Xu Xiaoyu, Yin Songcheng, Guo Hongling, Li Mengxiong, Qian Zhirong, Tian Xiaohui, Li Tian
Department of Gynecology, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China.
Center for Digestive Disease, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China.
Cancer Manag Res. 2019 May 7;11:4119-4128. doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S187119. eCollection 2019.
The number of published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) using targeted maintenance therapy for newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer is increasing. Our objective was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of each maintenance therapy using a network meta-analysis. A systematic search for RCTs was conducted using Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases followed by a Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) and the secondary outcome was overall survival (OS). Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs) were used to estimate outcomes. A total of 11 RCTs involving 6631 patients were included. Network meta-analysis showed that pure maintenance therapy with pazopanib resulted in a significantly better PFS compared with placebo (HR, 0.77; 95% CrI, 0.65-0.92). Bevacizumab-throughout treatment was also associated with a better PFS (HR, 0.76, 95% CrI, 0.69-0.84). However, anti-CA-125 monoclonal antibodies (abagovomab and oregovomab) showed no significant survival benefit. Moreover, combined analysis showed that targeted-throughout was not significantly superior to pure targeted maintenance therapy for PFS and OS. Stratified analysis showed paralleled results with no significant difference between pazopanib pure maintenance and bevacizumab-throughout treatments. Our study showed a survival advantage conferred by pazopanib and bevacizumab as maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer. Further clinical trials are essential to both determine the effect of bevacizumab in the maintenance stage and identify the specific subgroup(s) that benefit.
使用靶向维持疗法治疗新诊断上皮性卵巢癌的已发表随机临床试验(RCT)数量正在增加。我们的目的是通过网络荟萃分析评估每种维持疗法的相对疗效。使用Medline、Embase和CENTRAL数据库对RCT进行系统检索,随后进行贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。主要结局是无进展生存期(PFS),次要结局是总生存期(OS)。采用合并风险比(HR)及95%可信区间(95%CrI)来估计结局。共纳入11项RCT,涉及6631例患者。网络荟萃分析显示,与安慰剂相比,帕唑帕尼单纯维持疗法的PFS显著更好(HR,0.77;95%CrI,0.65 - 0.92)。全程使用贝伐单抗也与更好的PFS相关(HR,0.76,95%CrI,0.69 - 0.84)。然而,抗CA - 125单克隆抗体(阿巴伏单抗和奥雷伏单抗)未显示出显著的生存获益。此外,联合分析显示,全程靶向治疗在PFS和OS方面并不显著优于单纯靶向维持疗法。分层分析显示结果相似,帕唑帕尼单纯维持疗法与全程使用贝伐单抗治疗之间无显著差异。我们的研究显示,帕唑帕尼和贝伐单抗作为新诊断上皮性卵巢癌的维持疗法具有生存优势。进一步的临床试验对于确定贝伐单抗在维持阶段的疗效以及确定受益的特定亚组至关重要。