Treatment options for progression or recurrence of glioblastoma: a network meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: McBain C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8121043 | biostudies-literature | 2021 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Treatment options for progression or recurrence of glioblastoma: a network meta-analysis.
McBain Catherine C Lawrie Theresa A TA Rogozińska Ewelina E Kernohan Ashleigh A Robinson Tomos T Jefferies Sarah S
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20210504
<h4>Background</h4>Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly malignant brain tumour that almost inevitably progresses or recurs after first line standard of care. There is no consensus regarding the best treatment/s to offer people upon disease progression or recurrence. For the purposes of this review, progression and recurrence are considered as one entity.<h4>Objectives</h4>To evaluate the effectiveness of further treatment/s for first and subsequent progression or recurrence of glioblastoma (GBM) among ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:This study aimed to explore the effect of observation, microsurgery, and radiotherapy for patients with vestibular schwannoma (VS). We searched PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library from their establishment to July 31, 2024. 34 non-RCTs and 1 RCT that included 6 interventions were analyzed. We found the MS, and different SRS all had better tumor local control rates. Regarding preserved hearing, the order from the highest to the lowest was FSRT 5 fractions, FSRT 3 fractions, SRS, ConFSRT, Observation, and MS. Regarding improvement in the rate of tinnitus, the order from the highest to the lowest was ConFSRT, FSRT 3 fractions, SRS, Observation, MS, and FSRT 5 fractions. In terms of improving the rate of disequilibrium/vertigo, the order from the highest to the lowest was SRS, Observation, FSRT 3 fractions, FSRT 5 fractions, MS, and ConFSRT. In terms of protection of the trigeminal nerve, the order from the highest to lowest was observation, SRS, ConFSRT, FSRT 3 fractions, FSRT 5 fractions, and MS. Lastly, in terms of protection of the facial nerve, the order from the highest to lowest was SRS, ConFSRT, Observation, FSRT 3 fractions, FSRT 5 fractions, and MS. In patients with VS, MS and radiosurgery showed better local tumor control rates; however, compared with MS, different SRS all provided better protection of nerve function and improved the symptoms of vestibular function and tinnitus, among which the best was SRS. Therefore, in these patients, SRS may be a promising alternative treatment.
| S-EPMC11613487 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7086476 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma (RRMM) remains a big clinical challenge, due to its biological and clinical complexity. Leading hematologists have performed many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) worldwide, and their findings were summarized in a recently published network meta-analysis (NMA) but with certain limitations.Materials and methodsWe performed an updated NMA of RCTs related to RRMM treatment, focusing on efficacy measures including the nonresponse rate (NRR), time to progression (TTP), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). The PubMed database was searched. We extended the literature search strategy of a previous NMA to June 30, 2017 and included additional primary RCTs. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated to rank the regimens. A weighted-average method was used to rank the regimens by summarizing SUCRAs across different outcome measures.ResultsFinally, a total of 24 RCTs were included in this updated NMA. According to the result, the combination of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone showed better efficacy than other regimens in terms of NRR, TTP, and PFS (NRR: odds ratio [OR] =0.046, 95% credible interval [CrI] =[0.024, 0.085]; TTP: hazard ratio [HR] =0.14, 95% CrI =[0.092, 0.2]; PFS: HR =0.12, 95% CrI =[0.077, 0.18], compared with dexamethasone singlet). The combination of ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone showed better efficacy than other regimens in terms of OS (HR =0.30, 95% CrI =[0.17, 0.54], compared with dexamethasone). The combination of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone ranked first in terms of overall efficacy (weighted average of SUCRAs =0.920).ConclusionThe combination of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone may currently be the most effective regimen in the population of RRMM patients. Triplet regimens containing daratumumab, ixazomib, carfilzomib, or elotumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone can be recommended as first-line therapies for RRMM patients.
| S-EPMC6109665 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is the third most common type of dementia after Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia. Treatment is targeted at specific disease manifestations/symptoms. While donepezil is approved for the treatment of DLB in Japan, to date no other treatment has been approved for this indication anywhere in the world. Notwithstanding, many of the medications that are approved for AD are widely used in the treatment of DLB with varying degrees of success. Consequently, clinical evidence is limited, and there is a need to understand the comparative efficacy and safety of currently used therapies for DLB. The aim of this study was to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the outcomes of the available treatment options based on currently used trial endpoints.MethodsUsing data from a previously published systematic review, we conducted an NMA to investigate the efficacy and safety of treatments in patients with DLB. Networks were based on change from baseline of efficacy endpoints (Mini-Mental State Examination; Neuropsychiatric Inventory; Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale) and rate of safety events (overall adverse events [AEs]; discontinuations; discontinuations due to AEs; psychiatric events).ResultsFocused around a common treatment option of placebo, the NMA comprised studies on donepezil, rivastigmine, memantine and quetiapine. Donepezil 3 mg, 5 mg and 10 mg doses were compared against each other and placebo. Overall, donepezil consistently performed better than the alternative treatments when compared to placebo for all efficacy and safety endpoints. However, the small sample size and/or heterogeneity of the studies led to uncertainty, resulting in no statistically significant differences favouring any treatment above another or placebo.ConclusionDespite the lack of statistical significance, when assessing the efficacy and safety outcomes for each drug in the evidence network, donepezil appeared to have a more favourable overall benefit/risk profile for patients with DLB. Further comparative trials are required to improve understanding of the true difference between existing and potential future treatment options.
| S-EPMC7606367 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere are currently many treatment options for patients with subacromial shoulder conditions (SSCs). Clinical decision-making regarding the best treatment option is often difficult. This study aims to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of treatment options for relieving pain and improving function in patients with SSCs.MethodsEight databases [including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, PEDro, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry] were searched from inception until April 2020. Randomised clinical/controlled trials of adult patients investigating the effects of nonsurgical (e.g. corticosteroid injections, therapeutic exercise, shockwave therapy) and surgical treatment for SSCs, compared with each other, placebo, usual care or no treatment, were retrieved. Pairs of reviewers screened studies independently, quality appraised eligible studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, extracted and checked data for accuracy. Primary outcomes were pain and disability in the short term (⩽3 months) and long term (⩾6 months). Direct and indirect evidence of treatment effectiveness was synthesised using random-effects network meta-analysis.ResultsThe review identified 177 eligible trials. Summary estimates (based on 99 trials providing suitable data, 6764 patients, 20 treatment options) showed small to moderate effects for several treatments, but no significant differences on pain or function between many active treatment comparisons. The primary analysis indicated that exercise and laser therapy may provide comparative benefit in terms of both pain and function at different follow-up time-points, with larger effects found for laser in the short term at 2-6 weeks, although direct evidence was provided by one trial only, and for exercise in the longer term [standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18, 0.59 at 3-6 months] compared with control. Sensitivity analyses excluding studies at increased risk of bias confirmed only the comparative effects of exercise as being robust for both pain and function up until 3-month follow-up.ConclusionCurrent evidence shows small to moderate effect sizes for most treatment options for SSCs. Six treatments had a high probability of being most effective, in the short term, for pain and function [acupuncture, manual therapy, exercise, exercise plus manual therapy, laser therapy and Microcurrent (MENS) (TENS)], but with low certainty for most treatment options. After accounting for risk of bias, there is evidence of moderate certainty for the comparative effects of exercise on function in patients with SSCs. Future large, high-quality pragmatic randomised trials or meta-analyses are needed to better understand whether specific subgroups of patients respond better to some treatments than others.
| S-EPMC8435933 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Glioblastoma is a disease with a poor prognosis. Multiple efforts have been made to improve the long-term outcome, but the 5-year survival rate is still 5-10%. Recurrence of the disease is the usual way of progression. In this situation, there is no standard treatment. Different treatment options can be considered. Among them would be reoperation or reirradiation. There are different studies that have assessed the impact on survival and the selection of patients who may benefit most from these strategies. Chemotherapy treatments have also been considered in several studies, mainly with alkylating agents, with data mostly from phase II studies. On the other hand, multiple studies have been carried out with target-directed treatments. Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody with anti-angiogenic activity, has demonstrated activity in several studies, and the FDA has approved it for this indication. Several other TKI drugs have been evaluated in this setting, but no clear benefit has been demonstrated. Immunotherapy treatments have been shown to be effective in other types of tumors, and several studies have evaluated their efficacy in this disease, both immune checkpoint inhibitors, oncolytic viruses, and vaccines. This paper reviews data from different studies that have evaluated the efficacy of different forms of relapsed glioblastoma.
| S-EPMC10487236 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCrohn's disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory condition primarily affecting the digestive system. When dealing with complex cases like intestinal blockages or perforations, surgery becomes the primary treatment option. However, surgery doesn't offer a complete cure, and the possibility of recurrence remains. To manage CD recurrence after surgery, various treatment choices are available, including steroids, monoclonal antibodies, immunomodulators, and further surgery. Regrettably, the current body of evidence doesn't definitively establish which of these treatments is the most effective and safe. Thus, our research aims to provide insights into the Validity and security of different treatment approaches for managing CD recurrence after surgery.MethodsSearch of EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be conducted to include researches that examine the validity of treatments for recurrent CD after surgery. Our analysis will distinguish between two types of studies: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies with at least two different treatments, each evaluated separately. We will employ Bayesian network meta-analyses to systematically compare the effectiveness and safety of these treatments. Additionally, subgroup analyses will be performed according to recurrence status and postoperative prophylactic medication. To clarify the variation of studies, sensitivity analyses will be performed. And we may use meta-regression as an additional approach if relevant data are available. We will also rigorously access the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.DiscussionThis analysis will provide a comprehensive assessment of the latest evidence on available treatments for patients with postoperative recurrence of CD, which will provide recommendations for clinical practice.Trial registrationSystematic review registration INPLASY2023110021. (DOI: 10.37766/inplasy2023.11.0021).
| S-EPMC11463762 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMultiple therapies are currently available for patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), yet many therapies have not been compared head-to-head within randomized clinical trials (RCTs).ObjectiveTo assess the relative safety and efficacy of therapies for NETs.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registries, meeting abstracts, and reference lists from January 1, 1947, to March 2, 2018, were searched. Key search terms included neuroendocrine tumors, gastrointestinal neoplasms, therapy, and randomized controlled trial.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials comparing 2 or more therapies in patients with NETs (primarily gastrointestinal and pancreatic) were evaluated. Thirty RCTs met the selection criteria.Data extraction and synthesisPairs of independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. A network meta-analysis with a frequentist approach was used to compare the efficacy of therapies; the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was used.Main outcomes and measuresDisease control, progression-free survival, overall survival, adverse events, and quality of life.ResultsThe systematic review identified 30 relevant RCTs comprising 3895 patients (48.4% women) assigned to 22 different therapies for NETs. These therapies showed a broad range of risk for serious and nonserious adverse events. The network meta-analyses included 16 RCTs with predominantly a low risk of bias; nevertheless, precision-of-treatment estimates and estimated heterogeneity were limited. The network meta-analysis found 7 therapies for pancreatic NETs: everolimus (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35 [95% CI, 0.28-0.45]), everolimus plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.25-0.51]), everolimus plus bevacizumab plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.26-0.75]), interferon (HR, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.16-0.83]), interferon plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.13-0.71]), somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.33-0.66]), and sunitinib (HR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.26-0.67]), and 5 therapies for gastrointestinal NETs: bevacizumab plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.05-0.99]), everolimus plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.11-0.90]), interferon plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.07-0.96]), Lu 177-dotatate plus somatostatin analogue (HR, 0.08 [95% CI, 0.03-0.26], and somatostatin analogues (HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.21-0.78]) with higher efficacy than placebo and suggests an overall superiority of combination therapies.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings from this study suggest that a range of efficient therapies with different safety profiles is available for patients with NETs.
| S-EPMC6459123 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere are a variety of treatment options for recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, and the optimal specific treatment still remains to be determined. Therefore, this Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the optimal treatment options for recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.MethodsPubmed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for articles published until 15 June 2022. The outcome measures for this meta-analysis were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) of Grade 3-4. The Cochrane assessment tool for risk of bias was used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included original studies. The Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022347273).ResultsOur systematic review included 11 RCTs involving 1871 patients and 11 treatments other than chemotherapy. The results of meta-analysis showed that the overall survival (OS) was the highest in adavosertib + gemcitabine compared with conventional chemotherapy, (HR=0.56,95%CI:0.35-0.91), followed by sorafenib + topotecan (HR=0.65, 95%CI:0.45-0.93). In addition, Adavosertib + Gemcitabine regimen had the highest PFS (HR=0.55,95%CI:0.34-0.88), followed by Bevacizumab + Gemcitabine regimen (HR=0.48,95%CI:0.38-0.60) and the immunotherapy of nivolumab was the safest (HR=0.164,95%CI:0.312-0.871) with least adverse events of Grades 3-4.ConclusionsThe results of this study indicated that Adavosertib (WEE1 kinase-inhibitor) + gemcitabine regimen and Bevacizumab + Gemcitabine regimen would be significantly beneficial to patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, and could be preferred for recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. The immunotherapeutic agent, Nivolumab, is of considerable safety, with a low risk for grade-III or IV adverse events. Its safety is comparable to Adavosertib + gemcitabine regimen. Pazopanib + Paclitaxel (weekly regimen), Sorafenib + Topotecan/Nivolumab could be selected if there are contraindications of the above strategies.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022347273.
| S-EPMC10126232 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe effectiveness of triplet therapy compared with androgen pathway inhibitor (API) doublets in a heterogeneous patient population with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the comparative effectiveness of contemporary systemic treatment options for patients with mCSPC across clinically relevant subgroups.Data sourcesFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, Ovid MEDLINE and Embase were searched from each database's inception (MEDLINE, 1946; Embase, 1974) through June 16, 2021. Subsequently, a "living" auto search was created with weekly updates to identify new evidence as it became available.Study selectionPhase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing first-line treatment options for mCSPC.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data from eligible RCTs. The comparative effectiveness of different treatment options was assessed with a fixed-effect network meta-analysis. Data were analyzed on July 10, 2022.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grade 3 or higher adverse events, and health-related quality of life.ResultsThis report included 10 RCTs with 11 043 patients and 9 unique treatment groups. Median ages of the included population ranged from 63 to 70 years. Current evidence for the overall population suggests that the darolutamide (DARO) triplet (DARO + docetaxel [D] + androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.81), as well as the abiraterone (AAP) triplet (AAP + D + ADT; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.95), are associated with improved OS compared with D doublet (D + ADT) but not compared with API doublets. Among patients with high-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may improve OS compared with D + ADT (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.95) but not compared with AAP + ADT, enzalutamide (E) + ADT, and apalutamide (APA) + ADT. For patients with low-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may not improve OS compared with APA + ADT, AAP + ADT, E + ADT, and D + ADT.Conclusions and relevanceThe potential benefit observed with triplet therapy must be interpreted with careful accounting for the volume of disease and the choice of doublet comparisons used in the clinical trials. These findings suggest an equipoise to how triplet regimens compare with API doublet combinations and provide direction for future clinical trials.
| S-EPMC9982744 | biostudies-literature