Tahira Devji1, Oren Levine2, Binod Neupane1, Joseph Beyene1, Feng Xie3. 1. Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton , Ontario, Canada. 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton , Ontario, Canada2Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton , Ontario, Canada3Father Sean O'Sullivan Research Centre, St Joseph's Healthcare-Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Multiple effective first-line systemic treatment options are available for patients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. A lack of head-to-head randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing targeted and immunotherapies leaves uncertainty regarding optimal first-line treatment. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the relative efficacy and safety of systemic therapies for advanced, treatment-naive, BRAF-mutated melanoma. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials for phase 2 or 3 RCTs published up until April 29, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: We included RCTs in which at least 1 intervention was a targeted (BRAF or MEK) or an immune checkpoint (cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 [CTLA-4] or programmed cell death 1 [PD-1]) inhibitor. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers performed study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model to combine direct comparisons with indirect evidence. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and odds ratios (OR) for objective response rate (ORR) and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Sixteen eligible articles reporting 15 RCTs involving 6662 patients assigned to 1 of 10 treatment strategies were included. Both BRAF/MEK and PD-1 were associated with improved OS benefit compared with all other treatments except CTLA-4/granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor. There was no significant difference in OS between BRAF/MEK and PD-1 (HR, 1.02; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.72-1.45). The network meta-analysis showed a significant advantage of BRAF/MEK compared with all other treatment strategies for PFS. BRAF/MEK was associated with higher ORR (OR, 2.00; 95% CrI, 1.64-2.45) compared with BRAF alone, with both being superior in achieving ORR compared with other treatments. Chemotherapy and PD-1 were associated with lowest risk of serious adverse events. There was no significant difference in the risk of serious adverse events between chemotherapy and PD-1 (OR, 1.00; 95% CrI, 0.74-1.34). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Compared with other treatments, BRAF/MEK and PD-1 inhibition significantly improved OS. The favorable safety profile of PD-1 inhibitors supports using this option as first-line therapy in circumstances where rapid response is not a priority.
IMPORTANCE: Multiple effective first-line systemic treatment options are available for patients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. A lack of head-to-head randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing targeted and immunotherapies leaves uncertainty regarding optimal first-line treatment. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the relative efficacy and safety of systemic therapies for advanced, treatment-naive, BRAF-mutated melanoma. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials for phase 2 or 3 RCTs published up until April 29, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: We included RCTs in which at least 1 intervention was a targeted (BRAF or MEK) or an immune checkpoint (cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 [CTLA-4] or programmed cell death 1 [PD-1]) inhibitor. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers performed study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model to combine direct comparisons with indirect evidence. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and odds ratios (OR) for objective response rate (ORR) and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Sixteen eligible articles reporting 15 RCTs involving 6662 patients assigned to 1 of 10 treatment strategies were included. Both BRAF/MEK and PD-1 were associated with improved OS benefit compared with all other treatments except CTLA-4/granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor. There was no significant difference in OS between BRAF/MEK and PD-1 (HR, 1.02; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.72-1.45). The network meta-analysis showed a significant advantage of BRAF/MEK compared with all other treatment strategies for PFS. BRAF/MEK was associated with higher ORR (OR, 2.00; 95% CrI, 1.64-2.45) compared with BRAF alone, with both being superior in achieving ORR compared with other treatments. Chemotherapy and PD-1 were associated with lowest risk of serious adverse events. There was no significant difference in the risk of serious adverse events between chemotherapy and PD-1 (OR, 1.00; 95% CrI, 0.74-1.34). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Compared with other treatments, BRAF/MEK and PD-1 inhibition significantly improved OS. The favorable safety profile of PD-1 inhibitors supports using this option as first-line therapy in circumstances where rapid response is not a priority.
Authors: Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Natalia Udaltsova; Lawrence H Kushi; Christine Neslund-Dudas; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Pamala A Pawloski; Douglas A Corley; Sarah Knerr; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Jessica Ezzell Hunter; David C Tabano; Mara M Epstein; Stacey A Honda; Monica Ter-Minassian; Julie A Lynch; Christine Y Lu Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2019-09