Relationship between Treatment Effects on Progression-Free Survival and Overall Survival in Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Published Clinical Trial Data

2015 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 88-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon Cartier ◽  
Bin Zhang ◽  
Virginia M. Rosen ◽  
Victoria Zarotsky ◽  
J. Blake Bartlett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Trial Data ◽  
Free Survival

Efficacy Of Bortezomib-Based Regimens With Or Without An Immunomodulatory Agent In Older Adults With Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 5580-5580
Author(s):  
Jordan Atkins ◽  
Susan A Fowler ◽  
Methodius Tuuli ◽  
Aimee S James ◽  
Tanya M Wildes
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Partial Response ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Good Partial Response

Abstract Introduction Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable disease within older adults, caused by the malignant proliferation of plasma cells and destruction of skeletal structure, with subsequent end-organ dysfunction. In the elderly and transplant ineligible population, chemotherapeutic regimens that include novel and conventional drugs are currently being employed to attain optimal response and survival outcomes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib, in combination with an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) versus bortezomib-containing regimens alone in improving overall survival, progression-free survival, and response in patients aged 65 and older ineligible for stem cell transplant. Methods We searched Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, CENTRAL, DARE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 1946 until March 2013 using search terms such as: “bortezomib” “thalidomide/analogs and derivatives” and “lenalidomide.” Primary outcomes such as overall survival “OS” and progression-free survival “PFS” were harvested from standard indexes and on-topic articles. We abstracted data from relevant studies for analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane's Q and Higgin's I2 with p<0.1 considered significant. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and hazard ratios (HR) were estimated using DerSimonain and Laird random effect models. Results We identified 762 studies, 201 of which were duplicates that were excluded. Of these studies, 561 met initial inclusion criteria. After screening and systematic review, we found a majority of the articles originated from sub-analyses or reviews of 2 major studies which fully met inclusion criteria: 1) bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (VMPT) versus bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP) [Palumbo JCO 2010] and 2) bortezomib-thalidomide-prednisone (VTP) versus VMP [Mateos Lancet Onc 2010). Of the two studies included, 384 patients received thalidomide and bortezomib-containing regimens (VMPT or VTP), and 387 patients received VMP. Thalidomide-containing combinations were associated with improvement in complete response (pooled RR 1.55 [95% Confidence intervals 1.23-1.95]) and very good partial response (pooled RR 1.19 [95% Confidence intervals 1.04-1.38]). There was no evidence of significant heterogeneity associated with either of these outcomes across the studies (I2=0; p=0.559 and I2=0; p=0.600). There were no significant differences in partial response (pooled RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.98-1.19), overall survival (pooled HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.65-1.44), or progression-free survival (pooled HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.29-1.42). There were also no significant differences in toxic side effects (Table). Conclusion Based on the limited data included in this meta-analysis, we found that the addition of thalidomide to a bortezomib-based regimen was associated with improved complete response and very good partial response, but no improvement in overall or progression-free survival. Larger studies of thalidomide and other immunomodulatory agents are required to further clarify the role of adding IMiDs to bortezomib-based regimens in the treatment of MM. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Therapeutic efficacy of specific immunotherapy for glioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 443-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Hanaei ◽  
Khashayar Afshari ◽  
Armin Hirbod-Mobarakeh ◽  
Bahram Mohajer ◽  
Delara Amir Dastmalchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Specific Immunotherapy ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Median Difference

Abstract Although different immunotherapeutic approaches have been developed for the treatment of glioma, there is a discrepancy between clinical trials limiting their approval as common treatment. So, the current systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess survival and clinical response of specific immunotherapy in patients with glioma. Generally, seven databases were searched to find eligible studies. Controlled clinical trials investigating the efficacy of specific immunotherapy in glioma were found eligible. After data extraction and risk of bias assessment, the data were analyzed based on the level of heterogeneity. Overall, 25 articles with 2964 patients were included. Generally, mean overall survival did not statistically improve in immunotherapy [median difference=1.51; 95% confidence interval (CI)=−0.16–3.17; p=0.08]; however, it was 11.16 months higher in passive immunotherapy (95% CI=5.69–16.64; p<0.0001). One-year overall survival was significantly higher in immunotherapy groups [hazard ratio (HR)=0.69; 95% CI=0.52–0.92; p=0.01]. As the hazard rate in the immunotherapy approach was 0.83 of the control group, 2-year overall survival was significantly higher in immunotherapy (HR=0.83; 95% CI=0.69–0.99; p=0.04). Three-year overall survival was significantly higher in immunotherapy as well (HR=0.67; 95% CI=0.48–0.92; p=0.01). Overall, median progression-free survival was significantly higher in immunotherapy (standard median difference=0.323; 95% CI=0.110–0.536; p=0.003). However, 1-year progression-free survival was not remarkably different between immunotherapy and control groups (HR=0.94; 95% CI=0.74–1.18; p=0.59). Specific immunotherapy demonstrated remarkable improvement in survival of patients with glioma and could be a considerable choice of treatment in the future. Despite the current promising results, further high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to approve immunotherapeutic approaches as the standard of care and the front-line treatment for glioma.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of first line treatments for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor mutated, non-small cell lung cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. l5460 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi Zhao ◽  
Jingting Liu ◽  
Xiuyu Cai ◽  
Zhenkui Pan ◽  
Jun Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Combination Treatments ◽  
Exon 19 Deletion ◽  
Egfr Mutated

AbstractObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of first line treatments for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and several international conference databases, from inception to 20 May 2019.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesPublished and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing two or more treatments in the first line setting for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC were included in a bayesian network meta-analysis. Eligible studies reported at least one of the following clinical outcome measures: progression free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, and adverse events of grade 3 or higher.Results18 eligible trials involved 4628 patients and 12 treatments: EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs; osimertinib, dacomitinib, afatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib, and icotinib), pemetrexed based chemotherapy, pemetrexed free chemotherapy, and combination treatments (afatinib plus cetuximab, erlotinib plus bevacizumab, gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy, and gefitinib plus pemetrexed). Consistent with gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0.95, 95% credible interval 0.72 to 1.24), osimertinib showed the most favourable progression free survival, with significant differences versus dacomitinib (0.74, 0.55 to 1.00), afatinib (0.52, 0.40 to 0.68), erlotinib (0.48, 0.40 to 0.57), gefitinib (0.44, 0.37 to 0.52), icotinib (0.39, 0.24 to 0.62), pemetrexed based chemotherapy (0.24, 0.17 to 0.33), pemetrexed free chemotherapy (0.16, 0.13 to 0.20), afatinib plus cetuximab (0.44, 0.28 to 0.71), and gefitinib plus pemetrexed (0.65, 0.46 to 0.92). Osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy were also consistent (0.94, 0.66 to 1.35) in providing the best overall survival benefit. Combination treatments caused more toxicity in general, especially erlotinib plus bevacizumab, which caused the most adverse events of grade 3 or higher. Different toxicity spectrums were revealed for individual EGFR-TKIs. Subgroup analyses by the two most common EGFR mutation types indicated that osimertinib was associated with the best progression free survival in patients with the exon 19 deletion, and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy was associated with the best progression free survival in patients with the Leu858Arg mutation.ConclusionsThese results indicate that osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy were associated with the best progression free survival and overall survival benefits for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC, compared with other first line treatments. The treatments resulting in the best progression free survival for patients with the exon 19 deletion and Leu858Arg mutations were osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy, respectively.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018111954.

scholarly journals Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Correlation of Progression-Free Survival-2 and Overall Survival in Solid Tumors

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Chowdhury ◽  
Paul Mainwaring ◽  
Liangcai Zhang ◽  
Suneel Mundle ◽  
Eneida Pollozi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Free Survival

Third- and later-line treatment in advanced or metastatic gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 4409-4418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Rizzo ◽  
Veronica Mollica ◽  
Angela Dalia Ricci ◽  
Ilaria Maggio ◽  
Maria Massucci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Metastatic Gastric Cancer ◽  
Best Supportive Care ◽  
Free Survival

Aim: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of third-line (TLT) and salvage treatment (ST) in advanced or metastatic gastric cancer. Materials & methods: Eligible studies included randomized clinical trials assessing TLT and ST versus placebo or best supportive care. Outcomes of interest included: overall survival, objective response rate and disease control rate in TLT; progression-free survival in ST; grade 3–4 adverse events in ST. Results: The use of TLT and ST was superior to placebo or best supportive care in terms of prolonging overall survival and progression-free survival. Hematological toxicities were more frequent in ST. Conclusion: TLT and ST are considerable and tolerable treatment options for patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer. Given the substantial heterogeneities affecting the efficacy analyses, these results have to be interpreted cautiously.

Anthracycline-Containing Regimens for Treatment of Follicular Lymphoma In Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 2820-2820 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gilad Itchaki ◽  
Anat Gafter-Gvili ◽  
Meir Lahav ◽  
Pia Raanani ◽  
Liat Vidal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Disease Control ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Response Duration ◽  
Aggressive Lymphoma ◽  
Transformation Rate ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Abstract 2820 Introduction: Follicular lymphoma (FL) is the most common indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), yet there are no standard guidelines regarding the best chemotherapeutic regimens for its management. The most prevalent regimens, especially in advanced disease, incorporate anthracyclines. There is no proof, however, that they are superior to non-anthracycline containing regimens, or even to single agent therapy. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing anthracycline-containing regimens (ACR) to non-anthracycline containing chemotherapy (non-ACR) for adult patients with FL. Trials assessing rituximab or other immunotherapy were included only if the anthracycline was the only difference between study arms. A comprehensive search was conducted with no restrictions, until July 2010. Two reviewers appraised the quality of trials and extracted data. The primary outcome was overall survival. Time to event data was extracted and pooled hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Secondary outcomes included survival at 5 years, disease control defined as progression free survival (PFS) or response duration (RD), transformation rate to aggressive lymphoma, complete remission (CR), overall response (OR), and adverse events. Risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes were pooled using random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 measure of inconsistency. Results: We identified ten trials, conducted between the years 1974–2006 and randomizing 2422 adult patients. Nine trials included naïve patients; one included relapsed and refractory FL patients. Six trials compared between the same chemotherapeutic regimens, with the addition of anthracyclines in the intervention arm as the only difference. There was no statistically significant difference between ACR and non-ACR arms, regarding overall survival at the end of follow up or all cause mortality at five years (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.76 – 1.23 and RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.76 – 1.17, respectively, I2=0% for both analyses). PFS and RD favored the ACR arm, with a HR of 0.69, 95% CI 0.51–0.91 for disease control, 3 studies, I2=11%. There was no significant difference with regard to CR and OR, but analyses were heterogeneous. In four out of the ten trials, different chemotherapeutic regimens were compared, and only one study-arm contained anthracyclines. Similar to the results obtained with the same regimens comparison, there was no benefit for ACR with regard to OS (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.77 – 1.15) and mortality at five years (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.84 – 1.16). Disease control was improved with ACR (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.60–0.93). In all studies, there were no data regarding transformation rate to aggressive lymphoma. Toxicity data reported was insufficient for appropriate meta-analysis. Overall, ACR were more often associated with cytopenias, especially neutropenia, although the frequency of serious infections or death related to chemotherapy was similar to non-ACR. Also, alopecia and gastrointestinal side-effects, including nausea and vomiting, were more common with ACR. Cardiotoxicity was reported in five trials, and albeit rare, was associated with anthracycline use (RR 8.62; 95% CI 1.58 to 47.05). Conclusion: The use of anthracyclines in patients with FL has no demonstrable benefit on overall survival. However, ACR improve disease control, as measured by progression free survival and response duration with an increased risk for side effects, notably cardiotoxicity. Disclosures: Shpilberg: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria.

scholarly journals Does an Alternative Sunitinib Dosing Schedule Really Improve Survival Outcomes Over a Conventional Dosing Schedule in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma? An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 1830
Author(s):  
Doo Yong Chung ◽  
Dong Hyuk Kang ◽  
Jong Won Kim ◽  
Do Kyung Kim ◽  
Joo Yong Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Dosing Schedule ◽  
Free Survival

Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) can obfuscate the maintenance of a conventional schedule of sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Accordingly, alternative schedules seeking to improve the safety profile of sunitinib have been tested. Recently, two meta-analyses similarly described improved safety profiles favoring a two weeks on and one week off (2/1) schedule, but with conflicting results for survival outcomes. Therefore, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis, including all recently published studies and using complementary statistical methods. Endpoints included progression-free survival, overall survival, and AEs of 15 types. Eleven articles were included in this meta-analysis. Using adjusted findings, we noted statistically better results in progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.39–0.84; p = 0.005), but no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.42–1.04; p = 0.08). Moreover, the 2/1 schedule was beneficial for reducing the incidence of several AEs. Conclusively, our meta-analysis suggests that the 2/1 schedule holds promise as an alternative means of reducing AEs and maintaining patient quality of life. While the survival outcomes of the 2/1 schedule seem also to be favorable, the level of evidence for this was low, and the interpretation of these findings should warrant caution. Large scale randomized trials are needed to support these results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document