Comparative efficacy of targeted maintenance therapy for newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer: a network meta-analysis

Figures & data

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies

Study	Year	Region	RCT phase	FIGO Stage	Targeted agent	Patients, No.		Residual status	Treatment duration (median, m)	Race	Histologic subtype	Survival outcome
Targeted	Placebo
Hirte et al^Citation13	2006	International	III	III-IV	Tanomastat	122	121	With residual after surgery, <2cm after chemotherapy	3.2	White 87% Asian 2% Other 11%	Serous 75% Endometrioid 7% Other 18%	PFS, OS
Herzog et al^Citation14	2013	International	II	NA	Sorafenib	123	123	With residual after surgery, without residual after chemotherapy	4.1	White 52% Asian 39% Other 9%	Serous 64% Clear cell 7% Other 29%	PFS
Sabbatini et al^Citation15	2013	International	III	III-IV	Abagovomab	593	295	With residual after surgery, without residual after chemotherapy	11.7	White 98% Other 2%	Serous 82% Endometrioid 6% Other 12%	PFS, OS
Bois et al^Citation9	2014	International	III	II-IV	Pazopanib	472	468	With residual after surgery, without residual after chemotherapy	8.9	White 77% Asian 23%	Serous 72% Endometrioid 6% Other 22%	PFS, OS
Berek et al^Citation16	2009	USA	III	III-IV	Oregovomab	251	120	Residual lesions ≤2cm after surgery; without residual after chemotherapy	NA	NA	Serous 80% Endometrioid 6% Other 14%	PFS
Vergote et al^Citation17	2014	International	III	II- III	Erlotinib	420	415	With residual after surgery and chemotherapy	8.1	NA	Serous 66% Clear cell 6% Other 28%	PFS, OS
Burger et al^Citation7	2011	International	III	III-IV	Bevacizumab	623	625	Residual lesions < 1cm after surgery	NA	White 83% Asian 6% Other 11%	Serous 83% Clear cell 4% Other 13%	PFS, OS
Hainsworth et al^Citation18	2014	USA	II	III-IV	Sorafenib	43	42	Residual lesions ≤ 3cm after surgery	NA	NA	NA	PFS, OS
Meier et al^Citation10	2012	Germany	II	IIB–IV	Lonafarnib	53	52	With residual after surgery	NA	NA	Serous 66% Endometroid 11% Other 23%	PFS, OS
Vergote et al^Citation19	2013	International	II	IIB–IV	Enzastaurin	69	73	With residual after surgery	NA	NA	NA	PFS
Perren et al^Citation8	2012	International	III	IIB–IV	Bevacizumab	764	764	With residual after surgery	19.8	White 96% Other 4%	Serous 69% Clear cell 9% Other 22%	PFS, OS

Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival.

Figure 1 PRISMA flowchart of the study selection process.

Figure 2 Results of pure targeted maintenance treatment: (A) network of eligible comparisons; (B) network meta-analysis on progression-free survival; (C) network meta-analysis on overall survival.

Figure 3 Results of targeted-throughout treatment: (A) network of eligible comparisons; (B) network meta-analysis on progression-free survival; (C) network meta-analysis on overall survival.

Figure 4 Comparisons between pure targeted maintenance and targeted-throughout treatment: (A) network of eligible comparisons; (B) network meta-analysis on progression-free survival; (C) network meta-analysis on overall survival.

Figure 5 Comparisons between pazopanib and bevacizumab: (A) network of eligible comparisons; (B) network meta-analysis on progression-free survival; (C) network meta-analysis on overall survival.

Cipriani A, Higgins JP, Geddes JR, Salanti G. Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(2):130–137. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-159-2-201307160-0000823856683

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):80–97. doi:10.1002/jrsm.103726062083

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Group G, Paoletti X, Oba K, et al. Benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for resectable gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. Jama. 2010;303(17):1729–1737. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.53420442389

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Du Bois A, Floquet A, Kim JW, et al. Incorporation of pazopanib in maintenance therapy of ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(30):3374–3382. doi:10.1200/JCO.2014.55.734825225436

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

van Beurden-Tan CHY, Franken MG, Blommestein HM, Uyl-de Groot CA, Sonneveld P. Systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of treatment outcomes in relapsed and/or refractory multiple Myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(12):1312–1319. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.71.166328240968

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med. 1998;17(24):2815–2834.9921604

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Burger RA, Brady MF, Bookman MA, et al. Incorporation of bevacizumab in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(26):2473–2483. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa110439022204724

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gelman A, Rubin DB. Markov chain Monte Carlo methods in biostatistics. Stat Methods Med Res. 1996;5(4):339–355. doi:10.1177/0962280296005004029004377

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Meier W, Du Bois A, Rau J, et al. Randomized phase II trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without lonafarnib in first-line treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer stage IIB-IV. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;126(2):236–240. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.04.05022564713

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hirte H, Vergote IB, Jeffrey JR, et al. A phase III randomized trial of BAY 12-9566 (tanomastat) as maintenance therapy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer responsive to primary surgery and paclitaxel/platinum containing chemotherapy: a National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;102(2):300–308. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.12.02016442153

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Perren TJ, Swart AM, Pfisterer J, et al. A phase 3 trial of bevacizumab in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(26):2484–2496.22204725

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar