6533b85efe1ef96bd12bf3af
RESEARCH PRODUCT
The best strategy for RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients in first-line treatment: A classic and Bayesian meta-analysis
Mariamena ArbitrioNicoletta StaropoliPierfrancesco TassoneDomenico CilibertoPierpaolo CorrealeSilvia ChiellinoPierosandro TagliaferriAntonella IerardiRossana IngargiolaF. CagliotiCiro Bottasubject
0301 basic medicineOncologymedicine.medical_specialtyColorectal cancermedicine.medical_treatmentBayesian probabilitySidednessDisease-Free Survival03 medical and health sciences0302 clinical medicineInternal medicineAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsmedicineHumansIn patientMeta-analysiSystemic chemotherapyNeoplasm MetastasisRAS wild-typeChemotherapyVbusiness.industryMetastatic colorectal cancerWild typeBayes TheoremHematologymedicine.diseaseNeoadjuvant TherapyFirst line treatmentMeta-analysisSafety profileGenes ras030104 developmental biologyOncology030220 oncology & carcinogenesisMeta-analysisSystemic chemotherapy.Colorectal Neoplasmsbusinessdescription
Background: At present, there is uncertainty on the best systemic treatment in first-line setting for RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. Indeed, several chemotherapy and biologics combinations showed an improvement on survival. We performed a systematic review with a pair-wise and bayesan meta-analysis to rank the best strategy for these patients. Methods: A systematic literature search through March 2017 was performed to evaluate the association between several treatment combinations and overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and toxicity rate (TR) in RAS WT mCRC patients. Data were extracted from studies and pooled using the random-effect model for pair-wise meta-analyses and bayesan model for network meta-analysis (NMA). Results: Eight studies with a total of 2518 individuals were included in the meta-analyses. Pooled analyses for subgroups stratified by type of schedule and tumor location demonstrated that anti-EGFR + doublet had the best OS when compared to doublet ± bevacizumab (0.767; 95%CI, 0.695–0.846; P < 0.0001). This benefit is limited to LSCC when compared to a doublet-based schedule and doublet + bevacizumab (HRs, 0.692; 95%CI, 0.596–0.804; P < 0.001; 0.706; 95%CI, 0.584–0.854; P < 0.001; respectively). No significant differences are detected in PFS, whereas the cetuximab-based regimens showed the highest ORR and TR. In NMA our ranking showed the best performance for FOLFOX + panitumumab. Conclusions: Our study indicates that FOLFOX + panitumumab has the major probability to provide an improvement of survival with a good safety profile in patients with RAS WT mCRC with an added value from selection based on sidedness.
year | journal | country | edition | language |
---|---|---|---|---|
2018-01-01 |