A Bayesian network meta-analysis on second-line systemic therapy in advanced gastric cancer

Clinical Outcomes for Previously Treated Patients with Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Although second-line treatments improve survival compared to best supportive care in patients with advanced gastric cancer with disease progression on first-line therapy, prognosis remains poor. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to quantify the efficacy of second-or-later line systemic therapies in this target population.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (January 1, 2000 to July 6, 2021) of Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL with additional searches of 2019-2021 annual ASCO and ESMO conferences was conducted to identify studies in the target population. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed among studies involving chemotherapies and targeted therapies relevant in treatment guidelines and HTA activities. Outcomes of interest were objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) presented as Kaplan-Meier data. Randomized controlled trials reporting any of the outcomes of interest were included. For OS and PFS, individual patient-level data were reconstructed from published Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

Forty-four trials were eligible for the analysis. Pooled ORR (42 trials; 77 treatment arms; 7256 participants) was 15.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 12.7-17.5%). Median OS from the pooled analysis (34 trials; 64 treatment arms; 60,350 person-months) was 7.9 months (95% CI 7.4-8.5). Median PFS from the pooled analysis (32 trials; 61 treatment arms; 28,860 person-months) was 3.5 months (95% CI 3.2-3.7).

CONCLUSION

Our study confirms poor prognosis among patients with advanced gastric cancer, following disease progression on first-line therapy. Despite the approved, recommended, and experimental systemic treatments available, there is still an unmet need for novel interventions for this indication.

Comparative analysis of systemic oncological treatments and best supportive care for advanced gastresophageal cancer: A comprehensive scoping review and evidence map

OBJECTIVE

To identify, describe, and organize the available evidence regarding systemic oncological treatments compared to best supportive care (BSC) for advanced gastresophageal cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a thorough search across MEDLINE (PubMed), EMbase (Ovid), The Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Our inclusion criteria encompassed systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental and observational studies involving patients with advanced esophageal or gastric cancer receiving chemotherapy, immunotherapy or biological/targeted therapy compared to BSC. The outcomes included survival, quality of life, functional status, toxicity, and quality of end-of-life care.

RESULTS

We included and mapped 72 studies, comprising SRs, experimental and observational designs, 12 on esophageal cancer, 51 on gastric cancer, and 10 both locations. Most compared schemes including chemotherapy (47 studies), but did not report therapeutic lines. Moreover, BSC as a control arm was poorly defined, including integral support and placebo. Data favor the use of systemic oncological treatments in survival outcomes and BSC in toxicity. Data for outcomes including quality of life, functional status, and quality of end-of-life care were limited. We found sundry evidence gaps specifically in assessing new treatments such as immunotherapy and important outcomes such as functional status, symptoms control, hospital admissions, and the quality of end-life care for all the treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

There are important evidence gaps regarding new for patients with advanced gastresophageal cancer and the effect of systemic oncological treatments on important patient-centered outcomes beyond survival. Future research should clearly describe the population included, specifying previous treatments and considering therapeutic, and consider all patient-centered outcomes. Otherwise, it will be complex to apply research results into practice.

The full management from first-line to third-line treatments in patients with Her-2-negative advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the efficacy of full management from first-line to third-line treatments in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her-2)-negative advanced gastric cancer (GC).

METHODS

The efficacy and survival time of a total of 126 patients who received the first-line treatment with oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidine (S-1 or capecitabine or fluorouracil), the second-line treatment with nab-paclitaxel, and the third-line treatment of immune checkpoint inhibitors between September 2019 and December 2021 were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 42, 36, and 48 patients received CapeOX, FOLFOX, and SOX as a first-line treatment, respectively. All patients received nab-paclitaxel alone as a second-line treatment. In addition, 31, 56, and 39 patients received nivolumab, sintilimab, and tislelizumab as a third-line treatment, respectively. The median PFS1, median PFS2, and median PFS3 was 6.9 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.8-7.4], 5.5 months (95% CI, 5.3-5.7), and 3.5 months (95% CI, 3.4-3.7). The median PFS3 was 3.8 months (95% CI, 3.3-4.2) and 3.5 months (95% CI, 3.3-3.7) among the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-positive and EBV-negative, respectively (P = 0.09). In addition, the median PFS3 was 4.2 months (95% CI,3.6-4.7) and 3.5 months (95% CI, 3.3-3.6) in the patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥5 and CPS <5, respectively (P = 0.02). The median OS was 17.4 months (95% CI, 17.2-18.1). The multivariate analysis showed that the two parameters were associated with a significantly longer OS: number of metastatic sites <3 and PD-L1 CPS ≥5.

CONCLUSION

The patients who received three lines of treatment had a long survival time, and the efficacy of immunotherapy was not affected by the EBV subtypes in advanced GC. The toxicity was managed, and the concept of full management needs to be confirmed in the future.

Efficacy and safety of targeted drugs in advanced or metastatic gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer: A network meta-analysis

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

An increasing number of targeted drugs have been used to treat advanced or metastatic gastric cancer (GC) and gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC). However, the optimal treatment efficacy of these drugs is still controversial. The aims of this study are to systematically summarize the efficacy and safety of current targeted drugs for advanced or metastatic GC and GEJC.

METHODS

PubMed, EmBase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials were searched for double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on GC and GEJC up to December 2019. Additionally, we updated the literature search from Jan, 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021. Narrative and quantitative analysis were performed to analyse the efficacy and safety. STATA 15.1 was used to identify publication bias, and the SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking) curve was conducted to rank the treatments for each outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 27 RCTs with 9295 GC and GEJC patients treated by 19 drugs were included. SUCRA showed that regorafenib was the most likely to improve patients' progression-free survival (96.4%), followed by apatinib (90.7%), nivolumab (82.4%), everolimus (76.5%) and pertuzumab (68.5%). Meanwhile, apatinib (92.4%) was most likely to improve overall survival, followed by nivolumab (87.9%), regorafenib (72.5%), olaparib (67.7%) and lapatinib (63.2%). Additionally, neutropenia, diarrhoea and fatigue were the most common adverse events caused by these drugs, followed by pain, nausea, decreased appetite, anaemia and vomiting.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Regorafenib and nivolumab have higher efficacy and tolerability and are the most advantageous for advanced GC and GEJC. Moreover, apatinib has higher efficacy but lower tolerability. Everolimus and pertuzumab combined with chemotherapy have best secondary higher efficacy for progression-free survival and good tolerability. Lapatinib and olaparib combined with chemotherapy have moderate efficacy for overall survival and good tolerability.

Efficacy of systemic oncological treatments in patients with advanced esophageal or gastric cancers at high risk of dying in the middle and short term: an overview of systematic reviews

Background

Esophageal and gastric cancers are a significant public health problem worldwide, with most patients presenting with advanced-stage disease and, consequently, poor prognosis. Systemic oncological treatments (SOT) have been widely used over more conservative approaches, such as supportive care. Nevertheless, its effectiveness in this scenario is not sufficiently clear. This paper provides an overview of systematic reviews that assessed the effectiveness of SOT compared with the best supportive care (BSC) or placebo in patients with advanced esophageal or gastric cancers in an end-of-life context.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and PROSPERO for eligible systematic reviews (SRs) published from 2008 onwards. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), functional status, and toxicity. Two authors assessed eligibility and extracted data independently. We evaluated the methodological quality of included SRs using the AMSTAR-2 tool and the overlap of primary studies (corrected covered area, CCA). Also, we performed a de novo meta-analysis with data reported for each primary study when it was possible. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

Results

We identified 16 SRs (19 included trials) for inclusion within this overview. Most reviews had a critically low methodological quality, and there was a very high overlap of primary studies. It is uncertain whether SOT improves OS and PFS over more conservative approaches due to the very low certainty of evidence.

Conclusions

The evidence is very uncertain about the effectiveness of SOT for advanced esophageal or gastric cancers. High-quality SRs and further randomized clinical trials that include a thorough assessment of patient-centered outcomes are needed.

Trial registration

Open Science Framework, 10.17605/OSF.IO/7CHX6.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08330-5.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of third-line treatments for advanced gastric cancer: A systematic review with Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The most effective agent for the third-line treatment of advanced/metastatic gastric cancer (AGC) has not yet been determined. The aim of this network meta-analysis is to compare the relative efficacy and tolerability of third-line treatments for AGC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) using four electronic databases. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events (AEs) were used as efficacy or tolerability outcomes. A Bayesian network meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs involving 2601 patients and nine treatments were included. The results suggested that 1 mg/kg nivolumab (nivolumab1) + 3 mg/kg ipilimumab (ipilimumab3) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.59, 95% credible interval [Crl] 0.38-0.91) was the most effective treatment, followed by nivolumab (HR 0.63, 95% Crl 0.50-0.79), for prolonging OS. Regorafenib (HR 0.40, 95% Crl 0.28-0.58) was most likely to improve PFS, followed by apatinib (HR 0.45, 95% Crl 0.33-0.60). Nivolumab1 + ipilimumab3 and nivolumab were better at improving ORR, whereas nivolumab1 + ipilimumab3 had the highest toxicity based on the AEs. For benefit-risk ratio, nivolumab, apatinib or regorafenib appeared to be the best options. Chemotherapy or two different dose combinations of nivolumab and ipilimumab were ranked as the next options because of poor tolerability, despite good efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Immunotherapy (nivolumab) or antiangiogenic agents (regorafenib and apatinib) are associated with benefits for benefit-risk ratio as third-line monotherapy. This study might serve as a guideline to aid in the selection of third-line treatments for AGC.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of second-line therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma

Background

In patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (hcc) following sorafenib failure, it is unclear which treatment is most efficacious, as treatments in the second-line setting have not been directly compared and no standard therapy exists. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (nma) aimed to compare the clinical benefits and toxicities of these treatments.

Methods

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (rcts) was conducted to identify phase iii rcts in advanced hcc following sorafenib failure. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of placebo were examined for heterogeneity. Primary outcomes of interest were extracted for results, including overall survival (os), progression-free survival (pfs), objective response rate (orr), grade 3/4 toxicities, and subgroups. An nma was conducted to compare both drugs through the intermediate placebo. Comparisons were expressed as hazard ratios (hrs) for os and pfs, and as risk difference (rd) for orr and toxicities. Subgroup analyses for os and pfs were also performed.

Results

Two rcts were identified (1280 patients) and compared through an indirect network; celestial (cabozantinib vs. placebo) and resorce (regorafenib vs. placebo). Baseline characteristics of patients in both trials were similar. Both trials also had similar placebo outcomes. Cabozantinib, compared with regorafenib, showed similar os [hazard ratio (hr): 1.21; 95% confidence interval (ci): 0.90 to 1.62], pfs (hr: 1.02; 95% ci: 0.78 to 1.34) and orr (-3.0%; 95% ci: -7.6% to 1.7%). Both treatments showed similar toxicities, but there were marginally higher risks of grade 3/4 hand-foot syndrome (5%; 95% ci: 0.1% to 9.8%), diarrhea (4.8%; 95% ci: 1.1% to 8.5%), and anorexia (4.4%; 95% ci: 0.8% to 8.0%) for cabozantinib. Subgroup results for os and pfs were consistent with overall results.

Conclusions

Overall, this nma determined that cabozantinib and regorafenib have similar clinical benefits and toxicities for second-line hcc.

Second-line treatment in advanced gastric cancer: Data from the Spanish AGAMENON registry

Background

Second-line treatments boost overall survival in advanced gastric cancer (AGC). However, there is a paucity of information as to patterns of use and the results achieved in actual clinical practice.

Materials and methods

The study population comprised patients with AGC in the AGAMENON registry who had received second-line. The objective was to describe the pattern of second-line therapies administered, progression-free survival following second-line (PFS-2), and post-progression survival since first-line (PPS).

Results

2311 cases with 2066 progression events since first-line (89.3%) were recorded; 245 (10.6%) patients died during first-line treatment and 1326/2066 (64.1%) received a second-line. Median PFS-2 and PPS were 3.1 (95% CI, 2.9–3.3) and 5.8 months (5.5–6.3), respectively. The most widely used strategies were monoCT (56.9%), polyCT (15.0%), ramucirumab+CT (12.6%), platinum-reintroduction (8.3%), trastuzumab+CT (6.1%), and ramucirumab (1.1%). PFS-2/PPS medians gradually increased in monoCT, 2.6/5.1 months; polyCT 3.4/6.3 months; ramucirumab+CT, 4.1/6.5 months; platinum-reintroduction, 4.2/6.7 months, and for the HER2+ subgroup in particular, trastuzumab+CT, 5.2/11.7 months. Correlation between PFS since first-line and OS was moderate in the series as a whole (Kendall’s τ = 0.613), lower in those subjects who received second-line (Kendall’s τ = 0.539), especially with ramucirumab+CT (Kendall’s τ = 0.413).

Conclusion

This analysis reveals the diversity in second-line treatment for AGC, highlighting the effectiveness of paclitaxel-ramucirumab and, for a selected subgroup of patients, platinum reintroduction; both strategies endorsed by recent clinical guidelines.

Systemic therapy for previously treated advanced gastric cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Although paclitaxel plus ramucirumab has been recommended as the preferred second-line strategy, other regimens also display potentially comparable efficacies. Record retrieval was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, ASCO and ESMO meeting libraries. Randomized controlled trials featuring comparisons between different systemic treatments among previously treated patients with advanced gastric cancer were eligible for our systematic review. Network calculation were based on random-effects model and the relative ranking of each regimen was numerically indicated by P-score (CRD42018104672). Concerning second-line regimens, "paclitaxel plus olaparib" and "paclitaxel plus ramucirumab" dominated the overall survival ranking while "paclitaxel plus ramucirumab" additionally topped the hierarchy for progression-free survival. Among refractory or third-line only cases, apatinib reigned the hierarchy by significantly and insignificantly surpassing placebo and nivolumab respectively. In conclusion, paclitaxel plus ramucirumab is the optimal second-line regimen. Both apatinib and nivolumab could be potentially recommended as refractory regimens.

Third-line systemic treatment in advanced/metastatic gastric cancer: a comprehensive review

The management of advanced gastric cancer has improved over the past decade. There is more evidence to support the efficacy of systemic treatment in refractory gastric cancer beyond second-line treatment. Important randomized controlled trials of chemotherapies, targeted agents and immunotherapies have been reported. With the development of these novel therapies, clinicians can better individualize treatment for patients beyond progression on second-line therapy. However, there is no guideline on third-line therapy available for clinicians. This review discussed the efficacy and safety data from the pivotal trials of the agents proven to be effective in third-line settings, including the quality of study design, level of evidence and subgroup analysis, and how the data can help to guide clinicians on selecting the most appropriate third-line therapy for their patients.

Survival Benefit of Three Different Therapies in Postoperative Patients With Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis

Purpose: Gastric cancer is mainly treated by gastrectomy, the results of which were unsatisfactory without any adjuvant treatments. This study aimed to examine the performance of radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and chemoradiotherapy after surgery in order to acquire the optimal adjuvant treatment. Method: Embase and PubMed were retrieved to conduct a systematic research. Hazard ratios (HR) of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as outcomes were calculated by synthesizing direct and indirect evidence to evaluate the efficacy of three treatments against surgery alone. The P-score ranking was utilized to rank the therapies. Consistency was assessed by heat plot. Begg's test was performed to evaluate publication bias. Results: A total of 35 randomized controlled studies (RCTs) with 8973 patients were included in our network meta-analysis (NMA). As for efficacy outcomes, OS and PFS of 1, 2, 3, and 5 years, all revealed chemoradiotherapy (CRT) as the best of three adjuvant therapies. Meanwhile, P-score ranking results also displayed that CRT was the optimal regimen. Additionally, radiotherapy (RT) and chemotherapy (CT) were two alternative options following CRT since RT performed well in short-term survival while CT could improve the long-term survival. Conclusion: CRT was the most recommended therapy to accompany surgery according to our results. However, no analysis about the safety of these three treatments was mentioned in our study. Further studies including safety outcomes were required to draw a more comprehensive conclusion.

A phase II study of nab-paclitaxel in combination with ramucirumab in patients with previously treated advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel was developed to improve paclitaxel solubility and does not need premedication to avoid infusion-related reactions associated with solvent-based (sb)-paclitaxel. We conducted a phase II trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel plus ramucirumab combination therapy for previously treated advanced gastric cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with unresectable advanced gastric cancer refractory to first-line chemotherapy were administered nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8 and 15, plus ramucirumab 8 mg/kg intravenously on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. The primary end-point was Independent Review Committee (IRC)-assessed overall response rate (ORR). Secondary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), safety and quality of life (QOL).

RESULTS

Forty-five patients were enrolled; 43 received the study treatment. The ORR assessed by the IRC was 54.8% (90% confidence interval [CI] 41.0-68.0) and the primary end-point was met. The DCR was 92.9% (95% CI 80.5-98.5). The IRC-assessed median PFS was 7.6 months (95% CI 5.4-8.1). The median OS was not reached at the data cutoff. The main treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (76.7%), decreased white blood cell count (27.9%), anaemia (11.6%), decreased appetite (7.0%), febrile neutropenia (4.7%), hypertension (4.7%) and proteinuria (4.7%). No treatment-related deaths occurred. No QOL deterioration was observed during study treatment.

CONCLUSION

Nab-paclitaxel plus ramucirumab combination therapy shows promising activity and manageable toxicities and could be a useful second-line treatment option for patients with previously treated advanced gastric cancer.

Discovery and application of immune biomarkers for hematological malignancies

INTRODUCTION

Hematological malignancies originate and progress in primary and secondary lymphoid organs, where they establish a uniquely immune-suppressive tumour microenvironment. Although high-throughput transcriptomic and proteomic approaches are being employed to interrogate immune surveillance and escape mechanisms in patients with solid tumours, and to identify actionable targets for immunotherapy, our knowledge of the immunological landscape of hematological malignancies, as well as our understanding of the molecular circuits that underpin the establishment of immune tolerance, is not comprehensive. Areas covered: This article will discuss how multiplexed immunohistochemistry, flow cytometry/mass cytometry, proteomic and genomic techniques can be used to dynamically capture the complexity of tumour-immune interactions. Moreover, the analysis of multi-dimensional, clinically annotated data sets obtained from public repositories such as Array Express, TCGA and GEO is crucial to identify immune biomarkers, to inform the rational design of immune therapies and to predict clinical benefit in individual patients. We will also highlight how artificial neural network models and alternative methodologies integrating other algorithms can support the identification of key molecular drivers of immune dysfunction. Expert commentary: High-dimensional technologies have the potential to enhance our understanding of immune-cancer interactions and will support clinical decision making and the prediction of therapeutic benefit from immune-based interventions.

A network meta-analysis of the sequencing and types of systemic therapies with definitive radiotherapy in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LASCCHN)☆

OBJECTIVES

The current standard therapy for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LASCCHN) is platinum-based chemotherapy plus concurrent radiotherapy (CRT), but several systemic therapies have been evaluated. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) with random effects to enable direct and indirect comparisons of all existing treatment modalities for LASCCHN simultaneously.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, ASCO abstracts, ASTRO abstracts and the Cochrane Central of Registered Trials using Cochrane methodology to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to June 2016. Only abstracts that involved the same definitive radiotherapy in the arms for the RCT were included.

RESULTS

Sixty-five RCTs involving 13,574 patients and 16 different treatment strategies were identified. Chemotherapy plus concurrent radiation (CRT) was superior to RT with a HR of 0.74 (95%CR 0.69-0.79) for OS in the NMA. Only 3 trials compared RT alone to concurrent therapy with an EGFR antibody (ERT), demonstrating a superior OS (HR 0.75, 95% CR 0.60-0.94), but this difference was not statistically significant when interpreted in a NMA (HR 0.84, 95%CR 0.65-1.08). ERT was not superior to CRT (HR 1.19, 95%CR 0.93-1.54), and the addition of neo-adjuvant taxane-based chemotherapy to CRT was not beneficial (HR 0.86, 95% CR 0.70-1.07).

CONCLUSION

The addition of either adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy to the CRT backbone does not confer an OS benefit in the treatment of LASCCHN. Similarly, ERT does not confer an OS benefit for patients who are eligible for CRT.