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.

The best strategy for RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients in first-line treatment: A classic and Bayesian meta-analysis.

Tagliaferri P;Tassone P
2018-01-01

Abstract

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.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12317/1215
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact