Meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials in oncology

Individual Participant Data Network Meta-Analysis of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Carcinoma

PURPOSE

The optimal neoadjuvant treatment for resectable carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus (TE) or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) remains a matter of debate. We performed an individual participant data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to study the effect of chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, with a focus on tumor location and histology subgroups.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All, published or unpublished, RCTs closed to accrual before December 31, 2015 and having compared at least two of the following strategies were eligible: upfront surgery (S), chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS), and chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (CRS). All analyses were conducted on IPD obtained from investigators. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). The IPD-NMA was analyzed by a one-step mixed-effect Cox model adjusted for age, sex, tumor location, and histology. The NMA was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018107158).

RESULTS

IPD were obtained for 26 of 35 RCTs (4,985 of 5,807 patients) corresponding to 12 comparisons for CS-S, 12 for CRS-S, and four for CRS-CS. CS and CRS led to increased OS when compared with S with hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86 (0.75 to 0.99), P = .03 and HR = 0.77 (0.68 to 0.87), P < .001 respectively. The NMA comparison of CRS versus CS for OS gave a HR of 0.90 (0.74 to 1.09), P = .27 (consistency P = .26, heterogeneity P = .0038). For CS versus S, a larger effect on OS was observed for GEJ versus TE tumors (P = .036). For the CRS versus S and CRS versus CS, a larger effect on OS was observed for women (P = .003, .012, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy were consistently better than S alone across histology, but with some variation in the magnitude of treatment effect by sex for CRS and tumor location for CS. A strong OS difference between CS and CRS was not identified.

Effect of Induction Chemotherapy in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Background

Previous meta-analysis had evaluated the effect of induction chemotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. But two trials with opposite findings were not included and the long-term result of another trial significantly differed from the preliminary report. This updated meta-analysis was thus warranted.

Methods

Literature search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials focusing on the additional efficacy of induction chemotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Trial-level pooled analysis of hazard ratio (HR) for progression free survival and overall survival and risk ratio (RR) for locoregional control rate and distant control rate were performed.

Results

Twelve trials were eligible. The addition of induction chemotherapy significantly prolonged both progression free survival (HR=0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60–0.76, p<0.001) and overall survival (HR=0.67, 95% CI 0.54–0.80, p<0.001), with 5-year absolute benefit of 11.31% and 8.95%, respectively. Locoregional (RR=0.80, 95% CI 0.70–0.92, p=0.002) and distant control (RR=0.70, 95% CI 0.62–0.80) rates were significantly improved as well. The incidence of grade 3–4 adverse events during the concurrent chemoradiotherapy was higher in leukopenia (p=0.028), thrombocytopenia (p<0.001), and fatigue (p=0.038) in the induction chemotherapy group.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis supported that induction chemotherapy could benefit patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma in progression free survival, overall survival, locoregional, and distant control rate.

Overall Survival in Men With Bone Metastases From Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treated With Bone-Targeting Radioisotopes: A Meta-analysis of Individual Patient Data From Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance

Both α-emitting and β-emitting bone-targeted radioisotopes (RIs) have been developed to treat men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Only 1 phase 3 randomized clinical trial has demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit from an α-emitting RI, radium 223 (223Ra), vs standard of care. Yet no head-to-head comparison has been done between α-emitting and β-emitting RIs.

Objective

To assess OS in men with bone metastases from CRPC treated with bone-targeted RIs and to compare the effects of α-emitting RIs with β-emitting RIs.

Data Sources

PubMed, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and meeting proceedings between January 1993 and June 2013 were reviewed. Key terms included randomized trials, radioisotopes, radiopharmaceuticals, and prostate cancer. Data were collected, checked, and analyzed from February 2017 to October 2018.

Study Selection

Selected trials included patients with prostate cancer, recruited more than 50 patients from January 1993 to June 2013, compared RI use with no RI use (placebo, external radiotherapy, or chemotherapy), and were randomized. Patients were diagnosed with histologically proven prostate cancer and disease progression after both surgical or chemical castration and have evidence of bone metastasis. Nine randomized clinical trials were identified as eligible, but 3 were excluded for insufficient data.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Individual patient data were requested for each eligible trial, and all data were checked with a standard procedure. The log-rank test stratified by trial was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs), and a similar fixed-effects (FE) model was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs). The between-trial heterogeneity of treatment effects was evaluated by Cochran test and I2 and was accounted by a random-effects (RE) model.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overall survival; secondary outcomes were symptomatic skeletal event (SSE)-free survival and adverse events.

Results

Based on 6 randomized clinical trials including 2081 patients, RI use was significantly associated with OS compared with no RI use (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.95; P = .004) with high heterogeneity (χ25 = 24.46; P < .001; I2 = 80%), but this association disappeared when using an RE model (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.61-1.06; P = .12; τ2 = 0.08). The heterogeneity is explained both by the type of RI and by the inclusion of 2 outlier trials that included 275 patients; the OS benefit was significantly higher with the α-emitting RI 223Ra (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.83) but not significant with the β-emitting RI strontium-89 (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.84-1.10) (P for interaction = .004). Excluding the outlier trials led to an overall HR of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.73-0.92; P < .001) (between-trial heterogeneity: χ23 = 6.51; P = .09; I2 = 54%) using an FE model and an HR of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.65-0.99; P = .04; τ2 = 0.02) using an RE model. The HR for SSE-free survival was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.69-0.93; P = .004) (between-trial heterogeneity: χ23 = 6.71; P = .08; I2 = 55%) when using an FE model and was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.58-1.01; P = .06; τ2 = 0.04) when using an RE model. There were more hematological toxic effects with RI use compared with no RI use (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.17-1.88; P = .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In metastatic CRPC, a significant improvement of OS and SSE-free survival was obtained with bone-targeted α-emitting but not β-emitting RIs. Caution is necessary for generalizability of these results, given the between-trial heterogeneity.

Neoadjuvant Therapy for Resectable and Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy (NT) versus surgery first (SF) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial. A random-effects meta-analysis of only prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NT versus SF for potentially resectable (PR) or borderline resectable (BR) PDAC was performed. Among six RCTs including 850 patients, 411 (48.3%) received NT and 439 (51.6%) SF. In all included trials, NT was gemcitabine-based: four using chemoradiation and two chemotherapy alone. Based on an intention-to-treat analysis, NT resulted in improved overall survival (OS) compared to SF (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61–0.86). This effect was independent of anatomic classification (PR: hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.59–0.91; BR: HR 0.51 95% CI 0.28–0.93) or NT type (chemoradiation: HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61–0.98; chemotherapy alone: HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54–0.87). Overall resection rate was similar (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.82–1.04, I² = 39.0%) but NT increased the likelihood of a margin-negative (R0) resection (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.18–1.93, I² = 0%) and having negative lymph nodes (RR 2.07, 95% CI 1.47–2.91, I² = 12.3%). In this meta-analysis of prospective RCTs, NT significantly improved OS in an intention-to-treat fashion, compared with SF for localized PDAC. Randomized controlled trials using contemporary multi-agent chemotherapy will be needed to confirm these findings and to define the optimal NT regimen.

Role of chemotherapy in 5000 patients with head and neck cancer treated by curative surgery: A subgroup analysis of the meta-analysis of chemotherapy in head and neck cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of chemotherapy added to a surgical locoregional treatment (LRT) for patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We studied the sub-group of trials with surgical LRT included in the meta-analysis on chemotherapy in head and neck cancer (MACH-NC). Data from published and unpublished randomized trials comparing the addition of chemotherapy to LRT in HNSCC patients were sought using electronic database searching for the period 1965-2000, hand searching and by contacting experts in the field. Trials with less than 60 patients, or preoperative radiotherapy or where the type of LRT could not be individually determined were excluded. All individual patient data were checked for internal consistency, compared with published reports, and validated with trialists. Data were pooled using a fixed-effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane test and I² statistic.

RESULTS

Twenty-four trials were eligible (5000 patients). Chemotherapy improved overall survival (HR = 0.92 [95%CI: 0.85-0.99] p = 0.02). There was a significant interaction between treatment effect and timing of chemotherapy (p = 0.08 at pre-specified threshold of 0.10) with a greater effect for concomitant chemotherapy (HR = 0.79, 95%CI: 0.69-0.92). The benefit of chemotherapy was greater in women (HR_women = 0.63, 95%CI: 0.50-0.80) compared to men (HR_men = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.89-1.04; p for interaction = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis confirmed the benefit of concomitant chemotherapy added to surgical LRT. The role of induction therapy as yet to be determined as it did not improve OS. Women may benefit more than men from chemotherapy.

A Pairwise Meta-Analysis of Induction Chemotherapy in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma has high risk of distant metastasis and mortality. Induction chemotherapy is commonly administrated in clinical practice, but the efficacy was quite controversial in and out of randomized controlled trials. We thus conducted this pairwise meta-analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Trials that randomized patients to receive radiotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy with or without induction chemotherapy were identified via searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

RESULTS

A total of ten trials (2,627 patients) were included. The pooled hazard ratios (HRs) based on fixed effect model were 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.80, p < .001) for overall survival (OS) and 0.70 (95% CI 0.61-0.79, p < .001) for progression-free survival (PFS), which strongly favored the addition of induction chemotherapy. The absolute 5-year survival benefits were 8.47% in OS and 10.27% in PFS, respectively. In addition, based on the available data of eight trials, induction chemotherapy showed significant efficacy in reducing locoregional failure rate (risk ratio [RR] = 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.96, p = .017) and distant metastasis rate (RR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.58-0.82, p < .001).

CONCLUSION

This pairwise meta-analysis confirms the benefit in OS, PFS, and locoregional and distant controls associated with the addition of induction chemotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

According to the results of this meta-analysis of ten trials, induction chemotherapy can prolong overall survival and progression-free survival and improve locoregional and distant controls for nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Impact of missing individual patient data on 18 meta-analyses of randomised trials in oncology: Gustave Roussy experience

OBJECTIVE

To compare the characteristics, quality and treatment effects of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) by individual patient data (IPD) availability, in trials eligible for 18 IPD meta-analyses (MA).

DESIGN

Trial characteristics, risk of bias (RoB) and hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival were extracted from IPD-MA publications and/or RCTs publications. Data for the RoB assessment were extracted for a subset of 73 RCTs. Two investigators blinded to whether IPD was available or not evaluated the RoB for these trials. Treatment effects were compared using ratios of global HRs (RHRs) of IPD-unavailable trials and IPD-available trials. RHR were pooled using a fixed-effect model.

DATA SOURCES

We examined the IPD availability for each trial eligible for each IPD-MA; when the IPD was not available for a trial, we used information from published sources.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

We selected all published IPD-MAs conducted at Gustave Roussy and the RCTs eligible for each.

RESULTS

349 RCTs (73 018 patients) from 18 MAs were eligible: 60 RCTs (5890 patients) had unavailable IPD and 289 RCTs (67 128 patients) had available IPD. The main reason for IPD unavailability was data loss by investigators. IPD-unavailable trials were smaller (p<0.001), more often monocentric (p<0.001) and non-international (p=0.0004) than IPD-available trials. Geographical areas differed (p=0.054) between IPD-unavailable IPD-available trials. RoB was higher in IPD-unavailable RCTs for random sequence generation (p=0.007) and allocation concealment (p=0.006). The HR and 95% confidence interval (CI) for overall survival were extractable from publications in 23/60 IPD-unavailable trials included in 10 different MAs. Treatment effects were significantly greater for IPD-unavailable trials compared with IPD-available trials (RHR=0.86 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.98)).

CONCLUSIONS

IPD-unavailable RCTs were significantly different from IPD-available RCTs in terms of trial characteristics and were at greater RoB. IPD-unavailable RCTs had a significantly greater treatment effect.

Anamorelin for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with cachexia: Systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Cancer anorexia-cachexia syndrome (CACS) is characterized by involuntary weight loss. CACS is commonly observed in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and it leads to a poor quality of life (QOL). No effective standard treatment exists for this condition. However, anamorelin has reportedly caused improvement in patients with several cancers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a quantitative meta-analysis to explore the efficacy of anamorelin for treating CACS in patients with NSCLC. We systematically searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and OvidSP. We pooled the data and calculated and compared total body weight (TBW), lean body mass (LBM), overall survival (OS), hand grip strength (HGS), QOL, and adverse events (AEs) between patients treated with anamorelin (anamorelin group) and those not (placebo group).

RESULT

Six randomized controlled trials included 1641 patients with NSCLC. Both TBW and LBM were significantly increased in the anamorelin group compared to the placebo group (mean differences [MD] 1.78, 95%CI: 1.28-2.28, p<0.00001; MD 1.10, 95%CI: 0.35-1.85, p=0.004, respectively). The groups showed no difference in OS or HGS (hazard ratio 0.99, 95%CI: 0.85-1.14, p=0.84; MD 0.52, 95% CI: -0.09-1.13, p=0.09, respectively). Anamorelin significantly improved the QOL (standardized MD 0.19, 95%CI: 0.08-0.30, p=0.0006). The frequency of any AEs and grade 3 or 4 AEs were not significantly different between groups (risk ratio[RR] 1.03, 95%CI: 0.95-1.10, p=0.49; RR 0.86, 95%CI: 0.48-1.54, p=0.62).

CONCLUSION

This analysis demonstrated that anamorelin represents a promising treatment option for CACS in patients with advanced NSCLC.

Difference in Restricted Mean Survival Time for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis: Evidence from a Case Study

Objective

In economic evaluation, a commonly used outcome measure for the treatment effect is the between-arm difference in restricted mean survival time (rmstD). This study illustrates how different survival analysis methods can be used to estimate the rmstD for economic evaluation using individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. Our aim was to study if/how the choice of a method impacts on cost-effectiveness results.

Methods

We used IPD from the Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in Lung Cancer concerning 2,000 patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer, included in ten trials. We considered methods either used in the field of meta-analysis or in economic evaluation but never applied to assess the rmstD for economic evaluation using IPD meta-analysis. Methods were classified into two approaches. With the first approach, the rmstD is estimated directly as the area between the two pooled survival curves. With the second approach, the rmstD is based on the aggregation of the rmstDs estimated in each trial.

Results

The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and acceptability curves were sensitive to the method used to estimate the rmstD. The estimated rmstDs ranged from 1.7 month to 2.5 months, and mean ICERs ranged from € 24,299 to € 34,934 per life-year gained depending on the chosen method. At a ceiling ratio of € 25,000 per life year-gained, the probability of the experimental treatment being cost-effective ranged from 31% to 68%.

Conclusions

This case study suggests that the method chosen to estimate the rmstD from IPD meta-analysis is likely to influence the results of cost-effectiveness analyses.

Predictive and Prognostic Role of Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes for Early Breast Cancer According to Disease Subtypes: Sensitivity Analysis of Randomized Trials in Adjuvant and Neoadjuvant Setting

BACKGROUND

The role of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer (BC) is still an issue for clinical research. Toward this end, a sensitivity analysis of neoadjuvant and adjuvant randomized clinical trials was performed according to disease subtypes.

METHODS

Pathological complete responses (pCRs) after neoadjuvant treatment according to the presence or absence of lymphocyte-predominant BC (LPBC) were extracted and cumulated as odds ratios (ORs) by adopting a random-effects model by subtype. Overall survival hazard ratios as a function of 10% incremental values of stromal TILs (sTILs) in adjuvant trials were extracted. The interaction test was adopted to determine the differential effect according to the subtype.

RESULTS

Eight trials (5,514 patients) were identified. With regard to neoadjuvant setting (4 studies), a significant interaction (p < .0001) according to LPBC was found. The presence of LPBC was associated with a 29.5% increase in pCR rate compared with non-LPBC (p < .0001). The pCR rate was significantly higher in patients with LPBC in triple-negative BC (TNBC) and HER2-positive BC settings, with an absolute difference of 15.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.9%-26.2%) and 33.3% (95% CI, 23.6%-42.7%), respectively. With respect to the adjuvant setting (4 studies), a significant interaction (p < .0001) according to sTILs was found. A survival benefit was more likely to be determined for HER2-positive BC (p = .025) and TNBC (p < .0001), with no statistically significant difference for estrogen receptor-positive/HER2-negative disease.

CONCLUSION

Despite the retrospective nature of this analysis, the presence of TILs may represent a robust predictive and prognostic marker for BC, particularly for TNBC and HER2-positive disease.

Differential Activity of Nivolumab, Pembrolizumab and MPDL3280A according to the Tumor Expression of Programmed Death-Ligand-1 (PD-L1): Sensitivity Analysis of Trials in Melanoma, Lung and Genitourinary Cancers

Background

The potential predictive role of programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression on tumor cells in the context of solid tumor treated with checkpoint inhibitors targeting the PD-1 pathway represents an issue for clinical research.

Methods

Overall response rate (ORR) was extracted from phase I-III trials investigating nivolumab, pembrolizumab and MPDL3280A for advanced melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and genitourinary cancer, and cumulated by adopting a fixed and random-effect model with 95% confidence interval (CI). Interaction test according to tumor PD-L1 was accomplished. A sensitivity analysis according to adopted drug, tumor type, PD-L1 cut-off and treatment line was performed.

Results

Twenty trials (1,475 patients) were identified. A significant interaction (p<0.0001) according to tumor PD-L1 expression was found in the overall sample with an ORR of 34.1% (95% CI 27.6-41.3%) in the PD-L1 positive and 19.9% (95% CI 15.4-25.3%) in the PD-L1 negative population. ORR was significantly higher in PD-L1 positive in comparison to PD-L1 negative patients for nivolumab and pembrolizumab, with an absolute difference of 16.4% and 19.5%, respectively. A significant difference in activity of 22.8% and 8.7% according to PD-L1 was found for melanoma and NSCLC, respectively, with no significant difference for genitourinary cancer.

Conclusion

Overall, the three antibodies provide a significant differential effect in terms of activity according to PD-L1 expression on tumor cells. The predictive value of PD-L1 on tumor cells seems to be more robust for anti-PD-1 antibody (nivolumab and pembrolizumab), and in the context of advanced melanoma and NSCLC.

Role of taxane and anthracycline combination regimens in the management of advanced breast cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

The clinical benefits provided by using combined taxanes and anthracyclines in first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast carcinoma (MBC) remain uncertain. This meta-analysis compares the benefits of using a combination of anthracyclines along with taxanes versus using single-agent-based chemotherapeutic regimens in the treatment of MBC.Relevant clinical trials as well as abstracts from articles presented at major cancer conferences were searched in various databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The relevant studies had a primary endpoint of overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints that included progression-free survival (PFS), time-to-treatment failure (TTF), time to progression (TTP), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. The hazard ratios of OS, PFS, TTF, and TTP, the odds ratios of ORR and DCR, and the risk ratios (RRs) for grades 1-2 and 3-4 toxicities were extracted from the retrieved studies and analyzed using various statistical methods. Meta-analytic estimates were derived from a random-effect model.Fifteen trials were included in the final meta-analysis, and the results suggest that chemotherapy with combined anthracyclines and taxanes does not significantly improve the OS of MBC patients when compared with the OS achieved using separate taxane or anthracycline-based regimens. Compared with taxane-based regimens, combined taxane along with anthracycline regimens failed to significantly improve TTP, ORR, or DCR, but did significantly improve TTP and ORR when compared with anthracycline-based regimens. Furthermore, both individual taxane-based and anthracycline-based regimens produced fewer toxic reactions compared to combined taxane along with anthracycline regimens. Taxane-based regimens had lower RRs for side effects of neutropenia, infection/febrile neutropenia, nausea, and vomiting, whereas patients receiving anthracycline-based regimens had lower RRs for neutropenia, infection/febrile neutropenia, anorexia, stomatitis/mucosal inflammation, diarrhea, and sensory neuropathy. In contrast, patients receiving taxane-based regimens were at higher RRs for hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea, whereas patients receiving anthracycline-based regimens had higher RRs for nausea and vomiting.A taxane-based treatment regimen may be a better option than a combined taxane/anthracycline regimen for managing patients with advanced breast cancer, as it produces equivalent clinical outcomes and has less toxicity compared to other similar regimens.

Survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable cancer of the gastric and gastroesophageal junction: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The objective of the present meta-analysis was to estimate the magnitude of survival benefits of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAT) in resectable cancer of the gastric and gastroesophageal junction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Knowledge, Chinese biomedical literature database, Chinese Scientific Journals full-text database of retrieved articles from their inception to 2013. Two reviewers independently retrieved study and data extraction of included studies. Results regarding the overall survival and progression-free survival in the meta-analysis were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Twelve randomized control trials (n=1755) were eligible for final meta-analysis. NAT was associated with a statistically significant benefit in terms of overall survival (HR=0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.93, P=0.01), progression-free survival (HR=0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87, P=0.0003), 5-year survival rate [relative risk (RR)=1.36; 95% CI, 1.10-1.67, P=0.0004], and curative resection rate (RR=1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.20, P=0.009). Five-year survival rate increased from 30% to 42% with NAT. No significant difference with regards to overall postoperative complications rate (RR=1.08; 95% CI, 0.92-1.27, P=0.28) was found between 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

There is convincing evidence for a survival benefit of NAT over surgery alone in patient with cancer of the gastric and gastroesophageal junction.

[Individual patient data meta-analyses of randomized trials for the treatment of non-metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinomas: Principles, results and perspectives]

Meta-analyses are considered as an important pillar of evidence-based medicine. The aim of this review is to describe the main principles of a meta-analysis and to use examples of head and neck oncology to demonstrate their clinical impact and methodological interest. The major role of individual patient data is outlined, as well as the superiority of individual patient data over meta-analyses based on published summary data. The major clinical breakthrough of head and neck meta-analyses are summarized, regarding concomitant chemotherapy, altered fractionated chemotherapy, new regimens of induction chemotherapy or the use of radioprotectants. Recent methodological developments are described, including network meta-analyses, the validation of surrogate markers. Lastly, the future of meta-analyses is discussed in the context of personalized medicine.

Balancing activity and tolerability of neoadjuvant paclitaxel- and docetaxel-based chemotherapy for HER2-positive early stage breast cancer: sensitivity analysis of randomized trials

Paclitaxel and docetaxel represent the most adopted taxanes in the neoadjuvant treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer. Questions still remain with regard to their difference in terms of activity and tolerability. Events for pathological complete response (pCR), severe and febrile neutropenia (FN), and severe neurotoxicity were pooled by adopting a fixed- and random-effect model. A sensitivity analysis to test for the interaction between paclitaxel and docetaxel was accomplished. Absolute differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the number of patients needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) were calculated to derive the Likelihood of being Helped or Harmed (LHH). Data from 15 trials (3601 patients) were included. Paclitaxel significantly increases pCR rate by 6.8% in comparison with docetaxel (43.4%, 95% CI 41.1-45.7% versus 36.6%, 95% CI 34.3-39.0%, p=0.0001), regardless of the chemotherapy backbone, with an absolute difference of 9% and 9.2% for anthracycline-based or free-regimens. Paclitaxel significantly improves pCR versus docetaxel with a single HER2-inhibition by 6.7% (p=0.0012), with no difference if combined with a dual HER2-inhibition. Severe neutropenia and FN are significantly lower with paclitaxel, with an absolute difference of 32.4% (p<0.0001) and 2.5% (p=0.0059), respectively. Conversely, severe neurotoxicity is slightly higher with paclitaxel (3%, p=0.0001). The LHH ratio calculated for pCR and severe neutropenia is 2.0 and 0.7 for paclitaxel and docetaxel. Although the activity of neoadjuvant paclitaxel and docetaxel HER2-positive breast cancer is considered similar, the slight advantage in pCR, the significantly lower neutropenia and FN, do favor paclitaxel (in the weekly fashion) over docetaxel, despite the slightly worst neurotoxicity.

Is primary tumour resection associated with survival improvement in patients with colorectal cancer and unresectable synchronous metastases? A pooled analysis of individual data from four randomised trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact on survival of primary tumour resection in patients with unresectable synchronous metastases from colorectal cancer (CRC).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Primary tumour resection in this setting remains controversial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrieved individual data of 1155 patients with metastatic CRC included in four first-line chemotherapy trials: Fédération Francophone de Cancérologie Digestive (FFCD)-9601, FFCD-2000-05, Actions Concertées dans les cancers COloRectaux et Digestifs (ACCORD)-13, and ML-16987. Patients with unresectable synchronous metastases were eligible for this study. We used univariate and multivariate analyses (Cox models stratified on the trial) to assess the impact of primary tumour resection and other potential prognostic variables on overall survival (OS) (the primary endpoint).

RESULTS

Amongst the 1155 patients, 810 patients met the inclusion criteria and 59% (n = 478) underwent resection of their primary tumour, prior to trial entry (resection group). Compared to patients in the non-resection group (n =3 32 [41%]), those in the resection group were more likely to have a colonic primary, lower baseline carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and alkaline phosphatase levels, and normal white-blood-cell count (p < 0.001 each). Primary tumour resection was independently associated to better OS in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio (HR), 0.63 [0.53-0.75]; p < 0.001, with a more favourable impact of resection on OS in case of rectal primary and low CEA level. Primary tumour resection was also independently associated to a better progression-free survival in multivariate analysis (HR, 0.82 [0.70-0.95]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Primary tumour resection was independently associated to a better OS in patients with CRC and unresectable synchronous metastases.

Impact of neoadjuvant single or dual HER2 inhibition and chemotherapy backbone upon pathological complete response in operable and locally advanced breast cancer: Sensitivity analysis of randomized trials

The role of the dual HER2 inhibition, and the best chemotherapy backbone for neoadjuvant chemotherapy still represent an issue for clinical practice. A literature-based meta-analysis exploring single versus dual HER2 inhibition in terms of pathological complete response (pCR, breast plus axilla) rate and testing the interaction according to the chemotherapy (anthracyclines-taxanes or taxanes) was conducted. In addition, an event-based pooled analysis by extracting activity and safety events and deriving 95% confidence intervals (CI) was accomplished. Fourteen trials (4149 patients) were identified, with 6 trials (1820 patients) included in the meta-analysis and 31 arms (14 trials, 3580 patients) in the event-based pooled analysis. The dual HER2 inhibition significantly improves pCR rate, in the range of 16-19%, regardless of the chemotherapy backbone (relative risk 1.37, 95% CI 1.23-1.53, p<0.0001); pCR was significantly higher in the hormonal receptor negative population, regardless of the HER2 inhibition and type of chemotherapy. pCR and the rate of breast conserving surgery was higher when anthracyclines were added to taxanes, regardless of the HER2 inhibition. Severe neutropenia was higher with the addition of anthracyclines to taxanes, with an absolute difference of 19.7%, despite no differences in febrile neutropenia. While no significant differences according to the HER2 inhibition were found in terms of cardiotoxicity, a slightly difference for grade 3-4 (1.2%) against the addition of anthracyclines was calculated. The dual HER2 inhibition for the neoadjuvant treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer significantly increases pCR; the combination of anthracyclines, taxanes and anti-Her2 agents should be currently considered the standard of care.

Predictors of outcome for patients with lung adenocarcinoma carrying the epidermal growth factor receptor mutation receiving 1st-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors: Sensitivity and meta-regression analysis of randomized trials

PURPOSE

We performed a sensitivity and meta-regression analysis, cumulating all randomized trials exploring the benefit of afatinib, erlotinib and gefitinib versus chemotherapy in advanced EGFR mutant NSCLC, to investigate the potential role of additional clinico-pathological predictors of TKIs efficacy.

RESULTS

With regard to progression-free survival (PFS), a significant interaction according to ethnicity (Asian versus Caucasian versus mixed) and to trial design (retrospective versus prospective EGFR analysis), was found; a trend toward significance with regard to type of drug (gefitinib versus erlotinib versus afatinib) was determined. No statistically significant differences in survival were observed. With regard to response, a significant interaction according to ethnicity, trial design and type of drug, was found.

CONCLUSION

These data, together with a deeper characterization of the molecular background sustaining the oncogenic process, may contribute to create a clinico-pathologic predictive model, aimed to improve the magnitude of benefit expected from the use of targeted agents.

Cisplatin plus etoposide versus other platin-based regimens for patients with extensive small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, controlled trials

AIM

To determine whether the cisplatin plus etoposide (EP) combination was more efficacious and less toxic than other platinum-based regimens for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.

METHODS

We performed an extensive literature search (from their inception to July 2010). Two reviewers independently assessed search results and methodological quality of included studies. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and relative risks (RRs) were calculated according to a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twelve randomised, controlled trials involving seven different platinum-based chemotherapy regimens were included into this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that compared with EP regimen, irinotecan plus cisplatin (IP) might decrease the risk of death (HR = 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-0.97, P = 0.01) (five trials), unlike the sensitivity analysis (HR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.81-1.02, P = 0.12), progression-free survival (HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.86-1.05, P = 0.28) and overall response rate (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93-1.24) that were not superior for IP. IP regimen produced more non-haematological toxicities and less haematological toxicities. One trial found that etoposide + cisplatin + epirubicin + cyclophosphamide and cisplatin + etoposide + ifosfamide regimen might prolong the overall survival respectively. Etoposide + cisplatin + epirubicin + cyclophosphamide regimen also might improve progression-free survival but with high rate of haematological toxicities. None of the other trials included in the study demonstrated a significant improvement in survival.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no strong evidence that any clinical advantage for extensive small-cell lung carcinoma patients requiring chemotherapy when comparing EP with other platin-based regimens, with exception of IP that might prolong overall survival. The decision to prescribe which chemotherapy should take into consideration both cost and treatment preference.

Perioperative chemo(radio)therapy versus primary surgery for resectable adenocarcinoma of the stomach, gastroesophageal junction, and lower esophagus

BACKGROUND

The outcome of patients with locally advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, gastroesophageal (GE) junction, and stomach) is poor. There is conflicting evidence regarding the effects of perioperative chemotherapy on survival and other outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of perioperative chemotherapy for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma on survival and other clinically relevant outcomes in the overall population of participants in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and in prespecified subgroups.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed computerized searches in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Review of Effectiveness (DARE), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) from The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1966 to May 2011), EMBASE (1980 to May 2011), and LILACS (Literatura Latinoamericana y del Caribe en Ciencias de la Salud), combining the Cochrane highly sensitive search strategy with specific search terms. Moreover, we handsearched several online databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs which randomized patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma, in the absence of distant metastases, to receive either chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy followed by surgery, or surgery alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors identified eligible trials. We solicited individual patient data (IPD) from all selected trials. We performed meta-analyses based on intention-to-treat populations using the two-stage method to combine IPD with aggregate data from RCTs for which IPD were unavailable. We combined data from all trials providing IPD in a Cox proportional hazards model to assess the effect of several covariables on overall survival.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 RCTs with 2422 eligible patients. For eight RCTs with 1049 patients (43.3%), we were able to obtain IPD. Perioperative chemotherapy was associated with significantly longer overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.89). This corresponds to a relative survival increase of 19% or an absolute survival increase of 9% at five years. This survival advantage was consistent across most subgroups. There was a trend towards a more pronounced treatment effect for tumors of the GE junction compared to other sites, and for combined chemoradiotherapy as compared to chemotherapy in tumors of the esophagus and GE junction. Resection with negative margins was a strong predictor of survival. Multivariable analysis showed that tumor site, performance status, and age have an independent significant effect on survival. Moreover, there was a significant interaction of the effect of perioperative chemotherapy with age (larger treatment effect in younger patients). Perioperative chemotherapy also showed a significant effect on several secondary outcomes. It was associated with longer disease-free survival, higher rates of R0 resection, and more favorable tumor stage upon resection, while there was no association with perioperative morbidity and mortality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative chemotherapy for resectable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma increases survival compared to surgery alone. It should thus be offered to all eligible patients. There is a trend to a larger survival advantage for tumors of the GE junction as compared to other sites and for chemoradiotherapy as compared to chemotherapy in esophageal and GE junction tumors. Likewise, there is an interaction between age and treatment effect, with younger patients having a larger survival advantage, and no survival advantage for elderly patients.

Clinical meta-analyses of targeted therapies in adenocarcinoma

Although the interpretation of the data reported in meta-analyses may hide several issues, it is undoubtable that this methodological approach may significantly contribute to implement the results of clinical trials, and represent a useful and practical tool for the evidence-based medicine process. Indeed, level-one recommendations should consider well-conducted meta-analyses as well as large and adequately powered randomized trials as the main contributors for the definition of guidelines for clinical practice. In addition, the role of meta-analyses for issues whereas conflicting data (and/or unpowered results) are provided, is well established. In the field of lung cancer, meta-analyses already participated to change the current standard, and are now facing the challenging issues of predictive biomarkers of prognosis and/or efficacy of targeted agents. With this aim, the meta-analytic approach helped in the recent years to implement the quantification of the magnitude of the benefit of targeted agents, and added new insights by interpreting the data coming from clinical trials by integrating them with biomarkers. The treatment-interaction analyses according to putative predictive factors of efficacy may clarify unknown issues and generate new hypotheses for future perspectives. The current review attempts to put in the context of the clinical data of targeted agents for lung cancer all the pros and cons of the meta-analytic process published to date, and critically analyze all the potential perspectives which this methodology may add for both current practice and forthcoming research.

First-line tandem high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation versus single high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma, a systematic review of controlled studies

BACKGROUND

Several clinical studies have compared single with tandem (also called double) autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) as first-line treatment in patients with symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM), one of the leading indications for ASCT worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

The present Cochrane Review compares tandem autologous stem cell transplantation (TASCT) with single autologous stem cell transplantation (SASCT) as first-line treatment in patients with symptomatic MM with respect to overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), quality of life (QoL) and treatment- or transplantation-related mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

We systematically identified controlled trials published between January 1995 and May 2011 in two bibliographic databases (MEDLINE and CENTRAL) and in clinical trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

One researcher screened references for controlled trials to determine eligibility for the systematic review (SR) according to pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria, reflecting characteristics of disease and the interventions. We required a minimal set of details to be reported for observational studies for the studies to be included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We critically evaluated eligible trials with respect to quality of design and actual performance. One researcher extracted individual trial results, which were checked by another researcher. We recapitulated the results of the individual trials in a standardised way for the SR in order to allow a systematic assessment of potential sources of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall, we identified 14 controlled studies. One registered randomised controlled trial (RCT) is still recruiting patients at the time of this review and no clinical results have been published. Two registered RCTs have remained unpublished despite their termination. Publications on one RCT had been retracted. We excluded five observational studies since neither patients nor treatment regimens were sufficiently characterised to allow an assessment of potential confounding by indication. We conducted a SR of study designs, definition of endpoints, treatment regimens and baseline characteristics of patients in the five included RCTs (two full-text publications, three conference presentations) enrolling1506 patients in total. Because we identified substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity, we refrained from conducting a formal meta-analysis.While we included only previously untreated, symptomatic patients with MM the treatment regimens differed notably with respect to acute toxicity, between trials and also between study arms. Compared to state of the art treatment standards, the treatment regimens applied in all trials have to be considered as below standard from a contemporary perspective in at least one component.Three trials were likely to have the potential of being highly biased while two RCTs had a moderate potential for bias. The observed treatment effects in the set of included trials may have been influenced by a steep decrease in compliance with the second ASCT and the concomitant selection of patients. In addition, OS data were confounded by the treatment subsequent to first-line therapy.OS was statistically significantly improved in one trial only. While EFS was prolonged in four of the five trials, the median prolongation ranged between three to 12 months, with an uncertain direction of bias in the individual trials. QoL was not reported in any study. Results concerning treatment- or transplantation-related mortality could not be adequately assessed due to substantial differences in definitions between trials and low reporting quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not consider any study to be sufficiently informative for contemporary treatment decisions concerning the question single versus tandem ASCT in view of inherent biases. In addition, none of the trials integrated the so-called "novel agents" which are now considered standard treatment for MM. To improve the quality of future studies, sample size calculations should consider the potentially steep decrease in compliance with the second ASCT. Reporting of results of treatment- or transplantation-related mortality should clearly specify the type and number of events (the numerator) in a well-defined population (the denominator).

Can EGFR-TKIs be used in first line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer based on selection according to clinical factors? - A literature-based meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In the first line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), several clinical trials have shown that not all NSCLC patients can benefit from treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) than receiving chemotherapy. Some trials treated patients with TKI according to their clinical characteristics. A few studies only chose patients with an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation for TKI therapy. We aimed to determine whether patients could be treated with TKIs based on clinical factors in the first-line setting.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials involving patients with advanced NSCLC treated with chemotherapy or TKIs by different selections. Efficacy outcomes of interest were the objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and the overall survival (OS) of each treatment arm.

RESULTS

Four trials enrolled unselected patients, and two trials selected East Asian patients using the clinical factors of gender and smoking history. Five trials chose patients with an EGFR mutation who were randomized for treatment with TKI or chemotherapy. For unselected patients, the risk ratio (RR) of the ORR was 3.52, the hazard ratio (HR) of the PFS was 1.29 and the HR of the OS was 1.35. For the clinically selected patients, the RR of the ORR was 0.64. The HRs of the PFS and OS were 0.83 and 0.92, respectively. The ORR and PFS were better for TKIs than for chemotherapy in patients with an EGFR mutation. The ORR was 0.47, and the HRs of the PFS and OS were 0.36 and 1.00, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced NSCLC patients with an EGFR mutation benefit most from TKIs. EGFR-TKI treatment is justified for patients with unknown EGFR status,and those who cannot tolerate chemotherapy owing to age, poor performance status (PS) or other medical conditions, when selected according to clinical factors in the first-line setting.

Carboplatin- or cisplatin-based chemotherapy in first-line treatment of small-cell lung cancer: the COCIS meta-analysis of individual patient data

PURPOSE

Since treatment efficacy of cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) remains contentious, a meta-analysis of individual patient data was performed to compare the two treatments.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A systematic review identified randomized trials comparing cisplatin with carboplatin in the first-line treatment of SCLC. Individual patient data were obtained from coordinating centers of all eligible trials. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). All statistical analyses were stratified by trial. Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and treatment toxicity. OS and PFS curves were compared by using the log-rank test. ORR was compared by using the Mantel-Haenszel test.

RESULTS

Four eligible trials with 663 patients (328 assigned to cisplatin and 335 to carboplatin) were included in the analysis. Median OS was 9.6 months for cisplatin and 9.4 months for carboplatin (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.27; P = .37). There was no evidence of treatment difference between the cisplatin and carboplatin arms according to sex, stage, performance status, or age. Median PFS was 5.5 and 5.3 months for cisplatin and carboplatin, respectively (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.29; P = .25). ORR was 67.1% and 66.0%, respectively (relative risk, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.16; P = .83). Toxicity profile was significantly different for each of the arms: hematologic toxicity was higher with carboplatin, and nonhematologic toxicity was higher with cisplatin.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis of individual patient data suggests no differences in efficacy between cisplatin and carboplatin in the first-line treatment of SCLC, but there are differences in the toxicity profile.

Outcome of advanced NSCLC patients harboring sensitizing EGFR mutations randomized to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors or chemotherapy as first-line treatment: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) are effective as first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients with EGFR mutations (EGFR-M+).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a literature-based meta-analysis to quantify the magnitude of benefit with upfront EGFR TKI in EGFR-M+ patients. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were also carried out to identify additional predictors of outcome and to assess the influence of trial design.

RESULTS

Five trials (805 patients) were identified (three trials prospectively enrolling EGFR-M+ patients and two retrospective analyses of EGFR-M+ patients). TKI significantly increased progression-free survival (PFS) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36-0.58, P < 0.0001] and overall response rate (ORR) (HR 2.08, 95% CI 1.75-2.46, P < 0.0001)] over chemotherapy, while significantly decreasing neutropenia. No significant difference was observed in overall survival. The rate of exon-19 mutations, female gender, and nonsmoking status were identified as additional predictors of outcome at meta-regression analysis. A significant interaction with trial design was found for both PFS (P = 0.028) and ORR (P = 0.008), suggesting a larger advantage for patients treated within prospective trials.

CONCLUSIONS

In EGFR-M+ patients, first-line TKI increase both PFS and ORR by ~25%, while significantly decreasing toxicity. The role of additional predictive factors and the influence of trial design on the magnitude of the observed benefit warrant further investigation.

Sequential versus combination chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (FFCD 2000-05): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

The optimum use of cytotoxic drugs for advanced colorectal cancer has not been defined. Our aim was to investigate whether combination treatment is better than the sequential administration of the same drugs in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

METHODS

In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients (1:1 ratio) with advanced, measurable, non-resectable colorectal cancer and WHO performance status 0-2 to receive either first-line treatment with bolus (400 mg/m(2)) and infusional (2400 mg/m(2)) fluorouracil plus leucovorin (400 mg/m(2)) (simplified LV5FU2 regimen), second-line LV5FU2 plus oxaliplatin (100 mg/m(2)) (FOLFOX6), and third-line LV5FU2 plus irinotecan (180 mg/m(2)) (FOLFIRI) or first-line FOLFOX6 and second-line FOLFIRI. Chemotherapy was administered every 2 weeks. Randomisation was done centrally using minimisation (minimisation factors were WHO performance status, previous adjuvant chemotherapy, number of disease sites, and centre). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival after two lines of treatment. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00126256.

FINDINGS

205 patients were randomly assigned to the sequential group and 205 to the combination group. 161 (79%) patients in the sequential group and 161 (79%) in the combination group died during the study. Median progression-free survival after two lines was 10·5 months (95% CI 9·6-11·5) in the sequential group and 10·3 months (9·0-11·9) in the combination group (hazard ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·77-1·16; p=0·61). All six deaths caused by toxic effects of treatment occurred in the combination group. During first-line chemotherapy, significantly fewer severe (grade 3-4) haematological adverse events (12 events in 203 patients in sequential group vs 83 events in 203 patients in combination group; p<0·0001) and non-haematological adverse events (26 events vs 186 events; p<0·0001) occurred in the sequential group than in the combination group.

INTERPRETATION

Upfront combination chemotherapy is more toxic and is not more effective than the sequential use of the same cytotoxic drugs in patients with advanced, non-resectable colorectal cancer.

FUNDING

Sanofi-Aventis France.

Clinical impact of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibodies in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: meta-analytical estimation and implications for therapeutic strategies

BACKGROUND

Antiepidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) are indicated for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer patients, but some scientific issues concerning their efficacy are currently unsolved.

METHODS

A literature-based meta-analysis was conducted. Hazard ratios (HRs) were extracted from randomized trials for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS); the event-based risk ratio was derived for response. Sensitivity analyses to look for interactions according to KRAS status and chemotherapy association regimens were performed.

RESULTS

Eight trials (6609 patients) were identified. A significant interaction according to KRAS status was found for PFS (wild type vs mutant, P = .001) and response rate (wild type vs mutant, P < .0001). The addition of an anti-EGFR MoAb to first-line chemotherapy increased PFS in the KRAS wild-type population (HR, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-0.99; P = .03), and had a detrimental effect in the KRAS mutant population (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.25; P = .013). A significant increase in the probability of achieving a response was evident in KRAS wild-type patients (relative risk, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.33; P = .011). In this population, the interaction in response rate according to adopted chemotherapy favored irinotecan-containing regimens (P = .01), and at meta-regression analysis the relative increase in response rate was significantly related to PFS (P = .00001) and OS (P = .00193) benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of an anti-EGFR MoAb to first-line chemotherapy produces a clear benefit in response rate. This advantage is restricted to KRAS wild-type patients and translates into a small benefit in PFS. At present, irinotecan-based backbone chemotherapy could be a preferable option. The correlation between activity and survival parameters corroborates the hypothesis that anti-EGFR MoAbs might be more suitable for patients needing tumoral shrinkage.

Effect of amifostine on survival among patients treated with radiotherapy: a meta-analysis of individual patient data

PURPOSE

Controversy exists regarding whether or not amifostine might reduce the efficacy of cancer treatment. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the impact of amifostine on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients treated with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Updated data from individual patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, and pelvic cancer treated with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy and randomly assigned to amifostine or not were included. The primary end point was OS.

RESULTS

Twenty-two randomized trials (2279 patients) were potentially eligible. Data were available for 16 trials (1554 patients), but four trials (435 patients) were excluded after data checking. Ultimately 12 trials and 1119 patients were analyzed. A total of 431 patients were treated with radiotherapy alone (three trials), and 688 patients were treated with chemoradiotherapy (nine trials). Thirty-three percent of patients had lung cancers, 65% had head and neck cancers, and 2% had pelvic carcinomas. Ninety-one percent of patients had locally advanced disease (early stage, 9%). Median follow-up was 5.2 years. The hazard ratio (HR) of death was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.14; P = .78). On the basis of 11 trials (1091 patients), the HR of progression, relapse, or death was 1.05 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.22; P = .53). The tests for heterogeneity were not significant (P ≥ .73), and there was no significant variation of treatment effect according to sex, age, tumor site, stage, histology, locoregional treatment, or type of administration for either end point.

CONCLUSION

Amifostine did not reduce OS and PFS in patients treated with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy.

Magnitude of risks and benefits of the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer patients: Meta-regression analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Although the addition of bevacizumab significantly improves the efficacy of chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer, regulatory concerns still exist with regard to the magnitude of the benefits and the overall safety profile.

METHODS

A literature-based meta-analysis to quantify the magnitude of benefit and safety of adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer patients was conducted. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were also performed to identify additional predictors of outcome and to assess the influence of trial design.

RESULTS

Five trials (3,841 patients) were gathered. A significant interaction according to treatment line was found for progression-free survival (PFS, p = 0.027); PFS was significantly improved for 1(st) line (Hazard Ratio, HR 0.68, p < 0.0001), with a 1-yr absolute difference (AD) of 8.4% (number needed to treat, NNT 12). A non-significant trend was found in overall survival (OS), and in PFS for 2(nd) line. Responses were improved with the addition of bevacizumab, without interaction between 1(st) line (Relative Risk, RR 1.46, p < 0.0001) and 2(nd) line (RR 1.58, p = 0.05). The most important toxicity was hypertension, accounting for a significant AD of 4.5% against bevacizumab (number needed to harm, NNH 22). Other significant, although less clinically meaningful, adverse events were proteinuria, neurotoxicity, febrile neutropenia, and bleeding. At the meta-regression analysis for 1(st)-line, more than 3 metastatic sites (p = 0.032), no adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.00013), negative hormonal receptor status (p = 0.009), and prior anthracyclines-exposure (p = 0.019), did significantly affect PFS.

CONCLUSIONS

Although with heterogeneity, the addition of bevacizumab to 1st-line chemotherapy significantly improves PFS, and overall activity. Hypertension should be weighted with the overall benefit on the individual basis.

Impact of hormonal treatment duration in combination with radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background

Hormone therapy plus radiotherapy significantly decreases recurrences and mortality of patients affected by locally advanced prostate cancer. In order to determine if difference exists according to the hormonal treatment duration, a literature-based meta-analysis was performed.

Methods

Relative risks (RR) were derived through a random-effect model. Differences in primary (biochemical failure, BF; cancer-specific survival, CSS), and secondary outcomes (overall survival, OS; local or distant recurrence, LR/DM) were explored. Absolute differences (AD) and the number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated. Heterogeneity, a meta-regression for clinic-pathological predictors and a correlation test for surrogates were conducted.

Results

Five trials (3,424 patients) were included. Patient population ranged from 267 to 1,521 patients. The longer hormonal treatment significantly improves BF (with significant heterogeneity) with an absolute benefit of 10.1%, and a non significant trend in CSS. With regard to secondary end-points, the longer hormonal treatment significantly decrease both the LR and the DM with an absolute difference of 11.7% and 11.5%. Any significant difference in OS was observed. None of the three identified clinico-pathological predictors (median PSA, range 9.5-20.35, Gleason score 7-10, 27-55% patients/trial, and T3-4, 13-77% patients/trial), did significantly affect outcomes. At the meta-regression analysis a significant correlation between the overall treatment benefit in BF, CSS, OS, LR and DM, and the length of the treatment was found (p≤0.03).

Conclusions

Although with significant heterogeneity (reflecting different patient' risk stratifications), a longer hormonal treatment duration significantly decreases biochemical, local and distant recurrences, with a trend for longer cancer specific survival.

Randomized phase III trial comparing induction chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy to concomitant chemoradiotherapy for laryngeal preservation in T3M0 pyriform sinus carcinoma

CONCLUSIONS

Conventional radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin is significantly superior to induction cisplatin fluorouracil chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy in terms of laryngeal preservation in patients with T3 hypopharyngeal carcinoma. Despite a high rate of laryngeal preservation no survival benefit was recorded in this selected population.

OBJECTIVES

To compare conventional radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin to induction chemotherapy with cisplatin fluorouracil followed by conventional radiotherapy. The primary end point was the preservation of the larynx. The secondary end points included toxicity, causes of death, and survival rates.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Seventy-one adult patients with previously untreated resectable T3 pyriform sinus squamous cell carcinoma were enrolled in the multicenter prospective randomized phase III trial. They were evaluated for organ preservation, survival rates, and toxic reactions.

RESULTS

The rates of laryngeal preservation at 2 years were 68% for the induction chemotherapy (IC) group and 92% for the chemoradiotherapy (CR) group (p = 0.016). At 2 years, the event-free survival rates were 36% and 41% for the IC group and CR group, respectively.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer: a review of meta-analyses

Background

Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have compared neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery with surgery alone for locally advanced esophageal cancer have shown no difference in survival between the two treatments. Meta-analyses on neoadjuvant chemoradiation in esophageal cancer, however, are discordant.

Methods

For the present study, published meta-analyses on neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer were identified from the PubMed database and critically appraised in order to make a judgment on the applicability of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in clinical practice and decision making.

Results

Two of the six meta-analyses examined did not show a significant survival benefit in patients with resectable esophageal cancer. Differences in the studies included and statistical methods applied might account for this. Moreover, there was heterogeneity between the RCTs included in the meta-analyses with regard to the patients included, tumor histology, and radiotherapy and chemotherapy regimes. Also, surgical technique was not uniform. No data on individual patients were available for most meta-analyses. The RCTs included in the meta-analyses were of inadequate sample size. All were started in the nineties, and hence methods for diagnosis, staging, treatment delivery, and outcome measurement reflect clinical practice during that decade.

Conclusions

The current data on neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer strongly indicate the need for designing future high-quality trials that will contribute to a better understanding of the role of neoadjuvant treatment for resectable cancer of the esophagus and help to identify patient subgroups that would benefit most.

Magnitude of benefit of the addition of bevacizumab to first-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background

Although the addition of bevacizumab to 1^st line chemotherapy provides a significant survival benefit for advanced colorectal cancer, the magnitudes of both advantages and toxicities have not been extensively investigated.

Methods

A literature-based meta-analysis was conducted; Hazard Ratios were extracted from randomized trials for primary end-points (Progression Free Survival, PFS, Overall Survival OS). The log of event-based risk ratio were derived for secondary endpoints (objective/partial response rate, ORR/PR; severe hypertension, bleeding and proteinuria). Absolute differences and the number needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) were calculated. A meta-regression analysis with clinical predictors and a sensitivity analysis according to the trial phase-design were conducted as well.

Results

Five trials (2,728 pts) were selected. The addition of bevacizumab to 1^st line chemotherapy significantly increased both PFS (although with significant heterogeneity) and OS over exclusive chemotherapy by 17.1% and 8.6% (NNT 6 and 12), regardless of the study setting (non significant interaction between phase II and III). The chance to improve PR was significantly increased by 6.5% (NNT 15), with a trend for ORR. The risk of hypertension was significantly increased by 6.2% (NNH 16). According to the meta-regression analysis, female gender and rectal primary site were significant predictors for PFS benefit.

Conclusions

Notwithstanding all the concerns related to costs and the significant HTN risk, the significant outcome improvement provided by bevacizumab in first-line treatment for unselected advanced colorectal cancer patients, should be considered when choosing the appropriate up-front therapy.

Meta-Analysis of Single-Agent Chemotherapy Compared With Combination Chemotherapy As Second-Line Treatment of Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Purpose

Doublet chemotherapy is more effective than single-agent as first-line treatment of advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). As second-line treatment, several randomized trials have been performed comparing single-agent with doublet chemotherapy, but each trial had an insufficient power to detect potentially relevant differences in survival.

Methods

We performed meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials, both published and unpublished, comparing single-agent with doublet chemotherapy as second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). All statistical analyses were stratified by trial.

Results

Eight eligible trials were identified. Data of two trials were not available, and data of six trials (847 patients) were collected. Median age was 61 years. Performance status was 0 or 1 in 90%; 80% of patients had received previous platin-based chemotherapy. OS was not significantly different between arms (P = .32). Median OS was 37.3 and 34.7 weeks in the doublet and single-agent arms, respectively. Hazard ratio (HR) was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.08). Response rate was 15.1% with doublet and 7.3% with single-agent (P = .0004). Median progression-free survival was 14 weeks for doublet and 11.7 weeks for single agent (P = .0009; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.91). There was no significant heterogeneity among trials for the three efficacy outcomes. Patients treated with doublet chemotherapy had significantly more grade 3 to 4 hematologic (41% v 25%; P < .0001) and grade 3 to 4 nonhematologic toxicity (28% v 22%; P = .034).

Conclusion

Doublet chemotherapy as second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC significantly increases response rate and progression-free survival, but is more toxic and does not improve overall survival compared to single-agent.

Do adjuvant aromatase inhibitors increase the cardiovascular risk in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer? Meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Despite the advantages from using aromatase inhibitors (AIs) compared with tamoxifen for early breast cancer, an unexpectedly greater number of grade 3 and 4 cardiovascular events (CVAE) (as defined by National Cancer Institute of Canada-Common Toxicity Criteria [version 2.0] was demonstrated.

METHODS

Phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing AI with tamoxifen in early breast cancer were considered eligible for this review. The event-based risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were derived, and a test of heterogeneity was applied. Finally, absolute differences (ADs) in event rates and the number of patients needed to harm 1 patient (NNH) were determined.

RESULTS

Seven eligible RCTs (19,818 patients) reported CVAE results. When considering all RCTs, the AD of the primary endpoint (CVAE) between the 2 arms (0.52%), tamoxifen versus AI, was statistically significant (RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.07-1.60; P= .007). This translated into an NNH value of 189 patients; when only third-generation AIs were considered, the difference (0.57%) remained significant (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.09-1.63; P= .0038). Thromboembolic events were significantly more frequent in the tamoxifen arm, regardless of the strategy adopted (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42-0.65; P< .0001), without significant heterogeneity (P= .21). An AD of 1.17% and an NNH value of 85 patients were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the results from this meta-analysis, the risk of grade 3 and 4 CVAEs in patients who were receiving AIs was higher compared with the risk in patients who were receiving tamoxifen, and the difference reached statistical significance. However, the AD was relatively low, and from 160 to 180 patients had to be treated to produce 1 event.

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy in the management of oral cancer: a review

INTRODUCTION

Multi-modality treatment concepts involving preoperative radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and subsequent radical resection are used much less frequently than postoperative treatment for oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas. In some centres, however, the preoperative approach has been established for several years.

MATERIAL

The present review is a compilation of the existing evidence on this subject.

METHODS

In a literature-based meta-analysis, the survival data of 1927 patients from 32 eligible publications were analysed.

RESULTS

The calculated survival rates of documented patients show remarkably good results with preoperative CRT and radical surgery. However, the findings of this analysis are based on data with a large proportion of studies using consecutive patient series.

CONCLUSION

Hard evidence providing sufficient data from prospective randomised studies is as yet missing for preoperative CRT. Prospective randomised studies are mandatory in this area.