Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Monoclonal Antibodies (Bevacizumab, Cetuximab, and Panitumumab) in Combination with Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis



da Silva, Wania Cristina, de Araujo, Vania Eloisa, Lima, Ellias Magalhaes E Abreu, Ribeiro dos Santos, Jessica Barreto, Ribeiro da Silva, Michael Ruberson, Ribeiro Fernandes Almeida, Paulo Henrique, Acurcio, Francisco de Assis, Godman, Brian ORCID: 0000-0001-6539-6972, Kurdi, Amanj, Cherchiglia, Mariangela Leal
et al (show 1 more authors) (2018) Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Monoclonal Antibodies (Bevacizumab, Cetuximab, and Panitumumab) in Combination with Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BIODRUGS, 32 (6). pp. 585-606.

[thumbnail of PDF da Silva et al 2018.pdf] Text
PDF da Silva et al 2018.pdf - Published version

Download (2MB)

Abstract

<h4>Background</h4>The last decade has seen the increasing use of biological medicines in combination with chemotherapy containing 5-fluorouracil/oxaliplatin or irinotecan for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). These combinations have resulted in increased progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with mCRC; however, there are remaining concerns over the extent of their effect on overall survival (OS). Published studies to date suggest no major differences between the three currently available monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs); however, there are differences in costs. In addition, there is rising litigation in Brazil in order to access these medicines as they are currently not reimbursed.<h4>Objective</h4>The aim was to investigate the comparative effectiveness and safety of three MoAbs (bevacizumab, cetuximab and panitumumab) associated with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens and compared to fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy alone in patients with mCRC, through an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of concurrent or non-concurrent observational cohort studies, to guide authorities and the judiciary.<h4>Method</h4>A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed based on cohort studies published in databases up to November 2017. Effectiveness measures included OS, PFS, post-progression survival (PPS), Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST), response rate, metastasectomy and safety. The methodological quality of the studies was also evaluated.<h4>Results</h4>A total of 21 observational cohort studies were included. There were statistically significant and clinically relevant benefits in patients treated with bevacizumab versus no bevacizumab mainly around OS, PFS, PPS and the metastasectomy rate, but not for the disease control rates. However, there was an increase in treatment-related toxicities and concerns with the heterogeneity of the studies.<h4>Conclusion</h4>The results pointed to an advantage in favor of bevacizumab for OS, PFS, PPS, and metastasectomy. Although this advantage may be considered clinically modest, bevacizumab represents a hope for increased survival and a chance of metastasectomy for patients with mCRC. However, there are serious adverse events associated with its use, especially severe hypertension and gastrointestinal perforation, that need to be considered.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: Humans, Colorectal Neoplasms, Intestinal Perforation, Hypertension, Fluorouracil, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Disease-Free Survival, Incidence, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Fees, Pharmaceutical, Reimbursement Mechanisms, Brazil, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, Bevacizumab, Cetuximab, Irinotecan, Oxaliplatin, Panitumumab
Depositing User: Symplectic Admin
Date Deposited: 11 Dec 2018 16:11
Last Modified: 19 Jan 2023 01:09
DOI: 10.1007/s40259-018-0322-1
Related URLs:
URI: https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/3029888