A systematic review and network meta-analysis of second-line therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma.


Journal

Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.)
ISSN: 1718-7729
Titre abrégé: Curr Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9502503

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 2020
Historique:
entrez: 31 12 2020
pubmed: 1 1 2021
medline: 25 9 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

In patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (hcc) following sorafenib failure, it is unclear which treatment is most efficacious, as treatments in the second-line setting have not been directly compared and no standard therapy exists. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (nma) aimed to compare the clinical benefits and toxicities of these treatments. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (rcts) was conducted to identify phase iii rcts in advanced hcc following sorafenib failure. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of placebo were examined for heterogeneity. Primary outcomes of interest were extracted for results, including overall survival (os), progression-free survival (pfs), objective response rate (orr), grade 3/4 toxicities, and subgroups. An nma was conducted to compare both drugs through the intermediate placebo. Comparisons were expressed as hazard ratios (hrs) for os and pfs, and as risk difference (rd) for orr and toxicities. Subgroup analyses for os and pfs were also performed. Two rcts were identified (1280 patients) and compared through an indirect network; celestial (cabozantinib vs. placebo) and resorce (regorafenib vs. placebo). Baseline characteristics of patients in both trials were similar. Both trials also had similar placebo outcomes. Cabozantinib, compared with regorafenib, showed similar os [hazard ratio (hr): 1.21; 95% confidence interval (ci): 0.90 to 1.62], pfs (hr: 1.02; 95% ci: 0.78 to 1.34) and orr (-3.0%; 95% ci: -7.6% to 1.7%). Both treatments showed similar toxicities, but there were marginally higher risks of grade 3/4 hand-foot syndrome (5%; 95% ci: 0.1% to 9.8%), diarrhea (4.8%; 95% ci: 1.1% to 8.5%), and anorexia (4.4%; 95% ci: 0.8% to 8.0%) for cabozantinib. Subgroup results for os and pfs were consistent with overall results. Overall, this nma determined that cabozantinib and regorafenib have similar clinical benefits and toxicities for second-line hcc.

Sections du résumé

Background
In patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (hcc) following sorafenib failure, it is unclear which treatment is most efficacious, as treatments in the second-line setting have not been directly compared and no standard therapy exists. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (nma) aimed to compare the clinical benefits and toxicities of these treatments.
Methods
A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (rcts) was conducted to identify phase iii rcts in advanced hcc following sorafenib failure. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of placebo were examined for heterogeneity. Primary outcomes of interest were extracted for results, including overall survival (os), progression-free survival (pfs), objective response rate (orr), grade 3/4 toxicities, and subgroups. An nma was conducted to compare both drugs through the intermediate placebo. Comparisons were expressed as hazard ratios (hrs) for os and pfs, and as risk difference (rd) for orr and toxicities. Subgroup analyses for os and pfs were also performed.
Results
Two rcts were identified (1280 patients) and compared through an indirect network; celestial (cabozantinib vs. placebo) and resorce (regorafenib vs. placebo). Baseline characteristics of patients in both trials were similar. Both trials also had similar placebo outcomes. Cabozantinib, compared with regorafenib, showed similar os [hazard ratio (hr): 1.21; 95% confidence interval (ci): 0.90 to 1.62], pfs (hr: 1.02; 95% ci: 0.78 to 1.34) and orr (-3.0%; 95% ci: -7.6% to 1.7%). Both treatments showed similar toxicities, but there were marginally higher risks of grade 3/4 hand-foot syndrome (5%; 95% ci: 0.1% to 9.8%), diarrhea (4.8%; 95% ci: 1.1% to 8.5%), and anorexia (4.4%; 95% ci: 0.8% to 8.0%) for cabozantinib. Subgroup results for os and pfs were consistent with overall results.
Conclusions
Overall, this nma determined that cabozantinib and regorafenib have similar clinical benefits and toxicities for second-line hcc.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33380861
doi: 10.3747/co.27.6583
pii: conc-27-300
pmc: PMC7755448
doi:

Substances chimiques

Sorafenib 9ZOQ3TZI87

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

300-306

Informations de copyright

2020 Multimed Inc.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare that we have none.

Références

Lancet Oncol. 2019 Feb;20(2):282-296
pubmed: 30665869
Lancet Oncol. 2009 Jan;10(1):25-34
pubmed: 19095497
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2019 Apr;53(4):251-261
pubmed: 30575632
Clin Liver Dis. 2011 May;15(2):423-41, vii-x
pubmed: 21689622
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 06;9(10):e108749
pubmed: 25286060
Pharm Pract (Granada). 2017 Jan-Mar;15(1):943
pubmed: 28503228
World J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jun 10;8(3):203-213
pubmed: 28638790
Ann Intern Med. 2003 Nov 18;139(10):817-23
pubmed: 14623619
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Jul;16(7):859-70
pubmed: 26095784
Oral Oncol. 2017 Aug;71:1-10
pubmed: 28688674
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Sep 15;106(9):
pubmed: 25224562
N Engl J Med. 2008 Jul 24;359(4):378-90
pubmed: 18650514
BMC Med. 2014 Jun 05;12:93
pubmed: 24898705
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jul;19(7):940-952
pubmed: 29875066
Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2019 Jan 11;20(2):3
pubmed: 30635732
World J Gastroenterol. 2016 Jan 7;22(1):407-16
pubmed: 26755886
PLoS One. 2015 Oct 16;10(10):e0140187
pubmed: 26474403
Heart Lung Vessel. 2015;7(2):133-42
pubmed: 26157739
Drugs Context. 2019 Apr 10;8:212577
pubmed: 31024634
Oncotarget. 2017 Oct 3;8(60):102321-102327
pubmed: 29254247
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jul 05;379(1):54-63
pubmed: 29972759
Lancet Oncol. 2007 Oct;8(10):898-911
pubmed: 17888735
Gastric Cancer. 2017 Jul;20(4):646-654
pubmed: 27722826
Lancet. 2017 Jan 7;389(10064):56-66
pubmed: 27932229

Auteurs

S Delos Santos (S)

Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.

S Udayakumar (S)

Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.

A Nguyen (A)

Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.

Y J Ko (YJ)

Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.

S Berry (S)

Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.

M Doherty (M)

Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.

K K W Chan (KKW)

Sunnybrook Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, ON.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH