A Network Meta-Analysis of Short and Long-Term Efficacy of Targeted Therapy With Single or Double-Drug Regimens in the Treatment of Stage III/IV Malignant Melanoma Based on 16 Randomized Controlled Trials

Efficacy and safety of dabrafenib-trametinib in the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600 mutation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

The current systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib plus trametinib (dabrafenib-trametinib) with those of other therapeutic alternatives in the treatment of patients with BRAF V600 mutation unresectable or metastatic melanoma. The search was carried out on four databases up to July-2018. Two separate network meta-analyses (NMA) were performed using the frequentist method (random effects): one with an exclusive population with BRAF V600 mutation (NMA-pBRAFV600) and another with a mixed population (with or without the mutation: NMA-pMixed). An evidence profile was included using the GRADE method for NMA. The validity of the final estimator in the NMA-pMixed was assessed via sensitivity analysis. Five clinical trials were included in the NMA-pBRAFV600. In the NMA-pBRAFV600 population, dabrafenib-trametinib had a favorable effect on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with dabrafenib, vemurafenib, and dacarbazine, and on partial response rate (PRR) and overall response rate (ORR) compared with dacarbazine and vemurafenib. In the NMA-pMixed population, dabrafenib-trametinib had a positive effect on OS vs ipilimumab 3 mg/kg and on PFS and PRR vs ipilimumab (3 and 10 mg/kg), nivolumab, and pembrolizumab. However, dabrafenib-trametinib, and vemurafenib-cobimetinib were comparable in terms of clinical efficacy. In addition, dabrafenib-trametinib was associated with less grades 3 and 4 adverse events.

Efficacy and safety of dabrafenib-trametinib in the treatment of unresectable advanced/metastatic melanoma with BRAF-V600 mutation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

The current systematic review aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib-trametinib with those of other therapeutic alternatives in the treatment of patients with unresectable advanced/metastatic melanoma with BRAF-V600 mutation. The search was carried out on four databases up to July 2018. Two separate network meta-analyses (NMA) were performed using the frequentist method (random effects): one with an exclusive population with BRAF-V600 mutation (NMA-pBRAFV600) and another with mixed population (with or without the mutation: NMA-pMixed). An evidence profile was included using the GRADE method for NMA. The validity of the final estimator in the NMA-pMixed was assessed via a sensitivity analysis. Nine clinical trials were included in the NMA-pBRAFV600. Dabrafenib-trametinib was found to have a favorable effect on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with dabrafenib, vemurafenib, and dacarbazine and on partial response rate (PRR) and overall response rate compared with dacarbazine and vemurafenib. In the NMA-pMixed, dabrafenib-trametinib was found to have a positive effect on OS versus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg and on PFS and PRR versus ipilimumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab. However, dabrafenib-trametinib and vemurafenib-cobimetinib significantly differed in terms of efficacy. In addition, dabrafenib-trametinib has a favorable effect on Grades 3 and 4 adverse events.

Indirect comparison between immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies for the treatment of melanoma

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide comparative and quantitative data about immune checkpoint inhibitor (IMM) and targeted therapy (TAR) in this work.

Methods: A literature search was performed with PubMed, Embase, PMC database, and Web of Science databases to identify relevant studies. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and odds ratios (ORs) for overall response rate (ORR) were estimated.

Results: Eighteen manuscripts were ultimately utilized for indirect comparisons. In general, both TAR and IMM can prolong the PFS either by monotherapy, combination therapy with chemotherapy or adjuvant therapy. BRAF inhibitor monotherapy showed superiority over anti-CTLA-4 in OS (HR: 1.28, 95%CI: 0.93-1.75) and best ORR (OR: 12.57, 95%CI: 6.63-23.82), as well as longer PFS (HR: 1.63, 95%CI: 1.00-2.67) and higher best ORR (OR: 3.29, 95%CI: 1.94-5.55) compared with anti-PD-1. However, MEK inhibitor monotherapy showed no priority. When combined with chemotherapy, anti-CTLA-4 showed marginally advantages over MEK inhibitor in OS (HR: 0.68, 95%CI: 0.44-1.03), however no advantage in PFS (HR: 1.12, 95%CI: 0.76-1.64), or ORR (OR: 1.78, 95%CI: 0.70-4.49). For post-operational melanoma patient, adjuvant TAR and adjuvant IMM showed no difference in OS (HR: 1.14, 95%CI: 0.82-1.58) or PFS (HR: 1.20, 95%CI: 0.79-1.83). Moreover, the high-rate adverse events and underlying diseases should be considered during the application of those agents.

Conclusions: For the unresectable late-stage melanoma, IMM may be a better choice for the combined treatment with chemotherapy. If the chemotherapy is not tolerable for patients, BRAFi involved TAR can be considered.