Comparative efficacy of later-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer: a network meta-analysis of survival curves.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Mavis Obeng-Kusi, Jennifer R Martin, Denise Roe, Brian L Erstad, Ivo Abraham
{"title":"Comparative efficacy of later-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer: a network meta-analysis of survival curves.","authors":"Mavis Obeng-Kusi, Jennifer R Martin, Denise Roe, Brian L Erstad, Ivo Abraham","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2024.2365993","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We evaluated the comparative efficacy of six later-line (≥3) therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) over placebo. We applied a novel statistical method of reconstructing pseudo-patient-level data (pseudo-IPD) to inform a network meta-analysis of survival curves that considers shape in addition to scale parameters.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search yielded 10 phase II/III trials. We digitized all survival curves and applied a novel method incorporating curve coordinates, patients-at-risk, and events reported to generate pseudo-IPD. Using fitted random effects lognormal distributions, we estimated the survival proportions and HRs (95CrI) of progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) over 12 months of follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to placebo, in ascending order, 12-month OS HRs were 0.50 (95% CrI = 0.35, 0.69; PFS = 0.11 (95% CrI = 0.06, 0.14)) for TAS+bevacizumab; 0.71 (95% CrI = 0.51, 0.97; PFS = 0.26 (95% CrI = 0.16, 0.41)) for regorafenib; 0.75 (95% CrI = 0.61, 0.91; (PFS = 0.24 (95% CrI = 0.17, 0.31)) for TAS-102; 0.80 (95% CrI = 0.79, 0.90; PFS = 0.18 (95% CrI = 0.13, 0.24)) for fruquintinib; 0.83 (95% CrI = 0.50, 0.99; PFS = 0.42 (95% CrI = 0.20, 0.75)) for atezolizumab+cobimetinib; and 1.03 (95% CrI = 0.55, 1.65; PFS = 0.67 (95% CrI = 0.29, 1.01)) for atezolizumab.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this independent NMA of survival data, all later-line mCRC therapies but atezolizumab monotherapy exhibited superiority in 12-month PFS and OS over placebo. TAS+bevacizumab emerged as the most dominant option and may be the preferred choice, with fruquintinib, regorafenib, and TAS-102 monotherapy showing statistically significant but lower PFS and OS benefits.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO: CRD42022371953.</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2365993","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: We evaluated the comparative efficacy of six later-line (≥3) therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) over placebo. We applied a novel statistical method of reconstructing pseudo-patient-level data (pseudo-IPD) to inform a network meta-analysis of survival curves that considers shape in addition to scale parameters.

Methods: A literature search yielded 10 phase II/III trials. We digitized all survival curves and applied a novel method incorporating curve coordinates, patients-at-risk, and events reported to generate pseudo-IPD. Using fitted random effects lognormal distributions, we estimated the survival proportions and HRs (95CrI) of progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) over 12 months of follow-up.

Results: Compared to placebo, in ascending order, 12-month OS HRs were 0.50 (95% CrI = 0.35, 0.69; PFS = 0.11 (95% CrI = 0.06, 0.14)) for TAS+bevacizumab; 0.71 (95% CrI = 0.51, 0.97; PFS = 0.26 (95% CrI = 0.16, 0.41)) for regorafenib; 0.75 (95% CrI = 0.61, 0.91; (PFS = 0.24 (95% CrI = 0.17, 0.31)) for TAS-102; 0.80 (95% CrI = 0.79, 0.90; PFS = 0.18 (95% CrI = 0.13, 0.24)) for fruquintinib; 0.83 (95% CrI = 0.50, 0.99; PFS = 0.42 (95% CrI = 0.20, 0.75)) for atezolizumab+cobimetinib; and 1.03 (95% CrI = 0.55, 1.65; PFS = 0.67 (95% CrI = 0.29, 1.01)) for atezolizumab.

Conclusion: In this independent NMA of survival data, all later-line mCRC therapies but atezolizumab monotherapy exhibited superiority in 12-month PFS and OS over placebo. TAS+bevacizumab emerged as the most dominant option and may be the preferred choice, with fruquintinib, regorafenib, and TAS-102 monotherapy showing statistically significant but lower PFS and OS benefits.

Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42022371953.

转移性结直肠癌后线疗法的疗效比较:生存曲线网络荟萃分析。
简介我们评估了6种晚期(≥3种)转移性结直肠癌(mCRC)疗法与安慰剂的疗效比较。我们采用了一种新的统计方法,即重建伪患者水平数据(pseudo-IPD),为生存曲线的网络荟萃分析提供信息,该方法除了考虑尺度参数外,还考虑了形状参数:方法:通过文献检索获得了 10 项 II/III 期试验。我们对所有生存曲线进行了数字化处理,并采用一种包含曲线坐标、风险患者和报告事件的新方法来生成伪 IPD。利用拟合的随机效应对数正态分布,我们估算了随访12个月的无进展生存期(PFS)和总生存期(OS)的生存比例和HRs(95CrI):与安慰剂相比,TAS+贝伐珠单抗的 12 个月 OS HRs 由高到低依次为 0.50(95%CrI = 0.35, 0.69);PFS = 0.11(95%CrI = 0.06, 0.14);TAS+贝伐珠单抗的 12 个月 OS HRs 由高到低依次为 0.71(95%CrI = 0.51,0.97;PFS = 0.26(95%CrI = 0.16,0.41));瑞戈非尼为 0.75(95%CrI = 0.61,0.91;(PFS = 0.24(95%CrI = 0.17,0.31));TAS-102为0.80(95%CrI = 0.79,0.90;PFS = 0.18(95%CrI = 0.13,0.24));fruquintinib为0.83(95%CrI = 0.50,0.99;PFS = 0.42(95%CrI=0.20,0.75));atezolizumab+cobimetinib为1.03(95%CrI=0.55,1.65;PFS=0.67(95%CrI=0.29,1.01)):在这项独立的生存数据NMA中,除阿特珠单抗外,所有晚期mCRC疗法的12个月PFS和OS均优于安慰剂。TAS+贝伐单抗成为最主要的选择,并可能成为首选;而fruquintinib、regorafenib和TAS-102单药治疗的PFS和OS获益具有统计学意义,但较低:PROCROPERO:CRD42022371953。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信