转移性结直肠癌的二线全身治疗:基于RCT的系统评价和贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。

IF 2.6 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2024-12-23 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0313278
Chengyu Sun, Enguo Fan, Luqiao Huang, Zhengguo Zhang
{"title":"转移性结直肠癌的二线全身治疗:基于RCT的系统评价和贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Chengyu Sun, Enguo Fan, Luqiao Huang, Zhengguo Zhang","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0313278","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal second-line systemic treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is inconclusive.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for RCTs comparing second-line systemic treatments for mCRC from the inception of each database up to February 3, 2024. Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) technique was used in this network meta-analysis (NMA) to generate the direct and indirect comparison results among multiple treatments in progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), complete response (CR), partial response (PR), grade 3 and above adverse events (Grade ≥ 3AE), and any adverse events (Any AE). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was adopted to evaluate the probability of each treatment being the optimum intervention. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the RAS gene status.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 47 randomized controlled trials were included, involving 16,925 patients and 44 second-line systemic treatments. In improving OS, FOLFOX + Bevacizumab + Erlotinib exhibited significant superiority (SUCRA:92.7%). In improving PFS, Irinotecan + CMAB009 (SUCRA:86.4%) had advantages over other treatments. FOLFIRI + Trebananib (SUCRA:88.1%) had a significant advantage in improving ORR. Among multiple second-line treatments, the SUCRA values of FOLFOX + Bevacizumab in PFS, OS, ORR, and PR were 83.4%, 74.0%, 81.1%, and 86.1%, respectively, and the safety was not significantly different from other interventions. Subgroup analyses showed that FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab + panitumumab ranked among the top in survival outcomes in the RAS-mutant population (OS SUCRA: 87.9%; PFS SUCRA: 70.2%); whereas in the RAS-wild-type population, FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab significantly improved survival outcomes (OS SUCRA: 73.2%; PFS SUCRA: 65.1%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For most people, FOLFOX + Bevacizumab may be the best second-line systemic treatment regimen for mCRC. For RAS-mutant populations, FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab + Panitumumab is recommended. However, the therapeutic effect may be affected by the patient's physiological state, and clinicians should apply it based on actual conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"19 12","pages":"e0313278"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11666018/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Second-line systemic treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis based on RCT.\",\"authors\":\"Chengyu Sun, Enguo Fan, Luqiao Huang, Zhengguo Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pone.0313278\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal second-line systemic treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is inconclusive.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for RCTs comparing second-line systemic treatments for mCRC from the inception of each database up to February 3, 2024. Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) technique was used in this network meta-analysis (NMA) to generate the direct and indirect comparison results among multiple treatments in progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), complete response (CR), partial response (PR), grade 3 and above adverse events (Grade ≥ 3AE), and any adverse events (Any AE). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was adopted to evaluate the probability of each treatment being the optimum intervention. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the RAS gene status.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 47 randomized controlled trials were included, involving 16,925 patients and 44 second-line systemic treatments. In improving OS, FOLFOX + Bevacizumab + Erlotinib exhibited significant superiority (SUCRA:92.7%). In improving PFS, Irinotecan + CMAB009 (SUCRA:86.4%) had advantages over other treatments. FOLFIRI + Trebananib (SUCRA:88.1%) had a significant advantage in improving ORR. Among multiple second-line treatments, the SUCRA values of FOLFOX + Bevacizumab in PFS, OS, ORR, and PR were 83.4%, 74.0%, 81.1%, and 86.1%, respectively, and the safety was not significantly different from other interventions. Subgroup analyses showed that FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab + panitumumab ranked among the top in survival outcomes in the RAS-mutant population (OS SUCRA: 87.9%; PFS SUCRA: 70.2%); whereas in the RAS-wild-type population, FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab significantly improved survival outcomes (OS SUCRA: 73.2%; PFS SUCRA: 65.1%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For most people, FOLFOX + Bevacizumab may be the best second-line systemic treatment regimen for mCRC. For RAS-mutant populations, FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab + Panitumumab is recommended. However, the therapeutic effect may be affected by the patient's physiological state, and clinicians should apply it based on actual conditions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"volume\":\"19 12\",\"pages\":\"e0313278\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11666018/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313278\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313278","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:转移性结直肠癌(mCRC)的最佳二线全身治疗尚无定论。方法:我们检索PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE和Cochrane Library,从每个数据库建立到2024年2月3日,比较mCRC二线系统治疗的rct。本网络meta分析(NMA)采用马尔科夫链蒙特卡罗(MCMC)技术,在无进展生存期(PFS)、总缓解率(ORR)、总生存期(OS)、完全缓解(CR)、部分缓解(PR)、3级及以上不良事件(grade≥3AE)和任何不良事件(any AE)等多个治疗之间产生直接和间接比较结果。采用累积排序曲线下曲面(SUCRA)评价各处理为最优干预的概率。根据RAS基因状态进行亚组分析。结果:共纳入47项随机对照试验,涉及16,925例患者,44例二线全身治疗。在改善OS方面,FOLFOX +贝伐单抗+厄洛替尼表现出显著的优势(SUCRA:92.7%)。在改善PFS方面,伊立替康+ CMAB009 (supra:86.4%)优于其他治疗。FOLFIRI + Trebananib (SUCRA:88.1%)在改善ORR方面有显著优势。在多重二线治疗中,FOLFOX +贝伐单抗在PFS、OS、ORR和PR中的SUCRA值分别为83.4%、74.0%、81.1%和86.1%,安全性与其他干预无显著差异。亚组分析显示,在ras -突变人群中,FOLFIRI +贝伐单抗+帕尼单抗的生存结果排名最高(OS SUCRA: 87.9%;PFS: 70.2%);而在ras -野生型人群中,FOLFIRI +贝伐单抗显著改善了生存结果(OS SUCRA: 73.2%;PFS比例:65.1%)。结论:对于大多数人来说,FOLFOX +贝伐单抗可能是mCRC的最佳二线全身治疗方案。对于ras突变人群,推荐使用FOLFIRI +贝伐单抗+帕尼单抗。但治疗效果可能受患者生理状态的影响,临床医生应根据实际情况应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Second-line systemic treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis based on RCT.

Background: The optimal second-line systemic treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is inconclusive.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for RCTs comparing second-line systemic treatments for mCRC from the inception of each database up to February 3, 2024. Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) technique was used in this network meta-analysis (NMA) to generate the direct and indirect comparison results among multiple treatments in progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), complete response (CR), partial response (PR), grade 3 and above adverse events (Grade ≥ 3AE), and any adverse events (Any AE). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was adopted to evaluate the probability of each treatment being the optimum intervention. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the RAS gene status.

Results: A total of 47 randomized controlled trials were included, involving 16,925 patients and 44 second-line systemic treatments. In improving OS, FOLFOX + Bevacizumab + Erlotinib exhibited significant superiority (SUCRA:92.7%). In improving PFS, Irinotecan + CMAB009 (SUCRA:86.4%) had advantages over other treatments. FOLFIRI + Trebananib (SUCRA:88.1%) had a significant advantage in improving ORR. Among multiple second-line treatments, the SUCRA values of FOLFOX + Bevacizumab in PFS, OS, ORR, and PR were 83.4%, 74.0%, 81.1%, and 86.1%, respectively, and the safety was not significantly different from other interventions. Subgroup analyses showed that FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab + panitumumab ranked among the top in survival outcomes in the RAS-mutant population (OS SUCRA: 87.9%; PFS SUCRA: 70.2%); whereas in the RAS-wild-type population, FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab significantly improved survival outcomes (OS SUCRA: 73.2%; PFS SUCRA: 65.1%).

Conclusion: For most people, FOLFOX + Bevacizumab may be the best second-line systemic treatment regimen for mCRC. For RAS-mutant populations, FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab + Panitumumab is recommended. However, the therapeutic effect may be affected by the patient's physiological state, and clinicians should apply it based on actual conditions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信