Effectiveness and Safety of Different Postoperative Adjuvant Regimens in Patients with Low-Grade Gliomas: A Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of various adjuvant regimens in patients with low-grade gliomas and to further explore the optimal adjuvant treatment for patients with low-grade gliomas and the differences in the efficacy of each treatment regimens in different tumor types.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Ovid, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted to screen randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials related to adjuvant therapy in patients with low-grade gliomas. The Cochrane quality assessment method and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the quality of the included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, respectively. The data from previous studies were extracted using Excel and GetData Graph Digitizer 2.26 software, and network meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 16.0 statistical software.

RESULTS

The specific ranking of 5-year progression-free survival (5-year PFS) for each treatment regimen from the best to the worst in patients with low-grade gliomas was surgery (S) combined with procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (S + PCV); surgery combined with standard radiotherapy and PCV multidrug chemotherapy (S + RT + PCV); surgery combined with standard radiotherapy and temozolomide monotherapy (S + RT + TMZ); surgery combined with enhanced radiotherapy (S + H-RT); surgery combined with standard radiotherapy (S + RT); surgery combined with TMZ (S + TMZ); and S. The 5-year overall survival (OS) ranking was S + RT + TMZ, S + RT + PCV, surgery combined with enhanced radiotherapy and TMZ monotherapy (S + H-RT + TMZ), S + H-RT, S + RT, and S. The 2-year progression-free survival ranking was S + RT + TMZ, S + PCV, S + RT, S + RT + PCV, S + TMZ, S + H-RT, and S. The 2-year overall survival ranking was S + RT + TMZ, S + H-RT + TMZ, S + RT, S + RT + PCV, S + H-RT, and S. The incidence of adverse events (≥3) was ranked from highest to lowest as follows: S + RT + PCV, S + RT + TMZ, S + PCV, S + H-RT, S + TMZ, and S + RT. In the isocitrate dehydrogenase 1/2 mutation nonchromosome 1p and 19q chromosome whole arm codeletion (IDHmt/noncoder) group, the S + RT + PCV and S + H-RT regimens had better 5-year PFS and 5-year OS. In the isocitrate dehydrogenase 1/2 mutation and chromosome 1p and 19q chromosome whole arm codeletion (IDHmt/coder) group, the 5-year PFS of each treatment regimen ranked from the best to the worst was S + RT + TMZ, S + RT + PCV, S + H-RT, S + RT, S + TMZ, and S. The order of 5-year OS from the best to the worst was S + H-RT, S + RT + TMZ, S + RT + PCV, S + RT, and S. In the isocitrate dehydrogenase 1/2 wild-type (IDHwt) group, the S + H-RT and S + TMZ regimens had better 5-year PFS.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that both the S + RT + TMZ and S + RT + PCV regimens might be effective therapies for treating patients with low-grade gliomas. Among these, the S + RT + TMZ regimen seemed to be safer but might lead to tumor deterioration. In the IDHmt/coder type, the S + RT + TMZ scheme might have a significant advantage. In the IDHmt/noncoder type, the S + RT + PCV scheme might be more dominant, while in the IDHwt type, the S + H-RT and S + TMZ schemes also might be good treatment options.

Effect Western Medicines Combined With Nao-Xue-Shu in Patients With Hypertensive Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Network Meta-Analysis

Purpose: To explore the efficacy of nimodipine, nifedipine, and edaravone (EDA) combined with Nao-Xue-Shu in patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage (HICH) and to determine the best western medicine combined with Nao-Xue-Shu for treating HICH patients using a ranking method.

Methods: After a comprehensive search of the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, VIP information database, Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM), PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library database from the database establishment 31 December 2021, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted for the included articles. The primary outcome measure was the effectiveness after treatment. Secondary outcome measures were after-treatment the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores, hematoma volume, perihematoma edema volume, and inflammatory factor expression levels. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata 16.0 and RevMan 5.3.0 software.

Results: We included 19 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and six non-RCTs. The effective rate after treatment was ranked from the best to the worst as follows: routine cure measure (RCM) + nifedipine + Nao-Xue-Shu, RCM + EDA + Nao-Xue-Shu, RCM + Nao-Xue-Shu, RCM + nimodipine + Nao-Xue-Shu, RCM + EDA, and RCM. The post-treatment NHISS scores from lowest to highest were as follows: RCM + EDA + Nao-Xue-Shu, RCM + nifedipine + Nao-Xue-Shu, RCM + EDA, RCM + nimodipine + Nao-Xue-Shu, RCM + Nao-Xue-Shu, RCM + Nao-Xue-Kang, and RCM. The post-treatment hematoma volume from minimum to maximum was as follows: RCM + EDA + Nao-Xue-Shu, RCM + nimodipine + Nao-Xue-Shu, RCM + nifedipine + Nao-Xue-Shu, RCM + Nao-Xue-Shu, RCM + Nao-Xue-Kang, and RCM. The post-treatment perihematoma edema volume from minimum to maximum was as follows: RCM + EDA + Nao-Xue-Shu, RCM + nifedipine + Nao-Xue-Shu, RCM + nimodipine + Nao-Xue-Shu, RCM + Nao-Xue-Shu, and RCM. For inflammatory factor expression levels after treatment, IL-6 concentration levels after treatment from lowest to highest wasas follows: RCM + Nao-Xue-Shu, RCM + nifedipine + Nao-Xue-Shu, RCM + nimodipine + Nao-Xue-Shu, RCM + EDA + Nao-Xue-Shu, and RCM. TNF-α concentration levels after treatment from lowest to highest was as follow: RCM + nimodipine + Nao-Xue-Shu, RCM + nifedipine + Nao-Xue-Shu, RCM + Nao-Xue-Shu, and RCM.

Conclusion: Nao-Xue-Shu combined with nifedipine showed better effectiveness after treatment in HICH patients compared with the other combinations. Nao-Xue-Shu combined with EDA was more effective for improving neurological function and reducing both hematoma and edema volumes around the hematoma compared with the other combinations. However, Nao-Xue-Shu alone or Nao-Xue-Shu combined with nimodipine may be more effective for reducing proinflammatory factor expression.

Efficacy and Safety of Bevacizumab Combined with Other Therapeutic Regimens for Treatment of Recurrent Glioblastoma: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite the fact that bevacizumab (Bev) has been approved to treat recurrent glioblastoma, patients have failed to demonstrate a significant overall survival (OS) advantage. In recent years, the advent of more Bev combination regimens seems to bring new hope for patients; nevertheless, there is still a lack of intuitive comparison among these therapies.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the efficacy and safety of various Bev combination regimens in patients with recurrent glioblastoma and to further explore the differences in the efficacy of each treatment in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled trials (non-RCTs).

METHODS

We comprehensively searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and OVID databases for relevant RCTs and non-RCTs of Bev in combined regimens for recurrent glioblastoma. The Cochrane quality assessment method was used to assess the quality of RCTs, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the quality of non-RCTs. Excel software was used to extract data from the literature, and a network meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 16 statistical software.

RESULTS

In patients with recurrent glioblastoma, the 6-month OS of patients receiving bevacizumab combination therapy was ranked from high to low as follows: Bev + rindopepimut, Bev + lomustine (CCNU), CCNU, tumor treating fields + Bev, Bev, Bev + irinotecan (Iri), Bev + temozolomide (TMZ), Bev + vorinostat, Bev + onartuzumab, Bev + dasatinib, Bev + carboplatin, Bev + trebananib, Bev + VB-111, TMZ, PCV, VB-111, and carboplatin. The 6-month progression-free survival from high to low was ranked as follows: Bev + CCNU, Bev + rindopepimut, Bev + dasatinib, Bev + vorinostat, Bev, Bev + Iri, Bev + TMZ, CCNU, Bev + carboplatin, TMZ, Bev + VB-111, PCV, Bev + trebananib, carboplatin, and VB-111. We compared the total incidence of serious adverse events (≥3) and found that Bev + vorinostat and Bev + trebananib were safer than Bev, while other regimens were not as safe as Bev. A descriptive analysis showed that Bev + rindopepimut also appeared to be safer than Bev. In subgroup analysis, among RCTs, Bev + CCNU therapy had the highest 6-month OS and 6-month progression-free survival. Among non-RCTs, Bev + Iri therapy showed the highest 6-month OS and good 6-month progression-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Both Bev + CCNU and Bev + rindopepimut could be considered as effective therapies for treating the recurrent glioblastoma according to the network meta-analysis results. Among them, Bev + rindopepimut therapy seems to be safer and more effective. Moreover, we found that Bev + Iri also appeared to be an effective therapy in a retrospective study.