Mavis Obeng-Kusi, Jennifer R Martin, Denise Roe, Brian L Erstad, Ivo Abraham
{"title":"转移性结直肠癌后线疗法的疗效比较:生存曲线网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Mavis Obeng-Kusi, Jennifer R Martin, Denise Roe, Brian L Erstad, Ivo Abraham","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2024.2365993","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We evaluated the comparative efficacy of six later-line (≥3) therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) over placebo. We applied a novel statistical method of reconstructing pseudo-patient-level data (pseudo-IPD) to inform a network meta-analysis of survival curves that considers shape in addition to scale parameters.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search yielded 10 phase II/III trials. We digitized all survival curves and applied a novel method incorporating curve coordinates, patients-at-risk, and events reported to generate pseudo-IPD. Using fitted random effects lognormal distributions, we estimated the survival proportions and HRs (95CrI) of progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) over 12 months of follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to placebo, in ascending order, 12-month OS HRs were 0.50 (95% CrI = 0.35, 0.69; PFS = 0.11 (95% CrI = 0.06, 0.14)) for TAS+bevacizumab; 0.71 (95% CrI = 0.51, 0.97; PFS = 0.26 (95% CrI = 0.16, 0.41)) for regorafenib; 0.75 (95% CrI = 0.61, 0.91; (PFS = 0.24 (95% CrI = 0.17, 0.31)) for TAS-102; 0.80 (95% CrI = 0.79, 0.90; PFS = 0.18 (95% CrI = 0.13, 0.24)) for fruquintinib; 0.83 (95% CrI = 0.50, 0.99; PFS = 0.42 (95% CrI = 0.20, 0.75)) for atezolizumab+cobimetinib; and 1.03 (95% CrI = 0.55, 1.65; PFS = 0.67 (95% CrI = 0.29, 1.01)) for atezolizumab.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this independent NMA of survival data, all later-line mCRC therapies but atezolizumab monotherapy exhibited superiority in 12-month PFS and OS over placebo. TAS+bevacizumab emerged as the most dominant option and may be the preferred choice, with fruquintinib, regorafenib, and TAS-102 monotherapy showing statistically significant but lower PFS and OS benefits.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO: CRD42022371953.</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative efficacy of later-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer: a network meta-analysis of survival curves.\",\"authors\":\"Mavis Obeng-Kusi, Jennifer R Martin, Denise Roe, Brian L Erstad, Ivo Abraham\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14737167.2024.2365993\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We evaluated the comparative efficacy of six later-line (≥3) therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) over placebo. We applied a novel statistical method of reconstructing pseudo-patient-level data (pseudo-IPD) to inform a network meta-analysis of survival curves that considers shape in addition to scale parameters.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search yielded 10 phase II/III trials. We digitized all survival curves and applied a novel method incorporating curve coordinates, patients-at-risk, and events reported to generate pseudo-IPD. Using fitted random effects lognormal distributions, we estimated the survival proportions and HRs (95CrI) of progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) over 12 months of follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to placebo, in ascending order, 12-month OS HRs were 0.50 (95% CrI = 0.35, 0.69; PFS = 0.11 (95% CrI = 0.06, 0.14)) for TAS+bevacizumab; 0.71 (95% CrI = 0.51, 0.97; PFS = 0.26 (95% CrI = 0.16, 0.41)) for regorafenib; 0.75 (95% CrI = 0.61, 0.91; (PFS = 0.24 (95% CrI = 0.17, 0.31)) for TAS-102; 0.80 (95% CrI = 0.79, 0.90; PFS = 0.18 (95% CrI = 0.13, 0.24)) for fruquintinib; 0.83 (95% CrI = 0.50, 0.99; PFS = 0.42 (95% CrI = 0.20, 0.75)) for atezolizumab+cobimetinib; and 1.03 (95% CrI = 0.55, 1.65; PFS = 0.67 (95% CrI = 0.29, 1.01)) for atezolizumab.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this independent NMA of survival data, all later-line mCRC therapies but atezolizumab monotherapy exhibited superiority in 12-month PFS and OS over placebo. TAS+bevacizumab emerged as the most dominant option and may be the preferred choice, with fruquintinib, regorafenib, and TAS-102 monotherapy showing statistically significant but lower PFS and OS benefits.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO: CRD42022371953.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12244,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2365993\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2365993","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparative efficacy of later-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer: a network meta-analysis of survival curves.
Introduction: We evaluated the comparative efficacy of six later-line (≥3) therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) over placebo. We applied a novel statistical method of reconstructing pseudo-patient-level data (pseudo-IPD) to inform a network meta-analysis of survival curves that considers shape in addition to scale parameters.
Methods: A literature search yielded 10 phase II/III trials. We digitized all survival curves and applied a novel method incorporating curve coordinates, patients-at-risk, and events reported to generate pseudo-IPD. Using fitted random effects lognormal distributions, we estimated the survival proportions and HRs (95CrI) of progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) over 12 months of follow-up.
Results: Compared to placebo, in ascending order, 12-month OS HRs were 0.50 (95% CrI = 0.35, 0.69; PFS = 0.11 (95% CrI = 0.06, 0.14)) for TAS+bevacizumab; 0.71 (95% CrI = 0.51, 0.97; PFS = 0.26 (95% CrI = 0.16, 0.41)) for regorafenib; 0.75 (95% CrI = 0.61, 0.91; (PFS = 0.24 (95% CrI = 0.17, 0.31)) for TAS-102; 0.80 (95% CrI = 0.79, 0.90; PFS = 0.18 (95% CrI = 0.13, 0.24)) for fruquintinib; 0.83 (95% CrI = 0.50, 0.99; PFS = 0.42 (95% CrI = 0.20, 0.75)) for atezolizumab+cobimetinib; and 1.03 (95% CrI = 0.55, 1.65; PFS = 0.67 (95% CrI = 0.29, 1.01)) for atezolizumab.
Conclusion: In this independent NMA of survival data, all later-line mCRC therapies but atezolizumab monotherapy exhibited superiority in 12-month PFS and OS over placebo. TAS+bevacizumab emerged as the most dominant option and may be the preferred choice, with fruquintinib, regorafenib, and TAS-102 monotherapy showing statistically significant but lower PFS and OS benefits.
期刊介绍:
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review.
The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections:
Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results
Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.