1
|
Ward MC, Prabhu RS, Atlas JL, Carrizosa DR, Milas ZL, Brickman DS, Frenkel CH, Hong SS, Moeller BJ. Weekly Versus Bolus Cisplatin Concurrent With Definitive Radiation Therapy for Squamous Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Pract Radiat Oncol 2024:S1879-8500(24)00132-2. [PMID: 38888539 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2024.03.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2023] [Revised: 02/28/2024] [Accepted: 03/17/2024] [Indexed: 06/20/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE The schedule of cisplatin concurrent with definitive radiation for squamous carcinoma of the head and neck remains controversial. Most institutions deliver either a high-dose "bolus" schedule once every 3 weeks or a low-dose weekly schedule. We compared these 2 schedules via a simplified network meta-analysis with a common comparator. METHODS AND MATERIALS We performed a PRISMA-concordant systematic review to identify randomized controlled trials comparing cisplatin with cetuximab for nonmetastatic, locoregionally advanced squamous carcinoma of the head and neck treated with definitive radiation. Trials incorporating primary surgery or induction therapy were excluded. Patient survival times were extracted on a per-event basis from the published curves using a digitizer and validated against published point estimates and hazard ratios (HRs). Survival was compared using random effects Cox regression under a frequentist framework. Toxicity and secondary endpoints were analyzed qualitatively. The Cochrane method assessed the risk of bias. The analysis plan was preregistered with the Open Science Foundation. RESULTS Five randomized trials were identified, including 1678 patients. There was no statistical difference in overall survival between weekly and bolus regimens (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.53-1.52, P = .345). This Cox model suggested that for the average patient in the cohort, the absolute difference in 5-year overall survival between weekly and bolus regimens was +1.2% (95% CI, -6.1%-+5.9%, P = .345). Secondary endpoints and toxicity were not obviously different by regimen, qualitatively. CONCLUSIONS The cetuximab trials provide indirect data suggesting that the differences between cisplatin schedules are subtle.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew C Ward
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina.
| | - Roshan S Prabhu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina
| | - Jennifer L Atlas
- Department of Hematology/Oncology, Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina
| | - Daniel R Carrizosa
- Department of Hematology/Oncology, Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina
| | - Zvonimir L Milas
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina
| | - Daniel S Brickman
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina
| | - Catherine H Frenkel
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina
| | - Steven S Hong
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina
| | - Benjamin J Moeller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Faron M, Cheugoua-Zanetsie M, Tierney J, Thirion P, Nankivell M, Winter K, Yang H, Shapiro J, Vernerey D, Smithers BM, Walsh T, Piessen G, Nilsson M, Boonstra J, Ychou M, Law S, Cunningham D, de Vathaire F, Stahl M, Urba S, Valmasoni M, Williaume D, Thomas J, Lordick F, Tepper J, Roth J, Gebski V, Burmeister B, Paoletti X, van Sandick J, Fu J, Pignon JP, Ducreux M, Michiels S. Individual Participant Data Network Meta-Analysis of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2023; 41:4535-4547. [PMID: 37467395 PMCID: PMC10553121 DOI: 10.1200/jco.22.02279] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2022] [Revised: 01/31/2023] [Accepted: 04/24/2023] [Indexed: 07/21/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthieu Faron
- Oncostat, CESP, Inserm U1018, University Paris-Saclay, labeled Ligue Contre le Cancer, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
| | - Maurice Cheugoua-Zanetsie
- Oncostat, CESP, Inserm U1018, University Paris-Saclay, labeled Ligue Contre le Cancer, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
| | - Jayne Tierney
- MRC Clinical Trial Unit at UCL, London, United Kingdom
| | | | | | - Kathryn Winter
- NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Hong Yang
- Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Joel Shapiro
- Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - B. Mark Smithers
- University of Queensland, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Thomas Walsh
- Connolly Hospital Blanchardstown, Dublin, Ireland
| | | | - Magnus Nilsson
- Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technoglogy, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Upper Abdominal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | | | | | - Simon Law
- Department of Surgery, School of Clinical Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - David Cunningham
- National Institute for Health Research, Biomedical Research Centres, Royal Marsden, London, United Kingdom
| | - Florent de Vathaire
- Oncostat, CESP, Inserm U1018, University Paris-Saclay, labeled Ligue Contre le Cancer, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
| | | | | | - Michele Valmasoni
- Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, Padova University Hospital, Center for Esophageal Diseases, Padova, Italy
| | | | - Janine Thomas
- Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Australia
| | | | - Joel Tepper
- University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC
| | | | | | | | | | - Johanna van Sandick
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Jianhua Fu
- Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jean-Pierre Pignon
- Oncostat, CESP, Inserm U1018, University Paris-Saclay, labeled Ligue Contre le Cancer, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
| | - Michel Ducreux
- Departement d’Oncologie Médicale, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
| | - Stefan Michiels
- Oncostat, CESP, Inserm U1018, University Paris-Saclay, labeled Ligue Contre le Cancer, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Petit C, Lee A, Ma J, Lacas B, Ng WT, Chan ATC, Hong RL, Chen MY, Chen L, Li WF, Huang PY, Tan T, Ngan RKC, Zhu G, Mai HQ, Hui EP, Fountzilas G, Zhang L, Carmel A, Kwong DLW, Moon J, Bourhis J, Auperin A, Pignon JP, Blanchard P. Role of chemotherapy in patients with nasopharynx carcinoma treated with radiotherapy (MAC-NPC): an updated individual patient data network meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2023; 24:611-623. [PMID: 37269842 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(23)00163-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2023] [Revised: 04/04/2023] [Accepted: 04/05/2023] [Indexed: 06/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The meta-analysis of chemotherapy for nasopharynx carcinoma (MAC-NPC) collaborative group previously showed that the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy to concomitant chemoradiotherapy had the highest survival benefit of the studied treatment regimens in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Due to the publication of new trials on induction chemotherapy, we updated the network meta-analysis. METHODS For this individual patient data network meta-analysis, trials of radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in patients with non-metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma that completed accrual before Dec 31, 2016, were identified and updated individual patient data were obtained. Both general databases (eg, PubMed and Web of Science) and Chinese medical literature databases were searched. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. A frequentist network meta-analysis approach with a two-step random effect stratified by trial based on hazard ratio Peto estimator was used. Global Cochran Q statistic was used to assess homogeneity and consistency, and p score to rank treatments, with higher scores indicating higher benefit therapies. Treatments were grouped into the following categories: radiotherapy alone, induction chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy, induction chemotherapy without taxanes followed by chemoradiotherapy, induction chemotherapy with taxanes followed by chemoradiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy, and radiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42016042524. FINDINGS The network comprised 28 trials and included 8214 patients (6133 [74·7%] were men, 2073 [25·2%] were women, and eight [0·1%] had missing data) enrolled between Jan 1, 1988, and Dec 31, 2016. Median follow-up was 7·6 years (IQR 6·2-13·3). There was no evidence of heterogeneity (p=0·18), and inconsistency was borderline (p=0·10). The three treatments with the highest benefit for overall survival were induction chemotherapy with taxanes followed by chemoradiotherapy (hazard ratio 0·75; 95% CI 0·59-0·96; p score 92%), induction chemotherapy without taxanes followed by chemoradiotherapy (0·81; 0·69-0·95; p score 87%), and chemoradiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (0·88; 0·75-1·04; p score 72%), compared with concomitant chemoradiotherapy (p score 46%). INTERPRETATION The inclusion of new trials modified the conclusion of the previous network meta-analysis. In this updated network meta-analysis, the addition of either induction chemotherapy or adjuvant chemotherapy to chemoradiotherapy improved overall survival over chemoradiotherapy alone in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. FUNDING Institut National du Cancer and Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Petit
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Université Paris-Saclay, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; Oncostat U1018 INSERM, Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, Villejuif, France; Groupe d'Oncologie Radiothérapie Tête Et Cou, Tours, France
| | - Anne Lee
- Clinical Oncology Center, University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China; Department of Clinical Oncology, LKS Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China
| | - Jun Ma
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, China
| | - Benjamin Lacas
- Service de Biostatistique et d'Epidémiologie, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; Oncostat U1018 INSERM, Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, Villejuif, France; Groupe d'Oncologie Radiothérapie Tête Et Cou, Tours, France
| | - Wai Tong Ng
- Clinical Oncology Center, University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China; Department of Clinical Oncology, LKS Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China
| | - Anthony T C Chan
- State Key Laboratory of Translational Oncology, Hong Kong Cancer Institute, Sir YK Pao Centre for Cancer, Department of Clinical Oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China
| | - Ruey-Long Hong
- Department of Medical Oncology, National Taiwan University Cancer Center, Taipei, Taiwan
| | | | - Lei Chen
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Wen-Fei Li
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Pei-Yu Huang
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | | | - Roger K C Ngan
- Department of Clinical Oncology, LKS Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China
| | - Guopei Zhu
- Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, China
| | - Hai-Qiang Mai
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Edwin P Hui
- State Key Laboratory of Translational Oncology, Hong Kong Cancer Institute, Sir YK Pao Centre for Cancer, Department of Clinical Oncology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China
| | - George Fountzilas
- Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece; Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group, Athens, Greece; German Oncology Center, Limassol, Cyprus
| | - Li Zhang
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Alexandra Carmel
- Service de Biostatistique et d'Epidémiologie, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; Oncostat U1018 INSERM, Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, Villejuif, France; Groupe d'Oncologie Radiothérapie Tête Et Cou, Tours, France
| | - Dora L W Kwong
- Department of Clinical Oncology, LKS Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China
| | - James Moon
- Southwest Oncology Group Statistics and Data Management Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Jean Bourhis
- Groupe d'Oncologie Radiothérapie Tête Et Cou, Tours, France; Department of Radiotherapy, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Anne Auperin
- Service de Biostatistique et d'Epidémiologie, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; Oncostat U1018 INSERM, Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, Villejuif, France; Groupe d'Oncologie Radiothérapie Tête Et Cou, Tours, France
| | - Jean-Pierre Pignon
- Service de Biostatistique et d'Epidémiologie, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; Oncostat U1018 INSERM, Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, Villejuif, France; Groupe d'Oncologie Radiothérapie Tête Et Cou, Tours, France
| | - Pierre Blanchard
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Université Paris-Saclay, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; Oncostat U1018 INSERM, Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, Villejuif, France; Groupe d'Oncologie Radiothérapie Tête Et Cou, Tours, France.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
The Efficacy of Additives for the Mitigation of Aflatoxins in Animal Feed: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Toxins (Basel) 2022; 14:toxins14100707. [PMID: 36287975 PMCID: PMC9607122 DOI: 10.3390/toxins14100707] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2022] [Revised: 10/10/2022] [Accepted: 10/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
The contamination of animal feed with aflatoxins is an ongoing and growing serious issue, particularly for livestock farmers in tropical and subtropical regions. Exposure of animals to an aflatoxin-contaminated diet impairs feed efficiency and increases susceptibility to diseases, resulting in mortality, feed waste, and increased production costs. They can also be excreted in milk and thus pose a significant human health risk. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aim to compare and identify the most effective intervention to alleviate the negative impact of aflatoxins on the important livestock sector, poultry production. Eligible studies on the efficacy of feed additives to mitigate the toxic effect of aflatoxins in poultry were retrieved from different databases. Additives were classified into three categories based on their mode of action and composition: organic binder, inorganic binder, and antioxidant. Moreover, alanine transaminase (ALT), a liver enzyme, was the primary indicator. Supplementing aflatoxin-contaminated feeds with different categories of additives significantly reduces serum ALT levels (p < 0.001) compared with birds fed only a contaminated diet. Inorganic binder (P-score 0.8615) was ranked to be the most efficient in terms of counteracting the toxic effect of aflatoxins, followed by antioxidant (P-score 0.6159) and organic binder (P-score 0.5018). These findings will have significant importance for farmers, veterinarians, and animal nutrition companies when deciding which type of additives to use for mitigating exposure to aflatoxins, thus improving food security and the livelihoods of smallholder farmers in developing countries.
Collapse
|