Amonkar MM, Abderhalden LA, Frederickson AM, Aksomaityte A, Lang BM, Leconte P, Zhang I. Clinical outcomes of chemotherapy-based therapies for previously treated advanced colorectal cancer: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
Int J Colorectal Dis 2023;
38:10. [PMID:
36630020 DOI:
10.1007/s00384-022-04301-9]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/28/2022] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes of standard therapies in previously treated, advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) patients.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL databases (January 2000-July 2021), annual oncology conferences (2019-2021), and clinicaltrials.gov to identify studies evaluating the use of licensed interventions in second-line or later settings. The primary outcome of interest was objective response rate (ORR) and secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). ORR was pooled using the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. For survival outcomes, published Kaplan-Meier curves for OS and PFS were digitized to re-construct individual patient-level data and pooled following the methodology described by Combescure et al. (2014).
RESULTS
Twenty-three trials evaluating standard chemotherapies with or without targeted therapies across 4,791 advanced CRC patients contributed to our meta-analysis. In the second-line setting, the random effects pooled estimate of ORR was 22.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 18.0, 27.1), median PFS was 7.0 months (95% CI: 6.4, 7.4), and median OS was 14.9 months (95% CI: 13.6, 16.1). In the third-line or later setting, the random effects pooled estimate of ORR was 1.7% (95% CI: 0.8, 2.7), median PFS was 2.3 months (95% CI: 2.0, 2.8), and median OS was 8.2 months (95% CI: 7.1, 9.1).
CONCLUSION
Standard treatments have limited efficacy in the second-line or later setting with worsening outcomes in later lines. Given the global burden of CRC, further research into novel and emerging therapeutic options following treatment failure is needed.
Collapse