Oncological Outcomes and Response Rate After Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Induction vs. Consolidation Chemotherapy vs. Standard Chemoradiation

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Clinical colorectal cancer Pub Date : 2024-06-11 DOI:10.1016/j.clcc.2024.06.001
Sergei Bedrikovetski , Luke Traeger , Warren Seow , Nagendra N. Dudi-Venkata , Sudarsha Selva-Nayagam , Michael Penniment , Tarik Sammour
{"title":"Oncological Outcomes and Response Rate After Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Induction vs. Consolidation Chemotherapy vs. Standard Chemoradiation","authors":"Sergei Bedrikovetski ,&nbsp;Luke Traeger ,&nbsp;Warren Seow ,&nbsp;Nagendra N. Dudi-Venkata ,&nbsp;Sudarsha Selva-Nayagam ,&nbsp;Michael Penniment ,&nbsp;Tarik Sammour","doi":"10.1016/j.clcc.2024.06.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>TNT is now considered the preferred option for stage II-III locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). However, the prognostic benefit and optimal sequence of TNT remains unclear. This network meta-analysis (NMA) compared short- and long-term outcomes amongst patients with LARC receiving total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) as induction (iTNT) or consolidation chemotherapy (cTNT) with those receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) alone. A systematic literature search was performed between 2012 and 2023. A Bayesian NMA was conducted using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo method with a random-effects model and vague prior distribution to calculate odds ratios (OR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI). The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves were used to rank treatment(s) for each outcome. In total, 11 cohorts involving 8360 patients with LARC were included. There was no significant difference in disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) amongst the 3 treatments. Compared with nCRT, both cTNT (OR 2.36; 95% CrI, 1.57-3.66) and iTNT (OR 1.99; 95% CrI, 1.44-2.95) significantly improved complete response (CR) rate. Notably, cTNT ranked as the best treatment for CR (SUCRA 0.90) and iTNT as the best treatment for 3-year DFS and OS (SUCRA 0.72 and 0.87, respectively). Both iTNT and cTNT strategies significantly improved CR rates compared with nCRT. cTNT was ranked highest for CR rates, while iTNT was ranked highest for 3-year survival outcomes. However, no other significant differences in DFS, OS, sphincter-saving surgery, R0 resection and postoperative complications were found amongst the treatment groups.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10373,"journal":{"name":"Clinical colorectal cancer","volume":"23 4","pages":"Pages 326-336.e9"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical colorectal cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1533002824000562","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

TNT is now considered the preferred option for stage II-III locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). However, the prognostic benefit and optimal sequence of TNT remains unclear. This network meta-analysis (NMA) compared short- and long-term outcomes amongst patients with LARC receiving total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) as induction (iTNT) or consolidation chemotherapy (cTNT) with those receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) alone. A systematic literature search was performed between 2012 and 2023. A Bayesian NMA was conducted using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo method with a random-effects model and vague prior distribution to calculate odds ratios (OR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI). The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves were used to rank treatment(s) for each outcome. In total, 11 cohorts involving 8360 patients with LARC were included. There was no significant difference in disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) amongst the 3 treatments. Compared with nCRT, both cTNT (OR 2.36; 95% CrI, 1.57-3.66) and iTNT (OR 1.99; 95% CrI, 1.44-2.95) significantly improved complete response (CR) rate. Notably, cTNT ranked as the best treatment for CR (SUCRA 0.90) and iTNT as the best treatment for 3-year DFS and OS (SUCRA 0.72 and 0.87, respectively). Both iTNT and cTNT strategies significantly improved CR rates compared with nCRT. cTNT was ranked highest for CR rates, while iTNT was ranked highest for 3-year survival outcomes. However, no other significant differences in DFS, OS, sphincter-saving surgery, R0 resection and postoperative complications were found amongst the treatment groups.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
局部晚期直肠癌新辅助治疗后的肿瘤预后和反应率:比较诱导化疗和巩固化疗与标准化疗放疗的网络荟萃分析
TNT目前被认为是治疗II-III期局部晚期直肠癌(LARC)的首选方案。然而,TNT的预后益处和最佳治疗顺序仍不明确。这项网络荟萃分析(NMA)比较了接受作为诱导(iTNT)或巩固化疗(cTNT)的全新辅助治疗(TNT)和单独接受新辅助化放疗(nCRT)的 LARC 患者的短期和长期预后。我们对 2012 年至 2023 年间的文献进行了系统检索。采用随机效应模型和模糊先验分布的 Markov Chain Monte Carlo 方法进行了贝叶斯 NMA,计算出带有 95% 可信区间 (CrI) 的几率比 (OR)。累积排名(SUCRA)曲线下表面用于对每种结果的治疗方法进行排名。共纳入了 11 个队列,涉及 8360 名 LARC 患者。三种治疗方法的无病生存期(DFS)和总生存期(OS)无明显差异。与 nCRT 相比,cTNT(OR 2.36;95% CrI,1.57-3.66)和 iTNT(OR 1.99;95% CrI,1.44-2.95)均显著提高了完全缓解率(CR)。值得注意的是,cTNT 是获得 CR 的最佳治疗方法(SUCRA 0.90),iTNT 是获得 3 年 DFS 和 OS 的最佳治疗方法(SUCRA 分别为 0.72 和 0.87)。与 nCRT 相比,iTNT 和 cTNT 策略都能显著提高 CR 率。cTNT 的 CR 率排名最高,而 iTNT 的 3 年生存率排名最高。不过,各治疗组在 DFS、OS、括约肌挽救手术、R0 切除术和术后并发症方面均无其他明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical colorectal cancer
Clinical colorectal cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
2.90%
发文量
64
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Colorectal Cancer is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal that publishes original articles describing various aspects of clinical and translational research of gastrointestinal cancers. Clinical Colorectal Cancer is devoted to articles on detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of colorectal, pancreatic, liver, and other gastrointestinal cancers. The main emphasis is on recent scientific developments in all areas related to gastrointestinal cancers. Specific areas of interest include clinical research and mechanistic approaches; drug sensitivity and resistance; gene and antisense therapy; pathology, markers, and prognostic indicators; chemoprevention strategies; multimodality therapy; and integration of various approaches.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Table of contents Table of contents Editorial Board Efficacy and Safety of KH903 Plus FOLFIRI as a Second-Line Treatment in Unresectable Recurrent or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Phase 2 Study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1