Yanling Feng1, He Huang1, Ting Wan1, Chuyao Zhang1, Chongjie Tong1, Jihong Liu2. 1. State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, P. R. China. 2. State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, P. R. China. liujih@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Seventy-five percent of ovarian cancer would relapse within 18-28 months after platinum-base chemotherapy. Evidence suggests that maintenance chemotherapy is effective in prolonging remission. Recent target therapies such as poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) and angiogenesis inhibitors (AIs) are known to ease burden and recurrence of ovarian cancer. There is limited data for head-to-head comparison of PARPis, AIs, and chemotherapeutic agents (CTAs) as maintenance treatment. This network meta-analysis thus assessed the effectiveness and toxicity of these three maintenance therapies in patients with ovarian cancer. METHODS: We searched relevant sources (PubMed, EMBASE) to identify randomized controlled trials assessing efficacy and safety of maintenance therapy in patients with ovarian cancer. Primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by blinded review; safety and tolerability were secondary outcomes. A network meta-analysis to compare three drug classes was performed using statistical software R. RESULTS: We included 24 trials (11,366 patients) assessing efficacy and safety of PARPis (n = 4), AIs (n = 12), and CTAs (n = 8). PARPis [hazard ratio (HR) 0.64; 95% credible intervals (CrI) 0.55-0.73] and AIs (HR 0.87; 95% CrI 0.81-0.93) showed significant improvement in PFS compared to placebo but not CTA (HR 1.00; 95% CrI 0.86-1.15). PARPis showed significant improvement in PFS compared to AIs (HR 0.73; 95% CrI 0.63-0.86) and CTA (HR 0.64; 95% CrI 0.52-0.78). Adverse events (AEs) leading to treatment discontinuation and dose reduction were lower in PARPis [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.60; CrI 0.31-1.18 and IRR 0.73, 95% CrI 0.50-1.06, respectively] compared to AIs, but the differences were not significant. CONCLUSION: PARPi as maintenance treatment improved PFS in ovarian cancer and was relatively safer in terms of implications caused by AEs when compared to AIs. This network meta-analysis provides valuable evidence and significant insights into treatment of ovarian cancer.
INTRODUCTION: Seventy-five percent of ovarian cancer would relapse within 18-28 months after platinum-base chemotherapy. Evidence suggests that maintenance chemotherapy is effective in prolonging remission. Recent target therapies such as poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) and angiogenesis inhibitors (AIs) are known to ease burden and recurrence of ovarian cancer. There is limited data for head-to-head comparison of PARPis, AIs, and chemotherapeutic agents (CTAs) as maintenance treatment. This network meta-analysis thus assessed the effectiveness and toxicity of these three maintenance therapies in patients with ovarian cancer. METHODS: We searched relevant sources (PubMed, EMBASE) to identify randomized controlled trials assessing efficacy and safety of maintenance therapy in patients with ovarian cancer. Primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by blinded review; safety and tolerability were secondary outcomes. A network meta-analysis to compare three drug classes was performed using statistical software R. RESULTS: We included 24 trials (11,366 patients) assessing efficacy and safety of PARPis (n = 4), AIs (n = 12), and CTAs (n = 8). PARPis [hazard ratio (HR) 0.64; 95% credible intervals (CrI) 0.55-0.73] and AIs (HR 0.87; 95% CrI 0.81-0.93) showed significant improvement in PFS compared to placebo but not CTA (HR 1.00; 95% CrI 0.86-1.15). PARPis showed significant improvement in PFS compared to AIs (HR 0.73; 95% CrI 0.63-0.86) and CTA (HR 0.64; 95% CrI 0.52-0.78). Adverse events (AEs) leading to treatment discontinuation and dose reduction were lower in PARPis [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.60; CrI 0.31-1.18 and IRR 0.73, 95% CrI 0.50-1.06, respectively] compared to AIs, but the differences were not significant. CONCLUSION: PARPi as maintenance treatment improved PFS in ovarian cancer and was relatively safer in terms of implications caused by AEs when compared to AIs. This network meta-analysis provides valuable evidence and significant insights into treatment of ovarian cancer.
Authors: Chen-Yu Huang; Min Cheng; Na-Rong Lee; Hsin-Yi Huang; Wen-Ling Lee; Wen-Hsun Chang; Peng-Hui Wang Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-03-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Min Cheng; Howard Hao Lee; Wen-Hsun Chang; Na-Rong Lee; Hsin-Yi Huang; Yi-Jen Chen; Huann-Cheng Horng; Wen-Ling Lee; Peng-Hui Wang Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-11-29 Impact factor: 3.390