达非尼和曲美替尼与抗pd (L)1辅助治疗局部晚期braf突变黑色素瘤:系统回顾和荟萃分析

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Oncologist Pub Date : 2025-09-01 DOI:10.1093/oncolo/oyaf247
Daniel V Araujo, Bruno Lins Souza, Mariana F Seibel, Aline F Fares, Vitor T Liutti
{"title":"达非尼和曲美替尼与抗pd (L)1辅助治疗局部晚期braf突变黑色素瘤:系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Daniel V Araujo, Bruno Lins Souza, Mariana F Seibel, Aline F Fares, Vitor T Liutti","doi":"10.1093/oncolo/oyaf247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Both dabrafenib and trametinib (D + T) and anti-PD(L)1s have been shown to improve recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with stage III or resected stage IV BRAF-mutant melanoma. However, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared them in the adjuvant setting, creating uncertainties about the optimal approach. This systematic review and meta-analysis address this knowledge gap.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus was conducted to identify studies comparing D + T with anti-PD(L)1 therapies. Studies with overlapping populations were excluded. Statistical analyses employed a random-effects model, with heterogeneity assessed via I 2 statistics. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024553421).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight observational studies (2394 patients) met the inclusion criteria. No eligible RCTs were identified. Median follow-up ranged from 10 to 53 months. Dabrafenib and trametinib improved RFS compared to anti-PD(L)1 therapies (hazard ratio [HR] 0.53, 95% CI, 0.40-0.70, P < .01; I 2 = 55%). However, no significant difference was observed in overall survival (OS) (HR 0.83, 95% CI, 0.60-1.15, P = .27; I 2 = 0%). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. Dabrafenib and trametinib was associated with a higher rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs), with a relative risk of 1.57 (95% CI, 1.30-1.91, P < .01; I 2 = 0%), corresponding to a risk difference of 8% (95% CI, 5%-12%, P < .01; I 2 = 0%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dabrafenib and trametinib demonstrated superiority over anti-PD(L)1 therapies in terms of RFS. However, no OS benefit was observed, and D + T was associated with a higher risk of treatment discontinuation. These findings should be considered when counseling patients, as the choice of adjuvant therapy may need to be tailored to individual preferences and tolerability.</p>","PeriodicalId":54686,"journal":{"name":"Oncologist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12449075/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dabrafenib and trametinib vs anti-PD(L)1 for the adjuvant treatment of locally advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel V Araujo, Bruno Lins Souza, Mariana F Seibel, Aline F Fares, Vitor T Liutti\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oncolo/oyaf247\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Both dabrafenib and trametinib (D + T) and anti-PD(L)1s have been shown to improve recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with stage III or resected stage IV BRAF-mutant melanoma. However, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared them in the adjuvant setting, creating uncertainties about the optimal approach. This systematic review and meta-analysis address this knowledge gap.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus was conducted to identify studies comparing D + T with anti-PD(L)1 therapies. Studies with overlapping populations were excluded. Statistical analyses employed a random-effects model, with heterogeneity assessed via I 2 statistics. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024553421).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight observational studies (2394 patients) met the inclusion criteria. No eligible RCTs were identified. Median follow-up ranged from 10 to 53 months. Dabrafenib and trametinib improved RFS compared to anti-PD(L)1 therapies (hazard ratio [HR] 0.53, 95% CI, 0.40-0.70, P < .01; I 2 = 55%). However, no significant difference was observed in overall survival (OS) (HR 0.83, 95% CI, 0.60-1.15, P = .27; I 2 = 0%). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. Dabrafenib and trametinib was associated with a higher rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs), with a relative risk of 1.57 (95% CI, 1.30-1.91, P < .01; I 2 = 0%), corresponding to a risk difference of 8% (95% CI, 5%-12%, P < .01; I 2 = 0%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dabrafenib and trametinib demonstrated superiority over anti-PD(L)1 therapies in terms of RFS. However, no OS benefit was observed, and D + T was associated with a higher risk of treatment discontinuation. These findings should be considered when counseling patients, as the choice of adjuvant therapy may need to be tailored to individual preferences and tolerability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54686,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oncologist\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12449075/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oncologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyaf247\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oncologist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyaf247","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:Dabrafenib和Trametinib (D + T)和Anti-PD(L)1s均可改善III期或切除的IV期braf突变黑色素瘤患者的无复发生存率(RFS)。然而,没有随机对照试验(rct)直接比较它们在辅助治疗中的作用,这就产生了最佳治疗方法的不确定性。本系统综述和荟萃分析解决了这一知识差距。方法:对PubMed、Embase和Scopus进行综合检索,以确定D + T与抗pd (L)1治疗的比较研究。重叠人群的研究被排除在外。统计分析采用随机效应模型,通过I2统计量评估异质性。本研究已在PROSPERO注册(CRD42024553421)。结果:8项观察性研究(2394例患者)符合纳入标准。未发现符合条件的随机对照试验。中位随访时间为10-53个月。与抗pd (L)1治疗相比,D + T可改善RFS (HR 0.53, 95%CI 0.40-0.70, p)结论:D + T在RFS方面优于抗pd (L)1治疗。然而,没有观察到OS获益,并且D + T与更高的治疗中断风险相关。在咨询患者时应考虑这些发现,因为辅助治疗的选择可能需要根据个人偏好和耐受性进行调整。实践意义:在RFS方面,D + T辅助治疗BRAF突变型黑色素瘤优于抗pd (L)1疗法。然而,没有证实OS差异,并且D + T与由于不良事件导致的更高的治疗中断风险相关。这些发现强调了基于患者偏好和耐受性的个性化治疗决策的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Dabrafenib and trametinib vs anti-PD(L)1 for the adjuvant treatment of locally advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dabrafenib and trametinib vs anti-PD(L)1 for the adjuvant treatment of locally advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dabrafenib and trametinib vs anti-PD(L)1 for the adjuvant treatment of locally advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dabrafenib and trametinib vs anti-PD(L)1 for the adjuvant treatment of locally advanced BRAF-mutant melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Both dabrafenib and trametinib (D + T) and anti-PD(L)1s have been shown to improve recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with stage III or resected stage IV BRAF-mutant melanoma. However, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared them in the adjuvant setting, creating uncertainties about the optimal approach. This systematic review and meta-analysis address this knowledge gap.

Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus was conducted to identify studies comparing D + T with anti-PD(L)1 therapies. Studies with overlapping populations were excluded. Statistical analyses employed a random-effects model, with heterogeneity assessed via I 2 statistics. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024553421).

Results: Eight observational studies (2394 patients) met the inclusion criteria. No eligible RCTs were identified. Median follow-up ranged from 10 to 53 months. Dabrafenib and trametinib improved RFS compared to anti-PD(L)1 therapies (hazard ratio [HR] 0.53, 95% CI, 0.40-0.70, P < .01; I 2 = 55%). However, no significant difference was observed in overall survival (OS) (HR 0.83, 95% CI, 0.60-1.15, P = .27; I 2 = 0%). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. Dabrafenib and trametinib was associated with a higher rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs), with a relative risk of 1.57 (95% CI, 1.30-1.91, P < .01; I 2 = 0%), corresponding to a risk difference of 8% (95% CI, 5%-12%, P < .01; I 2 = 0%).

Conclusions: Dabrafenib and trametinib demonstrated superiority over anti-PD(L)1 therapies in terms of RFS. However, no OS benefit was observed, and D + T was associated with a higher risk of treatment discontinuation. These findings should be considered when counseling patients, as the choice of adjuvant therapy may need to be tailored to individual preferences and tolerability.

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
Oncologist
Oncologist 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
309
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Oncologist® is dedicated to translating the latest research developments into the best multidimensional care for cancer patients. Thus, The Oncologist is committed to helping physicians excel in this ever-expanding environment through the publication of timely reviews, original studies, and commentaries on important developments. We believe that the practice of oncology requires both an understanding of a range of disciplines encompassing basic science related to cancer, translational research, and clinical practice, but also the socioeconomic and psychosocial factors that determine access to care and quality of life and function following cancer treatment.
×
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