Comparison of Poly (ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors (PARPis) as Maintenance Therapy for Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian Cancer: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
adverse event
network meta-analysis
ovarian cancer
overall survival
platinum-sensitive
poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor
progression-free survival
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Oct 2020
18 Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
27
09
2020
revised:
12
10
2020
accepted:
16
10
2020
entrez:
21
10
2020
pubmed:
22
10
2020
medline:
22
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Three PARPis (olaparib, niraparib and rucaparib) are currently FDA-approved as maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed and recurrent ovarian cancer. However, thus far, no trial has compared the three approved PARPis in the overall population, in patients with A frequentist network meta-analysis was used for indirect comparisons between the different PARPis with respect to progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events. Overall, six randomized clinical trials involving 2,770 patients, were included in the analysis. Results from the indirect comparisons revealed no statistically significant differences between the three PARPis with respect to PFS or OS in the entire population and in patients with mutated and wild-type BRCA, separately. Niraparib showed a statistically significant increased risk for grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia (risk-difference [RD] from placebo: 0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27‒0.34) and any grade neutropenia (RD from placebo: 0.22; 95% CI, 0.18‒0.25) as compared with the other PARPis. No statistically significant difference was found between the three PARPis with respect to PFS or OS (overall and in subpopulations by
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Three PARPis (olaparib, niraparib and rucaparib) are currently FDA-approved as maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed and recurrent ovarian cancer. However, thus far, no trial has compared the three approved PARPis in the overall population, in patients with
METHODS
METHODS
A frequentist network meta-analysis was used for indirect comparisons between the different PARPis with respect to progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall, six randomized clinical trials involving 2,770 patients, were included in the analysis. Results from the indirect comparisons revealed no statistically significant differences between the three PARPis with respect to PFS or OS in the entire population and in patients with mutated and wild-type BRCA, separately. Niraparib showed a statistically significant increased risk for grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia (risk-difference [RD] from placebo: 0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27‒0.34) and any grade neutropenia (RD from placebo: 0.22; 95% CI, 0.18‒0.25) as compared with the other PARPis.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
No statistically significant difference was found between the three PARPis with respect to PFS or OS (overall and in subpopulations by
Identifiants
pubmed: 33081005
pii: cancers12103026
doi: 10.3390/cancers12103026
pmc: PMC7603267
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
Oncotarget. 2014 May 30;5(10):3023-8
pubmed: 24632590
N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec;375(22):2154-2164
pubmed: 27717299
Semin Oncol Nurs. 2019 Apr;35(2):151-156
pubmed: 30867104
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20(1):e15-e28
pubmed: 30614472
N Engl J Med. 2012 Apr 12;366(15):1382-92
pubmed: 22452356
J Med Chem. 2017 Feb 23;60(4):1262-1271
pubmed: 28001384
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Aug;19(8):1126-1134
pubmed: 30026002
Pharm Pract (Granada). 2017 Jan-Mar;15(1):943
pubmed: 28503228
Cancer Res. 2012 Nov 15;72(22):5675-82
pubmed: 23066035
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Jul;15(8):852-61
pubmed: 24882434
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Sep;18(9):1274-1284
pubmed: 28754483
N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 19;381(25):2391-2402
pubmed: 31562799
Lancet. 2017 Oct 28;390(10106):1949-1961
pubmed: 28916367
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2019 Jan;39:185-195
pubmed: 31099635
Br J Cancer. 2016 Nov 22;115(11):1313-1320
pubmed: 27824811
Lancet. 2014 Oct 11;384(9951):1376-88
pubmed: 24767708
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jul 9;361(2):123-34
pubmed: 19553641
Br J Cancer. 2018 Oct;119(9):1075-1085
pubmed: 30353045
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Dec 1;37(34):3183-3191
pubmed: 31518175
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016 Aug 25;2:16061
pubmed: 27558151
Med Decis Making. 2013 Jul;33(5):702-14
pubmed: 23549384
Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2019 May 22;11:1758835919849753
pubmed: 31205507
BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898
pubmed: 31462531
Cancer Manag Res. 2019 May 10;11:4371-4390
pubmed: 31191001
Oncology (Williston Park). 2018 Aug 15;32(8):418-20, 422-4
pubmed: 30153322
Ann Oncol. 2018 Aug 1;29(8):1784-1792
pubmed: 29767688
N Engl J Med. 2018 Dec 27;379(26):2495-2505
pubmed: 30345884
Sci Rep. 2020 Feb 17;10(1):2585
pubmed: 32066817