Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and Network Meta-Analysis (NMA) of First-Line Therapies (1L) for Locally Advanced/Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma (la/mUC)

To compare efficacy outcomes for all approved and investigational first-line (1L) treatment regimens for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) with standard of care (SOC), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. A systematic literature review (SLR) identified phase 2 and...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Current oncology (Toronto) 2023-03, Vol.30 (4), p.3637-3647
Main Authors: Bloudek, Lisa, Wright, Phoebe, McKay, Caroline, Derleth, Christina Louise, Lill, Jennifer Susan, Lenero, Enrique, Hepp, Zsolt, Ramsey, Scott David, Sullivan, Sean D, Devine, Beth
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
bladder cancer
Carboplatin - therapeutic use
Carcinoma, Transitional Cell - drug therapy
Cisplatin - therapeutic use
Deoxycytidine - therapeutic use
Humans
Network Meta-Analysis
oncology
overall survival
standard of care
systematic literature review
Systematic Review
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms - drug therapy
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:To compare efficacy outcomes for all approved and investigational first-line (1L) treatment regimens for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) with standard of care (SOC), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. A systematic literature review (SLR) identified phase 2 and 3 randomized trials investigating 1L treatment regimens in la/mUC published January 2001-September 2021. Three networks were formed based on cisplatin (cis) eligibility: cis-eligible/mixed (cis-eligible patients and mixed populations of cis-eligible/ineligible patients), cis-ineligible (strict; exclusively cis-ineligible patients), and cis-ineligible (wide; including studies with investigator's choice of carbo). Analyses examined comparative efficacy by hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS), and odds ratio (OR) for overall response rate (ORR), with 1L regimens vs. SOC. SOC was gemcitabine + cis (GemCis) or carboplatin (GemCarbo), cis-eligible/mixed network, and GemCarbo cis-ineligible networks. Of 1906 SLR identified citations, 55 trials were selected for data extraction. The NMA comprised 11, 6, and 8 studies in the cis-eligible/mixed, cis-ineligible (strict), cis-ineligible (wide) networks, respectively. In a meta-analysis of SOC control arms, median (95% CI) overall survival (OS) in months varied by network: 13.19 (12.43, 13.95) cis-eligible/mixed, 11.96 (10.43, 13.48) cis-ineligible (wide), and 9.74 (6.71, 12.76) cis-ineligible (strict). Most differences in OS, PFS, and ORR with treatment regimens across treatment networks were not statistically significant compared with SOC. Outcomes with current 1L regimens remain poor, and few significant improvements over SOC have been made, despite inclusion of recent clinical trial data, highlighting an unmet need in the la/mUC patient population.
ISSN:1718-7729
1198-0052
1718-7729
DOI:10.3390/curroncol30040277