IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0108749.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Bayesian Meta-Analysis of Multiple Treatment Comparisons of Systemic Regimens for Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Kelvin Chan
  • Keya Shah
  • Kelly Lien
  • Doug Coyle
  • Henry Lam
  • Yoo-Joung Ko

Abstract

Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelvin Chan & Keya Shah & Kelly Lien & Doug Coyle & Henry Lam & Yoo-Joung Ko, 2014. "A Bayesian Meta-Analysis of Multiple Treatment Comparisons of Systemic Regimens for Advanced Pancreatic Cancer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-9, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0108749
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108749
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0108749
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0108749&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0108749?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexander Kumachev & Marie Yan & Scott Berry & Yoo-Joung Ko & Maria C R Martinez & Keya Shah & Kelvin K W Chan, 2015. "A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Biologic Agents in the First Line Setting for Advanced Colorectal Cancer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-14, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0108749. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.