Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton , Ontario, Canada.
Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton , Ontario, Canada2Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Mar 1;3(3):366-373. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.4877.
IMPORTANCE: Multiple effective first-line systemic treatment options are available for patients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. A lack of head-to-head randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing targeted and immunotherapies leaves uncertainty regarding optimal first-line treatment. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the relative efficacy and safety of systemic therapies for advanced, treatment-naive, BRAF-mutated melanoma. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials for phase 2 or 3 RCTs published up until April 29, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: We included RCTs in which at least 1 intervention was a targeted (BRAF or MEK) or an immune checkpoint (cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 [CTLA-4] or programmed cell death 1 [PD-1]) inhibitor. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers performed study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model to combine direct comparisons with indirect evidence. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and odds ratios (OR) for objective response rate (ORR) and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Sixteen eligible articles reporting 15 RCTs involving 6662 patients assigned to 1 of 10 treatment strategies were included. Both BRAF/MEK and PD-1 were associated with improved OS benefit compared with all other treatments except CTLA-4/granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor. There was no significant difference in OS between BRAF/MEK and PD-1 (HR, 1.02; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.72-1.45). The network meta-analysis showed a significant advantage of BRAF/MEK compared with all other treatment strategies for PFS. BRAF/MEK was associated with higher ORR (OR, 2.00; 95% CrI, 1.64-2.45) compared with BRAF alone, with both being superior in achieving ORR compared with other treatments. Chemotherapy and PD-1 were associated with lowest risk of serious adverse events. There was no significant difference in the risk of serious adverse events between chemotherapy and PD-1 (OR, 1.00; 95% CrI, 0.74-1.34). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Compared with other treatments, BRAF/MEK and PD-1 inhibition significantly improved OS. The favorable safety profile of PD-1 inhibitors supports using this option as first-line therapy in circumstances where rapid response is not a priority.
重要性:对于晚期 BRAF 突变型黑色素瘤患者,有多种有效的一线系统治疗方案可供选择。缺乏头对头的随机临床试验 (RCT) 比较靶向治疗和免疫治疗,使得关于最佳一线治疗方案的问题仍存在不确定性。 目的:评估晚期初治 BRAF 突变型黑色素瘤的系统治疗的相对疗效和安全性。 数据来源:我们检索了 MEDLINE、Embase 和 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库,以获取截至 2016 年 4 月 29 日发表的 2 期或 3 期 RCT 研究。 研究选择:我们纳入了至少有 1 种干预措施为靶向(BRAF 或 MEK)或免疫检查点(细胞毒性 T 淋巴细胞相关抗原 4 [CTLA-4] 或程序性细胞死亡 1 [PD-1])抑制剂的 RCT。 数据提取和综合:两名评审员进行了研究选择、数据提取和偏倚风险评估。我们采用固定效应模型进行贝叶斯网络荟萃分析,以合并直接比较和间接证据。我们估计了总生存 (OS) 和无进展生存 (PFS) 的风险比 (HR),以及客观缓解率 (ORR) 和严重不良事件 (SAE) 的比值比 (OR)。 结果:纳入了 16 篇符合条件的文献,这些文献报道了 15 项 RCT 研究,共纳入了 6662 例患者,他们被分配到 10 种治疗策略中的 1 种。与除 CTLA-4/粒细胞巨噬细胞集落刺激因子外的所有其他治疗相比,BRAF/MEK 和 PD-1 均与改善 OS 获益相关。BRAF/MEK 与 PD-1 相比,OS 无显著差异(HR,1.02;95%可信区间 [CrI],0.72-1.45)。网络荟萃分析显示,与其他所有治疗策略相比,BRAF/MEK 可显著改善 PFS。与 BRAF 单药治疗相比,BRAF/MEK 治疗具有更高的 ORR(OR,2.00;95% CrI,1.64-2.45),且两者在达到 ORR 方面均优于其他治疗。化疗和 PD-1 与较低的 SAE 风险相关。与 PD-1 相比,化疗和 PD-1 发生 SAE 的风险无显著差异(OR,1.00;95% CrI,0.74-1.34)。 结论和相关性:与其他治疗相比,BRAF/MEK 和 PD-1 抑制可显著改善 OS。PD-1 抑制剂良好的安全性特征支持将其作为一线治疗选择,尤其是在快速应答不是首要考虑的情况下。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-2-6
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-4-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-12-22
Cancer Treat Rev. 2019-2-16
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-1-9
Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2023-2-28
Int J Mol Sci. 2022-10-9
Medicine (Baltimore). 2022-9-2