Background: In the absence of head-to-head comparison studies, the present network meta-analysis evaluated and compared the efficacy of 4 therapeutic alternatives for refractory colorectal cancer. Materials and Methods: The search focused on results from phase III randomized controlled trials. Separate (subgroup) network meta-analyses were conducted to obtain drug comparisons stratified by various patient characteristics. The principal outcome of interest was overall survival (OS). Results: No difference in OS was found between regorafenib and TAS-102. For a rectal primary location, TAS-102 conferred benefit versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.671), but regorafenib did not (HR, 0.950). For patients aged > 65 years, TAS-102 showed benefit versus placebo (HR, 0.579) but regorafenib did not (HR, 0.816). For patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 0 in the indirect comparison, regorafenib showed benefit versus placebo (HR, 0.687), as did TAS-102 (HR, 0.756) but with a lower advantage. For patients with RAS wild type not previously treated with anti-EGFR antibodies, panitumumab was the optimal choice for OS. Conclusions: No differences in OS were found between regorafenib and TAS-102. Possible greater efficacy was found for TAS-102 compared with regorafenib for patients with a rectal primary location, ECOG PS > 0, and age > 65 years. In contrast, regorafenib showed possible greater effectiveness for patients with ECOG PS 0 and age < 65 years. In the RAS WT population, the anti-EGFR drug showed superiority with respect to TAS-102 and regorafenib. These results should be viewed as only exploratory, and further prospective studies are warranted to validate these data.

Is There an Optimal Choice in Refractory Colorectal Cancer? A Network Meta-Analysis

Scartozzi M.;
2020-01-01

Abstract

Background: In the absence of head-to-head comparison studies, the present network meta-analysis evaluated and compared the efficacy of 4 therapeutic alternatives for refractory colorectal cancer. Materials and Methods: The search focused on results from phase III randomized controlled trials. Separate (subgroup) network meta-analyses were conducted to obtain drug comparisons stratified by various patient characteristics. The principal outcome of interest was overall survival (OS). Results: No difference in OS was found between regorafenib and TAS-102. For a rectal primary location, TAS-102 conferred benefit versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.671), but regorafenib did not (HR, 0.950). For patients aged > 65 years, TAS-102 showed benefit versus placebo (HR, 0.579) but regorafenib did not (HR, 0.816). For patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 0 in the indirect comparison, regorafenib showed benefit versus placebo (HR, 0.687), as did TAS-102 (HR, 0.756) but with a lower advantage. For patients with RAS wild type not previously treated with anti-EGFR antibodies, panitumumab was the optimal choice for OS. Conclusions: No differences in OS were found between regorafenib and TAS-102. Possible greater efficacy was found for TAS-102 compared with regorafenib for patients with a rectal primary location, ECOG PS > 0, and age > 65 years. In contrast, regorafenib showed possible greater effectiveness for patients with ECOG PS 0 and age < 65 years. In the RAS WT population, the anti-EGFR drug showed superiority with respect to TAS-102 and regorafenib. These results should be viewed as only exploratory, and further prospective studies are warranted to validate these data.
2020
Anti-EGFR
Cetuximab
Metastatic colorectal cancer
Panitumumab
Regorafenib
TAS-102
Third-line therapy
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
j.clcc.2019.10.001.pdf

Solo gestori archivio

Descrizione: Articolo principale
Tipologia: versione post-print
Dimensione 1.66 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.66 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

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/11584/297022
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 8
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 8
social impact