Mocellin Simone, Baretta Zora, Roqué I Figuls Marta, Solà Ivan, Martin-Richard Marta, Hallum Sara, Bonfill Cosp Xavier
Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Via Giustiniani 2, Padova, Veneto, Italy, 35128.
Istituto Oncologico Veneto, IOV-IRCCS, Padova, Italy, 35100.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jan 27;1(1):CD006875. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006875.pub3.
The therapeutic management of people with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) who did not respond to first-line treatment represents a formidable challenge.
To determine the efficacy and toxicity of second-line systemic therapy in people with metastatic CRC.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to May 2016), Ovid MEDLINE In-process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (1946 to May 2016) and Ovid Embase (1974 to May 2016). There were no language or date of publication restrictions.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy (survival, tumour response) and toxicity (incidence of severe adverse effects (SAEs)) of second-line systemic therapy (single or combined treatment with any anticancer drug, at any dose and number of cycles) in people with metastatic CRC that progressed, recurred or did not respond to first-line systemic therapy.
Authors performed a descriptive analysis of each included RCT in terms of primary (survival) and secondary (tumour response, toxicity) endpoints. In the light of the variety of drug regimens tested in the included trials, we could carry out meta-analysis considering classes of (rather than single) anticancer regimens; to this aim, we applied the random-effects model to pool the data. We used hazard ratios (HRs) and risk ratios (RRs) to describe the strength of the association for survival (overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS)) and dichotomous (overall response rate (ORR) and SAE rate) data, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Thirty-four RCTs (enrolling 13,787 participants) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Available evidence enabled us to address multiple clinical issues regarding the survival effects of second-line systemic therapy of people with metastatic CRC.1. Chemotherapy (irinotecan) was more effective than best supportive care (HR for OS: 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.80; 1 RCT; moderate-quality evidence); 2. modern chemotherapy (FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil plus leucovorin plus oxaliplatin), irinotecan) is more effective than outdated chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil) (HR for PFS: 0.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.73; 2 RCTs; high-quality evidence) (HR for OS: 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.94; 1 RCT; moderate-quality evidence); 3. irinotecan-based combinations were more effective than irinotecan alone (HR for PFS: 0.68, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.76; 6 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence); 4. targeted agents improved the efficacy of conventional chemotherapy both when considered together (HR for OS: 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.91; 6 RCTs; high-quality evidence) and when bevacizumab was used alone (HR for PFS: 0.67, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.75; 4 RCTs; high-quality evidence).With regard to secondary endpoints, tumour response rates generally paralleled the survival results; moreover, higher anticancer efficacy was generally associated with worse treatment-related toxicity, with the important exception of bevacizumab-containing regimens, where the addition of the targeted agent to chemotherapy did not result in a significant increase in the rate of SAE. Finally, we found that oral (instead of intravenous) fluoropyrimidines significantly reduced the incidence of adverse effects (without compromising efficacy) in people treated with oxaliplatin-based regimens.We could not draw any conclusions on other debated aspects in this field of oncology, such as ranking of treatments (not all possible comparisons have been tested and many comparisons were based on single trials enrolling a small number of participants) and quality of life (virtually no data available).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Systemic therapy offers a survival benefit to people with metastatic CRC who did not respond to first-line treatment, especially when targeted agents are combined with conventional chemotherapeutic drugs. Further research is needed to define the optimal regimen and to identify people who most benefit from each treatment.
对一线治疗无反应的转移性结直肠癌(CRC)患者的治疗管理是一项艰巨的挑战。
确定二线全身治疗对转移性CRC患者的疗效和毒性。
我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(Cochrane图书馆2016年第4期)、Ovid MEDLINE(1950年至2016年5月)、Ovid MEDLINE在研及其他未索引引文(1946年至2016年5月)和Ovid Embase(1974年至2016年5月)。没有语言或出版日期限制。
随机对照试验(RCT),评估二线全身治疗(使用任何抗癌药物的单一或联合治疗,任何剂量和疗程数)对进展、复发或对一线全身治疗无反应的转移性CRC患者的疗效(生存、肿瘤反应)和毒性(严重不良反应(SAE)发生率)。
作者对每项纳入的RCT在主要(生存)和次要(肿瘤反应、毒性)终点方面进行了描述性分析。鉴于纳入试验中测试的药物方案种类繁多,我们可以考虑抗癌方案类别(而非单一方案)进行荟萃分析;为此,我们应用随机效应模型汇总数据。我们分别使用风险比(HR)和比值比(RR)来描述生存(总生存期(OS)和无进展生存期(PFS))和二分法(总缓解率(ORR)和SAE率)数据的关联强度,并给出95%置信区间(CI)。
34项RCT(纳入13787名参与者)符合纳入标准。现有证据使我们能够解决多个关于转移性CRC患者二线全身治疗生存效应的临床问题。1. 化疗(伊立替康)比最佳支持治疗更有效(OS的HR:0.58,95%CI 0.43至0.80;1项RCT;中等质量证据);2. 现代化疗(FOLFOX(5-氟尿嘧啶加亚叶酸钙加奥沙利铂)、伊立替康)比过时化疗(5-氟尿嘧啶)更有效(PFS的HR:0.59,95%CI 0.49至0.73;2项RCT;高质量证据)(OS的HR:0.69,95%CI 0.51至0.94;1项RCT;中等质量证据);3. 基于伊立替康的联合治疗比单独使用伊立替康更有效(PFS的HR:0.68,95%CI 0.60至0.76;6项RCT;中等质量证据);4. 靶向药物与传统化疗联合使用时(OS的HR:0.84,95%CI 0.77至0.91;6项RCT;高质量证据)以及单独使用贝伐单抗时(PFS的HR:0.67,95%CI 0.60至0.75;4项RCT;高质量证据)均提高了传统化疗的疗效。关于次要终点,肿瘤反应率通常与生存结果平行;此外,更高的抗癌疗效通常与更差的治疗相关毒性相关,但含贝伐单抗方案是重要例外,在该方案中,靶向药物加入化疗并未导致SAE发生率显著增加。最后,我们发现口服(而非静脉注射)氟嘧啶显著降低了接受奥沙利铂方案治疗患者的不良反应发生率(且不影响疗效)。我们无法就该肿瘤学领域其他有争议的方面得出任何结论,如治疗排名(并非所有可能的比较都已测试,且许多比较基于纳入少数参与者且样本量较小的单一试验)和生活质量(几乎没有可用数据)。
全身治疗为对一线治疗无反应的转移性CRC患者带来生存益处,尤其是当靶向药物与传统化疗药物联合使用时。需要进一步研究以确定最佳方案,并识别最能从每种治疗中获益的人群。