A Bayesian Meta-Analysis of Multiple Treatment Comparisons of Systemic Regimens for Advanced Pancreatic Cancer
Open Access
- 6 October 2014
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLOS ONE
- Vol. 9 (10) , e108749
Abstract
For advanced pancreatic cancer, many regimens have been compared with gemcitabine (G) as the standard arm in randomized controlled trials. Few regimens have been directly compared with each other in randomized controlled trials and the relative efficacy and safety among them remains unclear. A systematic review was performed through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ASCO meeting abstracts up to May 2013 to identify randomized controlled trials that included advanced pancreatic cancer comparing the following regimens: G, G+5-fluorouracil, G+ capecitabine, G+S1, G+ cisplatin, G+ oxaliplatin, G+ erlotinib, G+ nab-paclitaxel, and FOLFIRINOX. Overall survival and progression-free survival with 95% credible regions were extracted using the Parmar method. A Bayesian multiple treatment comparisons was performed to compare all regimens simultaneously. Twenty-two studies were identified and 16 were included in the meta-analysis. Median overall survival, progression free survival, and response rates for G arms from all trials were similar, suggesting no significant clinical heterogeneity. For overall survival, the mixed treatment comparisons found that the probability that FOLFIRINOX was the best regimen was 83%, while it was 11% for G+ nab-paclitaxel and 3% for G+ S1 and G+ erlotinib, respectively. The overall survival hazard ratio for FOLFIRINOX versus G+ nab-paclitaxel was 0.79 [0.50–1.24], with no obvious difference in toxicities. The hazard ratios from direct pairwise comparisons were consistent with the mixed treatment comparisons results. FOLFIRINOX appeared to be the best regimen for advanced pancreatic cancer probabilistically, with a trend towards improvement in survival when compared with other regimens by indirect comparisons.Keywords
This publication has 35 references indexed in Scilit:
- A multicentre randomised phase II trial of gemcitabine alone vs gemcitabine and S-1 combination therapy in advanced pancreatic cancer: GEMSAP studyBritish Journal of Cancer, 2012
- Network meta-analysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is neededBMC Medicine, 2011
- FOLFIRINOX versus Gemcitabine for Metastatic Pancreatic CancerNew England Journal of Medicine, 2011
- Randomized Phase III Trial of Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin Compared With Single-Agent Gemcitabine As First-Line Treatment of Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: The GIP-1 StudyJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2010
- Consensus Report of the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Planning Meeting on Pancreas Cancer TreatmentJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2009
- Phase III Randomized Comparison of Gemcitabine Versus Gemcitabine Plus Capecitabine in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic CancerJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2009
- Randomized Phase II Study of Gemcitabine Administered at a Fixed Dose Rate or in Combination With Cisplatin, Docetaxel, or Irinotecan in Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: CALGB 89904Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2009
- Phase III, Randomized Study of Gemcitabine and Oxaliplatin Versus Gemcitabine (fixed-dose rate infusion) Compared With Gemcitabine (30-minute infusion) in Patients With Pancreatic Carcinoma E6201: A Trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology GroupJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2009
- Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CapOx) versus capecitabine plus gemcitabine (CapGem) versus gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin (mGemOx): final results of a multicenter randomized phase II trial in advanced pancreatic cancerAnnals of Oncology, 2007
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003