Simone Mocellin, Zora Baretta, Marta Roqué I Figuls, Ivan Solà, Marta Martin-Richard, Sara Hallum, Xavier Bonfill Cosp
{"title":"转移性结直肠癌的二线系统治疗。","authors":"Simone Mocellin, Zora Baretta, Marta Roqué I Figuls, Ivan Solà, Marta Martin-Richard, Sara Hallum, Xavier Bonfill Cosp","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD006875.pub3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The therapeutic management of people with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) who did not respond to first-line treatment represents a formidable challenge.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the efficacy and toxicity of second-line systemic therapy in people with metastatic CRC.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":38203,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the Naprstek Museum","volume":"40 1","pages":"CD006875"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6464923/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Second-line systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.\",\"authors\":\"Simone Mocellin, Zora Baretta, Marta Roqué I Figuls, Ivan Solà, Marta Martin-Richard, Sara Hallum, Xavier Bonfill Cosp\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/14651858.CD006875.pub3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The therapeutic management of people with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) who did not respond to first-line treatment represents a formidable challenge.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the efficacy and toxicity of second-line systemic therapy in people with metastatic CRC.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38203,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of the Naprstek Museum\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"CD006875\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6464923/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of the Naprstek Museum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006875.pub3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the Naprstek Museum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006875.pub3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:对一线治疗无效的转移性结直肠癌(CRC)患者的治疗管理是一项艰巨的挑战:目的:确定二线系统疗法对转移性 CRC 患者的疗效和毒性:我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中央注册表(CENTRAL)(Cochrane图书馆2016年第4期)、Ovid MEDLINE(1950年至2016年5月)、Ovid MEDLINE In-process & Other Non-Indexed Citations(1946年至2016年5月)和Ovid Embase(1974年至2016年5月)。没有语言或发表日期限制:随机对照试验(RCT),评估对一线系统治疗进展、复发或无反应的转移性 CRC 患者进行二线系统治疗(任何抗癌药物的单药或联合治疗,任何剂量和周期数)的疗效(生存期、肿瘤反应)和毒性(严重不良反应(SAE)发生率):作者从主要终点(生存期)和次要终点(肿瘤反应、毒性)对每项纳入的 RCT 进行了描述性分析。考虑到纳入试验中测试的药物方案种类繁多,我们可以对抗癌方案类别(而非单一方案)进行荟萃分析;为此,我们采用随机效应模型对数据进行了汇总。我们使用危险比(HRs)和风险比(RRs)分别描述生存期(总生存期(OS)和无进展生存期(PFS))和二分法(总反应率(ORR)和SAE率)数据的相关性强度,以及95%的置信区间(CI):34项RCT(共13787名参与者)符合资格标准。现有证据使我们能够解决有关转移性 CRC 患者二线系统疗法生存效果的多个临床问题。化疗(伊立替康)比最佳支持治疗更有效(OS HR:0.58,95% CI 0.43 至 0.80;1 项 RCT;中度质量证据);2.现代化疗(FOLFOX(5-氟尿嘧啶加亮菌甲素加奥沙利铂)、伊立替康)比过时化疗(5-氟尿嘧啶)更有效(PFS 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用药比单用伊立替康更有效(PFS的HR:0.68,95% CI 0.60至0.76;6项RCT;中等质量证据);4.同时使用靶向药物和单独使用贝伐珠单抗时,靶向药物均可提高传统化疗的疗效(OS HR:0.84,95% CI 0.77 至 0.91;6 项研究;高质量证据)(PFS HR:0.67,95% CI 0.60 至 0.75;4 项研究;高质量证据)。在次要终点方面,肿瘤反应率与生存率结果基本一致;此外,抗癌疗效越高,治疗相关毒性越大,但含有贝伐珠单抗的治疗方案是个重要的例外,在化疗中添加靶向药物并不会导致SAE发生率显著增加。最后,我们发现口服(而非静脉注射)氟嘧啶类药物可显著降低奥沙利铂治疗方案患者的不良反应发生率(同时不影响疗效)。我们无法就该肿瘤学领域的其他争议方面得出任何结论,如治疗方法的排序(并非所有可能的比较都经过了测试,而且许多比较都是基于纳入少量参与者的单项试验)和生活质量(几乎没有可用数据):作者的结论:全身治疗可为一线治疗无效的转移性 CRC 患者带来生存获益,尤其是当靶向药物与传统化疗药物联合使用时。需要进一步开展研究,以确定最佳治疗方案,并确定从每种治疗中获益最多的人群。
Second-line systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.
Background: The therapeutic management of people with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) who did not respond to first-line treatment represents a formidable challenge.
Objectives: To determine the efficacy and toxicity of second-line systemic therapy in people with metastatic CRC.
Search methods: 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.
Selection criteria: 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.
Data collection and analysis: 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).
Main results: 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.