published before February 1, 2020 were searched online. The survival (e.g. 6-month overall survival, 12-month overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rates (ORR)) and adverse effects of immunotherapy were compared to that of control therapy (physician’s choice of therapy). Results: After screening 185 studies, 4 comparative cohort studies which reported the long-term survival of patients receiving immunotherapy were included. Compared to control group, the 12-month survival (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.31 to 2.12, P < 0.0001) and 18-month survival (OR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.39 to 2.81, P = 0.0001) were significantly longer in immunotherapy group. The 3-month survival rate (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.36 to 3.06, P = 0.92) and 18-month survival rate (OR = 1.44, 95% CI: 0.98 to 2.12, P = 0.07) were not significantly different between immunotherapy group and control group. The ORR were not significantly different between immunotherapy group and control group (OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 0.65 to 3.66, P = 0.01). Meta-analysis pointed out that in the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 sub group population, the immunotherapy could obviously benefit the patients in tumor response rates (OR = 3.80, 95% CI: 1.89 to 7.61, P = 0.0002). Conclusion: For the treatment of advanced gastric esophageal cancer, the therapeutic efficacy of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy was superior to that of chemotherapy or palliative care.

scholarly journals SGLT2 inhibitors and the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis among adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Colacci ◽  
John Fralick ◽  
Ayodele Odutayo ◽  
Michael Fralick
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Ketoacidosis ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sglt2 Inhibitor ◽  
Sglt2 Inhibitors ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Absolute Rate ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Importance: The risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors is unclear. Objective: To examine the risk of DKA with SGLT2 inhibitors in both observational studies and large clinical trials. Data Sources: Searches of PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL (inception to 15 April 2019) without language restrictions; conference proceedings; and reference lists. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials and observational studies that quantified the rate of diabetic ketoacidosis with an SGLT2 inhibitor in comparison to another diabetes medication or placebo. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent investigators abstracted study data and assessed the quality of evidence. Data were pooled using random effects models with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method. Main Outcome and Measures: Absolute event rates and hazard ratios for diabetic ketoacidosis were extracted from each study. Results: Seven randomized trials encompassing 42,375 participants and five cohort studies encompassing 318,636 participants were selected. Among the 7 randomized controlled trials, the absolute rate of DKA among patients randomized to an SGLT2 inhibitor ranged from 0.6 to 2.2 events per 1000 person years. Four randomized trials were included in the meta-analysis, and compared to placebo or comparator medication, SGLT2 inhibitors had a 2.4-fold higher risk of DKA (Relative Risk [RR] = 2.46 [95% CI, 1.16-5.21]; I2 = 0%; P = 0.54). Among the 5 observational studies, the absolute rate of DKA associated with SGLT2 inhibitor use ranged from 0.6 to 4.9 per 1000 person years and a 1.7-fold higher rate of DKA compared to another diabetes medication (RR = 1.74 [95% CI, 1.01-2.93]; I2 = 45%; P = 0.12). Conclusions and Relevance: In adults with type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitors increase the risk of DKA in both observational studies and large randomized clinical trials. Registration: CRD42019146855 Funding Source: None

Overall survival after perioperative chemotherapy in the management of pulmonary metastasis in osteosarcoma.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e23508-e23508
Author(s):  
Zeba Siddiqui ◽  
Megan E Delisle ◽  
Amirrtha Srikanthan ◽  
Ying Wang
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pulmonary Metastasectomy ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Perioperative Chemotherapy ◽  
Extrinsic Factors ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Randomized Controlled

e23508 Background: Pulmonary metastasectomy is performed on a select cohort of patients with advanced osteosarcoma with the potential for long term survival. However, evidence on peri-operative chemotherapy at time of metastasectomy is not completely understood and difficult to summarize without a systematic examination of existing literature. The purpose of this project is to perform a meta-analysis of existing studies to determine overall survival (OS) and prognostic factors in adults and children with advanced and recurrent osteosarcoma receiving chemotherapy around time of metastasectomy. Methods: We reviewed survival studies conducted in children and adults with advanced and recurrent osteosarcoma who undergo pulmonary metastasectomy published in English with more than 5 patients. The primary outcome was overall survival. Literature searches were performed in multiple electronic databases including Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to present), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to present), Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Two investigators independently screened all citations, abstracts, and full-text articles. Results: 24 out of 80 observational studies between 1977 to 2018 were included. 2146 patients were studied of which 987 underwent pulmonary metastasectomy for osteosarcoma. 822 patients received perioperative chemotherapy in this setting. No randomized controlled trials were identified. Studies included patients from Asia, Africa, Europe, and North America. The median OS ranged between 20 to 90 months. 5-year OS ranged between 15 to 63%. Factors associated with survival included: age, number of lesions, disease free interval, time of development of metastases, number of lesions and laterality of pulmonary disease. Conclusions: Overall survival in study has a significant range. Factors influencing survival included intrinsic factors such as patient age and disease characteristics, as well as extrinsic factors such as evolution of chemotherapy regimen over the past four decades. The main limitations are related to the inherently low-quality evidence as a result of lack of randomized controlled trials. More comprehensive data is needed to guide shared decision making in this area.

scholarly journals Multimodal treatments for resectable esophagogastric junction cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 175883591983896 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ji Cheng ◽  
Ming Cai ◽  
Xiaoming Shuai ◽  
Jinbo Gao ◽  
Guobin Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Preoperative Chemotherapy ◽  
Esophagogastric Junction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Perioperative Chemotherapy ◽  
Esophagogastric Junction Cancer

Background: Currently, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, perioperative chemotherapy and preoperative chemotherapy are recommended by NCCN, ESMO and Japanese guidelines respectively for resectable esophageal and junctional cancer. However, these recommendations are mainly based on esophageal cancer research. Therefore, specific for esophagogastric junction cancer, we conducted the first systematic review and network meta-analysis to rank all potential treatments simultaneously and hierarchically. Methods: Record retrieval was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, ASCO and ESMO Meeting Library from inception to September 2018. Regarding time-to-event survival data, randomized controlled trials featuring comparisons between different multimodal treatments against resectable esophagogastric junction cancer were eligible. Overall survival was the endpoint. Network calculation was based on a random-effects model and the relative ranking of each node was numerically indicated by P-score (CRD42018110369, registration identifier of the meta-analysis in PROSPERO.). Results: Eight studies were included in our systematic review, corresponding to 1218 patients. Regarding overall survival, ‘PreCRT’ (preoperative chemoradiotherapy) topped the hierarchy (HR 1.00, P-score = 0.823), better than ‘PeriCT’ (perioperative chemotherapy; HR 1.32, P-score = 0.591) and ‘PreCT’ (preoperative chemotherapy; HR 1.54, P-score = 0.428). In sensitivity analyses, irrespective of interchanging to fixed-effects model or removing potentially heterogeneous studies, relative rankings remained stable and ‘PreCRT’ was still the optimal node. Conclusion: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy could potentially be the optimal multimodal treatment, which displayed more overall survival benefits than perioperative chemotherapy and preoperative chemotherapy among resectable esophagogastric junction cancer patients. To further verify our pooled results, more randomized trials will be needed to compare preoperative chemoradiotherapy with perioperative chemotherapy (especially FLOT-based regimens).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document