Suppr超能文献

一项关于晚期黑色素瘤有效性和安全性结局的系统文献回顾和网络荟萃分析。

A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety outcomes in advanced melanoma.

机构信息

Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Eur J Cancer. 2019 Dec;123:58-71. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.08.032. Epub 2019 Oct 25.

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.

摘要

背景

尽管有许多新的治疗方法进入了晚期黑色素瘤的治疗模式,但缺乏头对头的证据。我们进行了一项网络荟萃分析(NMA),以估计每种治疗方法的相对有效性和安全性。

方法

在 Embase、MEDLINE 和 Cochrane 中进行了系统文献综述(SLR),以确定 2010 年 1 月 1 日至 2019 年 3 月 11 日期间所有 III 期随机对照试验(RCT)的证据。我们检索了与治疗相关的 III/IV 级不良事件、无进展生存期(PFS)和总生存期(OS)相关的证据。使用贝叶斯固定效应 NMA 对证据进行综合。参考治疗药物为达卡巴嗪。根据 RCT,达卡巴嗪与替莫唑胺、紫杉醇和紫杉醇加卡铂联合使用。为了提高研究人群的同质性,如果患者以前未接受过新的治疗方法,则仅纳入 RCT。

结果

SLR 确定了 28 项 III 期 RCT,涉及 14376 名患者。有效性和安全性 NMA 分别纳入了 19 项和 17 项治疗方法。对于 PFS,达拉非尼联合曲美替尼(HR PFS:0.21)和维莫非尼联合考比替尼(HR PFS:0.22)被认为是最有利的治疗方法。然而,这两种治疗方法的安全性较差。其他五种治疗方法紧随其后(达拉非尼[HR PFS:0.30]、纳武单抗联合伊匹单抗[HR PFS:0.34]、维莫非尼[HR PFS:0.38]、纳武单抗[HR PFS:0.42]和帕博利珠单抗[HR PFS:0.46])。相比之下,对于 OS,纳武单抗联合伊匹单抗(HR OS:0.39)、纳武单抗(HR OS:0.46)和帕博利珠单抗(HR OS:0.50)优于达拉非尼联合曲美替尼(HR OS:0.55)和维莫非尼联合考比替尼(HR OS:0.57)。

结论

我们的 NMA 确定了晚期黑色素瘤最有效的治疗选择,并提供了关于每种新治疗方法相对有效性和安全性的有价值的见解。这些信息可能有助于循证决策,并可能支持在日常临床实践中优化治疗和结果。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验