Back to Search Start Over

Comparative efficacy and safety of second-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with wild-type or unknown status for epidermal growth factor receptor: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Authors :
Jacques Cadranel
Ludovic Trinquart
Anna Chaimani
Perrine Créquit
Nassima Attiche
Philippe Ravaud
Amélie Yavchitz
Centre de Recherche Épidémiologie et Statistique Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS (U1153 / UMR_A_1125 / UMR_S_1153))
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7 (UPD7)-Université Paris Descartes - Paris 5 (UPD5)-Université Sorbonne Paris Cité (USPC)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)
Université Paris Descartes - Paris 5 (UPD5)
Centre d'épidémiologie Clinique [Hôtel-Dieu]
Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (APHP)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Hôpital Hôtel Dieu
Service de pneumologie et réanimation [CHU Tenon]
Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (APHP)-CHU Tenon [APHP]
French Cochrane Centre
Université Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris 6 (UPMC)
Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou [APHP] (HEGP)
Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (APHP)-Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris Ouest - Hôpitaux Universitaires Île de France Ouest (HUPO)
Theranoscan
Department of Biostatistics
Boston University [Boston] (BU)
Columbia University [New York]
Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7 (UPD7)-Université Sorbonne Paris Cité (USPC)-Université Paris Descartes - Paris 5 (UPD5)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)
Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Hôpital Hôtel Dieu
Service de Pneumologie - Oncologie Thoracique - Maladies Pulmonaires Rares [CHU Tenon]
CHU Tenon [AP-HP]
Sorbonne Université (SU)-Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Sorbonne Université (SU)-Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)
Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris Ouest - Hôpitaux Universitaires Île de France Ouest (HUPO)
HAL UPMC, Gestionnaire
Service de Pneumologie = Pneumologie - Oncologie Thoracique - Maladies Pulmonaires Rares [CHU Tenon]
Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Sorbonne Université (SU)-Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Sorbonne Université (SU)
Centre de Recherche Épidémiologie et Statistique Sorbonne Paris Cité ( CRESS (U1153 / UMR_A 1125) )
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique ( INRA ) -Université Sorbonne Paris Cité ( USPC ) -Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale ( INSERM )
Université Paris Descartes - Paris 5 ( UPD5 )
Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale ( INSERM ) -Hôpital Hôtel Dieu
Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP)-CHU Tenon [APHP]
Université Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris 6 ( UPMC )
Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou [APHP] ( HEGP )
Boston University School of Public Health
Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Sorbonne Université (SU)
Source :
BMC Medicine, BMC Medicine, BioMed Central, 2017, 15, pp.193. ⟨10.1186/s12916-017-0954-x⟩, BMC Medicine, Vol 15, Iss 1, Pp 1-12 (2017), BMC Medicine, BioMed Central, 2017, 15, pp.193. 〈10.1186/s12916-017-0954-x〉, BMC Medicine, 2017, 15, pp.193. ⟨10.1186/s12916-017-0954-x⟩
Publication Year :
2017
Publisher :
HAL CCSD, 2017.

Abstract

Background Docetaxel, pemetrexed, erlotinib, and gefitinib are recommended as second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with wild-type or unknown status for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). However, the number of published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on this topic is increasing. Our objective was to assess the comparative effectiveness and tolerability of all second-line treatments for advanced NSCLC with wild-type or unknown status for EGFR by a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the US Food and Drug Administration website, as well as other sources, were searched for available reports up to June 6, 2017. Two reviewers independently selected published and unpublished reports of RCTs comparing any second-line treatments, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of all included trials. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included objective response (ObR), the number of serious adverse events, and quality of life. Results We included 102 RCTs involving 36,058 patients (62% male, median age 61 years, 81% with stage IV cancer, 80% smokers, and 92% with performance status 0–1). We revealed a differential reporting of outcomes between efficacy and safety outcomes. Half of the trials reported safety outcomes and less than 20% quality of life. For OS, nivolumab was more effective than docetaxel (hazard ratio (HR) 0.69, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.56–0.83), pemetrexed (0.67, 0.52–0.83), erlotinib (0.68, 0.53–0.86), and gefitinib (0.66, 0.53–0.83). Pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and pemetrexed plus erlotinib were also significantly more effective than docetaxel, pemetrexed, erlotinib, and gefitinib. For PFS, erlotinib plus cabozantinib was more effective than docetaxel (HR 0.39, 95% CrI 0.18–0.84), pemetrexed (0.38, 0.18–0.82), erlotinib (0.37, 0.18–0.78), and gefitinib (0.38, 0.18–0.82). Cabozantinib and pemetrexed plus erlotinib were also significantly more effective than the four recommended treatments. For ObR, no treatment was significantly more effective. The effectiveness of the four recommended treatments was similar and they were ranked among the 25 less-effective treatments. For safety, evidence is insufficient to draw certain conclusions. Conclusions Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and pemetrexed plus erlotinib may be the most effective second-line treatments for NSCLC in terms of OS. The four recommended treatments seem to have relatively poor performance. However, the impact on life expectancy of immunotherapy versus other treatments should be further explored by future analyses, and more trials comparing the novel treatments are needed to reduce uncertainty in these results. Trial registration Registration number: PROSPERO (CRD42015017592) Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0954-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
17417015
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
BMC Medicine, BMC Medicine, BioMed Central, 2017, 15, pp.193. ⟨10.1186/s12916-017-0954-x⟩, BMC Medicine, Vol 15, Iss 1, Pp 1-12 (2017), BMC Medicine, BioMed Central, 2017, 15, pp.193. 〈10.1186/s12916-017-0954-x〉, BMC Medicine, 2017, 15, pp.193. ⟨10.1186/s12916-017-0954-x⟩
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....2db1f69702b3f2d033ca8c9a0b1ddd72
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0954-x⟩