Ahmadizar Fariba, Onland-Moret N Charlotte, de Boer Anthonius, Liu Geoffrey, Maitland-van der Zee Anke H
Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, UMC Utrecht, the Netherlands.
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 2;10(9):e0136324. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136324. eCollection 2015.
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in the adjuvant cancer therapy setting within different subset of patients.
METHODS & DESIGN/ RESULTS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and Clinical trials.gov databases were searched for English language studies of randomized controlled trials comparing bevacizumab and adjuvant therapy with adjuvant therapy alone published from January 1966 to 7th of May 2014. Progression free survival, overall survival, overall response rate, safety and quality of life were analyzed using random- or fixed-effects models according to the PRISMA guidelines. We obtained data from 44 randomized controlled trials (30,828 patients). Combining bevacizumab with different adjuvant therapies resulted in significant improvement of progression free survival (log hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.84-0.89), overall survival (log hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98) and overall response rate (relative risk, 1.46; 95% CI: 1.33-1.59) compared to adjuvant therapy alone in all studied tumor types. In subgroup analyses, there were no interactions of bevacizumab with baseline characteristics on progression free survival and overall survival, while overall response rate was influenced by tumor type and bevacizumab dose (p-value: 0.02). Although bevacizumab use resulted in additional expected adverse drug reactions except anemia and fatigue, it was not associated with a significant decline in quality of life. There was a trend towards a higher risk of several side effects in patients treated by high-dose bevacizumab compared to the low-dose e.g. all grade proteinuria (9.24; 95% CI: 6.60-12.94 vs. 2.64; 95% CI: 1.29-5.40).
Combining bevacizumab with different adjuvant therapies provides a survival benefit across all major subsets of patients, including by tumor type, type of adjuvant therapy, and duration and dose of bevacizumab therapy. Though bevacizumab was associated with increased risks of some adverse drug reactions such as hypertension and bleeding, anemia and fatigue were improved by the addition of bevacizumab.
评估贝伐单抗在不同亚组患者辅助性癌症治疗中的疗效和安全性。
方法与设计/结果:检索PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane和Clinical trials.gov数据库,查找1966年1月至2014年5月7日发表的比较贝伐单抗与辅助治疗以及单纯辅助治疗的英文随机对照试验研究。根据PRISMA指南,使用随机或固定效应模型分析无进展生存期、总生存期、总缓解率、安全性和生活质量。我们从44项随机对照试验(30828例患者)中获取数据。与单纯辅助治疗相比,在所有研究的肿瘤类型中,将贝伐单抗与不同的辅助治疗联合使用可显著改善无进展生存期(对数风险比,0.87;95%置信区间[CI],0.84 - 0.89)、总生存期(对数风险比,0.96;95% CI,0.94 - 0.98)和总缓解率(相对风险,1.46;95% CI:1.33 - 1.59)。在亚组分析中(此处原文有误,subgroup analyses应翻译为亚组分析),贝伐单抗与基线特征在无进展生存期和总生存期方面无相互作用,而总缓解率受肿瘤类型和贝伐单抗剂量影响(p值:0.02)。尽管使用贝伐单抗会导致除贫血和疲劳外的额外预期药物不良反应,但与生活质量显著下降无关。与低剂量相比,高剂量贝伐单抗治疗的患者出现几种副作用(如所有级别的蛋白尿,9.24;95% CI:6.60 - 12.94对比2.64;95% CI:1.29 - 5.40)的风险有升高趋势。
将贝伐单抗与不同的辅助治疗联合使用可为所有主要亚组患者带来生存获益,包括按肿瘤类型、辅助治疗类型以及贝伐单抗治疗的持续时间和剂量划分的亚组。尽管贝伐单抗与一些药物不良反应(如高血压和出血)风险增加相关,但添加贝伐单抗可改善贫血和疲劳。