Margreet G Franken1, Brenda Leeneman2, Maria Gheorghe3, Carin A Uyl-de Groot4, John B A G Haanen5, Pieter H M van Baal2. 1. Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: franken@imta.eur.nl. 2. Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute- Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although a myriad of novel treatments entered the treatment paradigm for advanced melanoma, there is lack of head-to-head evidence. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to estimate each treatment's relative effectiveness and safety. METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane to identify all phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a time frame from January 1, 2010 to March 11, 2019. We retrieved evidence on treatment-related grade III/IV adverse events, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Evidence was synthesised using a Bayesian fixed-effect NMA. Reference treatment was dacarbazine. In accordance with RCTs, dacarbazine was pooled with temozolomide, paclitaxel and paclitaxel plus carboplatin. To increase homogeneity of the study populations, RCTs were only included if patients were not previously treated with novel treatments. RESULTS: The SLR identified 28 phase III RCTs involving 14,376 patients. Nineteen and seventeen treatments were included in the effectiveness and safety NMA, respectively. For PFS, dabrafenib plus trametinib (hazard ratio [HR] PFS: 0.21) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR PFS: 0.22) were identified as most favourable treatments. Both had, however, less favourable safety profiles. Five other treatments closely followed (dabrafenib [HR PFS: 0.30], nivolumab plus ipilimumab [HR PFS: 0.34], vemurafenib [HR PFS: 0.38], nivolumab [HR PFS: 0.42] and pembrolizumab [HR PFS: 0.46]). In contrast, for OS, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR OS: 0.39), nivolumab (HR OS: 0.46) and pembrolizumab (HR OS: 0.50) were more favourable than dabrafenib plus trametinib (HR OS: 0.55) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR OS: 0.57). CONCLUSIONS: Our NMA identified the most effective treatment options for advanced melanoma and provided valuable insights into each novel treatment's relative effectiveness and safety. This information may facilitate evidence-based decision-making and may support the optimisation of treatment and outcomes in everyday clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Although a myriad of novel treatments entered the treatment paradigm for advanced melanoma, there is lack of head-to-head evidence. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to estimate each treatment's relative effectiveness and safety. METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane to identify all phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a time frame from January 1, 2010 to March 11, 2019. We retrieved evidence on treatment-related grade III/IV adverse events, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Evidence was synthesised using a Bayesian fixed-effect NMA. Reference treatment was dacarbazine. In accordance with RCTs, dacarbazine was pooled with temozolomide, paclitaxel and paclitaxel plus carboplatin. To increase homogeneity of the study populations, RCTs were only included if patients were not previously treated with novel treatments. RESULTS: The SLR identified 28 phase III RCTs involving 14,376 patients. Nineteen and seventeen treatments were included in the effectiveness and safety NMA, respectively. For PFS, dabrafenib plus trametinib (hazard ratio [HR] PFS: 0.21) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR PFS: 0.22) were identified as most favourable treatments. Both had, however, less favourable safety profiles. Five other treatments closely followed (dabrafenib [HR PFS: 0.30], nivolumab plus ipilimumab [HR PFS: 0.34], vemurafenib [HR PFS: 0.38], nivolumab [HR PFS: 0.42] and pembrolizumab [HR PFS: 0.46]). In contrast, for OS, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR OS: 0.39), nivolumab (HR OS: 0.46) and pembrolizumab (HR OS: 0.50) were more favourable than dabrafenib plus trametinib (HR OS: 0.55) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR OS: 0.57). CONCLUSIONS: Our NMA identified the most effective treatment options for advanced melanoma and provided valuable insights into each novel treatment's relative effectiveness and safety. This information may facilitate evidence-based decision-making and may support the optimisation of treatment and outcomes in everyday clinical practice.
Authors: Massimo Ralli; Andrea Botticelli; Irene Claudia Visconti; Diletta Angeletti; Marco Fiore; Paolo Marchetti; Alessandro Lambiase; Marco de Vincentiis; Antonio Greco Journal: J Immunol Res Date: 2020-06-28 Impact factor: 4.818
Authors: Brenda Leeneman; Carin A Uyl-de Groot; Maureen J B Aarts; Alexander C J van Akkooi; Franchette W P J van den Berkmortel; Alfons J M van den Eertwegh; Jan Willem B de Groot; Karin H Herbschleb; Jacobus J M van der Hoeven; Geke A P Hospers; Ellen Kapiteijn; Djura Piersma; Rozemarijn S van Rijn; Karijn P M Suijkerbuijk; Albert J Ten Tije; Astrid A M van der Veldt; Gerard Vreugdenhil; Michel W J M Wouters; John B A G Haanen; Margreet G Franken Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-04-18 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Teresa Amaral; Felix Kiecker; Sarah Schaefer; Henner Stege; Katharina Kaehler; Patrick Terheyden; Anja Gesierich; Ralf Gutzmer; Sebastian Haferkamp; Jochen Uttikal; Carola Berking; David Rafei-Shamsabadi; Lydia Reinhardt; Friedegund Meier; Ante Karoglan; Christian Posch; Thilo Gambichler; Claudia Pfoehler; Kai Thoms; Julia Tietze; Dirk Debus; Rudolf Herbst; Steffen Emmert; Carmen Loquai; Jessica C Hassel; Frank Meiss; Thomas Tueting; Vanessa Heinrich; Thomas Eigentler; Claus Garbe; Lisa Zimmer Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 13.751