Author
Listed:
- Xuan Li
- Danian Dai
- Bo Chen
- Hailin Tang
- Xiaoming Xie
- Weidong Wei
Abstract
Background: The phosphatidylinositol-3- kinase (PI3K)/AKT/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway (PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway) plays a key role in cancer. We performed this meta-analysis to assess the clinical effect of using PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibitors on advanced solid tumours. Methods: All the randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared the therapy with PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibitors with other therapies were included. The main end-point was progression-free survival (PFS); other end-points included overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR). A subgroup analysis was performed mainly for PFS. Results: In total, 46 eligible RCT were included. The pooled results showed that PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibitor-based regimens significantly improved the PFS of patients with advanced solid tumours (hazard ratios (HR) = 0.79; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.71–0.88) and PI3K pathway mutations (HR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.56–0.85). All single PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibitor therapies were compared with other targeted therapies (HR = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.93–1.06) and dual targeted therapies, including PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibitors and other targeted therapies (HR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.62–1.74), which showed no significant differences in the PFS. Additional PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibitors showed no advantage with respect to the OS (HR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.90–1.07) or ORR (risk ratio (RR) = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.87–1.20). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis results suggest that the addition of the PI3K pathway inhibitors to the therapy regiment for advanced solid tumours significantly improves PFS. The way that patients are selected to receive the PI3K pathway inhibitors might be more meaningful in the future.
Suggested Citation
Xuan Li & Danian Dai & Bo Chen & Hailin Tang & Xiaoming Xie & Weidong Wei, 2018.
"Efficacy of PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibitors for the treatment of advanced solid cancers: A literature-based meta-analysis of 46 randomised control trials,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-18, February.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0192464
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192464
Download full text from publisher
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:pone00:0192464. 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.