Network meta-analysis of novel targeted therapies for relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology Pub Date : 2024-07-31 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/17588359241263710
Magdalena Monica, Monika Reczek, Paweł Kawalec
{"title":"Network meta-analysis of novel targeted therapies for relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia.","authors":"Magdalena Monica, Monika Reczek, Paweł Kawalec","doi":"10.1177/17588359241263710","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The recent development of new antileukemic therapies (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, Bruton tyrosine kinase inhbitors, phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitors, and B-cell lymyphoma-2 antagonists) improved the progression-free survival (PFS) compared with selected standard regimens in clinical trials for patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Unfortunately, the relative efficacy of all possible therapeutic options remains unknown because there is no direct evidence for all possible comparisons.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of novel agents, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic literature review with Bayesian NMA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An extensive systematic literature review of randomized clinical trials for relapsed/refractory CLL was performed. We searched for articles indexed in medical databases (MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library) and gray literature that could be further implemented into the Bayesian NMA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The systematic search identified 15 randomized trials that formed networks comparing PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rates, and serious adverse events. Our study showed that all regimens containing novel agents significantly prolonged PFS compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy and immunotherapy. Among targeted drugs, venetoclax (VEN) + rituximab (RTX) had comparable efficacy in terms of PFS to zanubrutinib (ZAN) [hazard ratio (95% credible interval), 1.10 (0.59-2.08)], acalabrutinib (ACA) [0.78 (0.47-1.30)], ibrutinib (IBR) monotherapy [0.72 (0.41-1.27)], and other IBR-based regimens. ZAN was superior to IBR monotherapy [0.65 (0.49-0.86)] but not to ACA [0.71 (0.49-1.02)]. There were no significant differences in OS in any of the above comparisons.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All novel therapies have better efficacy than chemoimmunotherapy and immunotherapy regimens. Among novel agents, the relative efficacy of VEN + RTX was similar to all BTKi, while ZAN was superior to IBR and comparable to ACA.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42022304330.</p>","PeriodicalId":23053,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology","volume":"16 ","pages":"17588359241263710"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11292688/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17588359241263710","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The recent development of new antileukemic therapies (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, Bruton tyrosine kinase inhbitors, phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitors, and B-cell lymyphoma-2 antagonists) improved the progression-free survival (PFS) compared with selected standard regimens in clinical trials for patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Unfortunately, the relative efficacy of all possible therapeutic options remains unknown because there is no direct evidence for all possible comparisons.

Objectives: We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of novel agents, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).

Design: Systematic literature review with Bayesian NMA.

Methods: An extensive systematic literature review of randomized clinical trials for relapsed/refractory CLL was performed. We searched for articles indexed in medical databases (MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library) and gray literature that could be further implemented into the Bayesian NMA.

Results: The systematic search identified 15 randomized trials that formed networks comparing PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rates, and serious adverse events. Our study showed that all regimens containing novel agents significantly prolonged PFS compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy and immunotherapy. Among targeted drugs, venetoclax (VEN) + rituximab (RTX) had comparable efficacy in terms of PFS to zanubrutinib (ZAN) [hazard ratio (95% credible interval), 1.10 (0.59-2.08)], acalabrutinib (ACA) [0.78 (0.47-1.30)], ibrutinib (IBR) monotherapy [0.72 (0.41-1.27)], and other IBR-based regimens. ZAN was superior to IBR monotherapy [0.65 (0.49-0.86)] but not to ACA [0.71 (0.49-1.02)]. There were no significant differences in OS in any of the above comparisons.

Conclusion: All novel therapies have better efficacy than chemoimmunotherapy and immunotherapy regimens. Among novel agents, the relative efficacy of VEN + RTX was similar to all BTKi, while ZAN was superior to IBR and comparable to ACA.

Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42022304330.

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
复发/难治性慢性淋巴细胞白血病新型靶向疗法的网络荟萃分析。
背景:最近开发的新型抗白血病疗法(抗CD20单克隆抗体、布鲁顿酪氨酸激酶抑制剂、磷酸肌酸3-激酶抑制剂和B细胞淋巴瘤-2拮抗剂)与复发/难治性慢性淋巴细胞白血病(CLL)患者临床试验中选定的标准疗法相比,提高了无进展生存期(PFS)。遗憾的是,所有可能的治疗方案的相对疗效仍是未知数,因为没有直接证据可用于所有可能的比较:我们旨在利用贝叶斯网络荟萃分析(NMA)比较新型药物、化疗和免疫疗法的疗效和安全性:设计:系统文献综述与贝叶斯网络荟萃分析:对复发/难治性 CLL 的随机临床试验进行了广泛的系统性文献综述。我们检索了医学数据库(MEDLINE、Embase、The Cochrane Library)中收录的文章以及可进一步应用于贝叶斯NMA的灰色文献:系统性检索发现了 15 项随机试验,这些试验形成了比较 PFS、总生存期 (OS)、总反应率和严重不良事件的网络。我们的研究表明,与标准化疗免疫疗法和免疫疗法相比,所有含有新型药物的治疗方案都能显著延长PFS。在靶向药物中,venetoclax(VEN)+利妥昔单抗(RTX)的PFS疗效与zanubrutinib(ZAN)[危险比(95%可信区间),1.10(0.59-2.08)]、acalabrutinib(ACA)[0.78(0.47-1.30)]、ibrutinib(IBR)单药[0.72(0.41-1.27)]和其他基于IBR的方案相当。ZAN优于IBR单药疗法[0.65 (0.49-0.86)],但不优于ACA[0.71 (0.49-1.02)]。在上述比较中,OS均无明显差异:结论:所有新型疗法的疗效均优于化学免疫疗法和免疫疗法。在新型药物中,VEN + RTX的相对疗效与所有BTKi相似,而ZAN优于IBR,与ACA相当:试验注册:PREMCO CRD42022304330。
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
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
2.00%
发文量
160
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal delivering the highest quality articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies in the medical treatment of cancer. The journal has a strong clinical and pharmacological focus and is aimed at clinicians and researchers in medical oncology, providing a forum in print and online for publishing the highest quality articles in this area. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
Perspective review: lessons from successful clinical trials and real-world studies of systemic therapy for metastatic pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas. Antibody-drug conjugates in patients with advanced/metastatic HER2-low-expressing breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epithelioid inflammatory myofibroblastic sarcoma with exceptionally long response to lorlatinib-a case report. Changes in alpha-fetoprotein across the systemic therapy continuum in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma-a real-world, multicenter study. Comprehensive geriatric assessment guided radiotherapy in elderly patients with locally advanced rectal cancer-exploratory results on nonoperative cohort of a multicenter prospective 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