Yafang Huang

KRAS p.G13D mutation and codon 12 mutations are not created equal in predicting clinical outcomes of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer

The authors conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to examine whether patients who had metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with the v‐Ki‐ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) p.G13D mutation (an amino acid substitution at position 13 in KRAS from a glycine to an aspartic acid) and received cetuximab treatment had better clinical outcomes than patients who had mCRC tumors with KRAS codon 12 mutations.

Promising biomarkers for predicting the outcomes of patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibodies: A systematic review with meta-analysis

KRAS mutations have been established as a major predictive biomarker for resistance to the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with anti‐epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibodies (anti‐EGFR MoAbs). However, many patients with KRAS wild‐type tumors still do not respond to the treatment. We conducted a systematic review with meta‐analysis to assess whether BRAF mutations, PIK3CA mutations and PTEN loss can predict the outcomes of patients with KRAS wild‐type mCRC treated with anti‐EGFR MoAbs. Studies that explored the association of one or more of the three biomarkers with progression‐free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and/or objective response rate (ORR) were identified through August 2012. Summary hazard ratios (HRs) and rate differences (RDs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by using the random‐effects model. BRAF mutations, PIK3CA exon 20 mutations and PTEN loss were all associated with shorter PFS (HR = 2.59, 95% CI 1.67–4.03; HR = 2.52, 95% CI 1.33–4.78 and HR = 1.75, 95% CI 1.19–2.56, respectively), shorter OS (HR = 2.74, 95% CI 1.79–4.19; HR = 3.29, 95% CI 1.60–6.75 and HR = 1.85, 95% CI 1.30–2.64, respectively) and lower ORR (RD = −36%, 95% CI −44 to −28%; RD = −38%, 95% CI −51 to −24% and RD = −41%, 95% CI −68 to −14%, respectively). PIK3CA exon 9 mutations were associated with none of the outcomes. Studies with relevant data consistently demonstrated a stronger predictive power of combined multiple biomarkers as compared to one alteration alone. These results suggest that BRAF mutations, PIK3CA exon 20 mutations and PTEN loss are predictive of better outcomes in KRAS wild‐type mCRC treated with anti‐EGFR MoAbs. However, the quality of included studies varied, and some of the meta‐analyses were limited by significant between‐study heterogeneity. In the future, well‐designed large randomized controlled trials conducted in KRAS wild‐type mCRC patients with subgroup analysis according to BRAF, PIK3CA exon 20 and PTEN status are essential to fully assess the clinical relevance of these biomarkers.

Gemcitabine plus erlotinib for advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Background This study aims to comprehensively summarize the currently available evidences on the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus erlotinib for treating advanced pancreatic cancer. Methodology/Principal Findings PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and abstracts of recent major conferences were systematically searched to identify relevant publications. Studies that were conducted in advanced pancreatic cancer patients treated with gemcitabine plus erlotinib (with or without comparison with gemcitabine alone) and reporting objective response rate, disease control rate, progression-free survival, time-to-progression, overall survival, 1-year survival rate and/or adverse events were included. Data on objective response rate, disease control rate, 1-year survival rate and adverse events rate, respectively, were combined mainly by using Meta-Analyst software with a random-effects model. Data on progression-free survival, time-to-progression and overall survival were summarized descriptively. Sixteen studies containing 1,308 advanced pancreatic cancer patients treated with gemcitabine plus erlotinib were included. The reported median progression-free survival (or time-to-progression), median overall survival, 1-year survival rates, objective response rates and disease control rates were 2–9.6 months, 5–12.5 months, 20%–51%, 0%–28.6% and 25.0%–83.3%, respectively. The weighted 1-year survival rate, objective response rate and disease control rate based on studies reporting robust results were 27.9%, 9.1% and 57.0%, respectively. According to the studies with relevant data, the incidences of total and severe adverse events were 96.3% and 62.9%, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse events were leucopenia, rash, diarrhea, vomitting, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anaemia, stomatitis, drug-induced liver injury, fatigue and fever. Compared with gemcitabine alone, the progression-free survival and overall survival with gemcitabine plus erlotinib were significantly longer, but there were also more deaths and interstitial lung disease-like syndrome related to this treatment. Conclusions/Significance Gemcitabine plus erlotinib represent a new option for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer, with mild but clinically meaningful additive efficacy compared with gemcitabine alone. Its safety profile is generally acceptable, although careful management is needed for some specific adverse events.

EGFR gene copy number as a predictive biomarker for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies: a meta-analysis.

BackgroundEpidermal growth factor receptor gene copy number (EGFR GCN) has been heavily investigated as a potential predictive biomarker for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (MAbs). The objective of this study was to systematically review current evidences on this issue.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Wanfang Data, and the conference abstracts of American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society of Medical Oncology were comprehensively searched. Studies that reported the objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival, and/or overall survival of mCRC patients treated with anti-EGFR MAbs, stratified by EGFR GCN status, were included. The effect measures for binary outcome (response) and time-to-event outcomes (progression-free survival and overall survival) were risk difference and hazard ratio, respectively. Statistical heterogeneity among the studies was assessed by the Cochran’s Q-test and the I2 statistic. If appropriate, a quantitative synthesis of data from different studies would be conducted with a random-effects model.ResultsNineteen eligible studies were identified. The criteria for increased EGFR GCN (GCN+) were highly inconsistent across different studies. The prevalence of GCN + ranged from 6.9% to 88.9%, and the difference in ORR between patients with GCN + and those with non-increased EGFR GCN (GCN-) varied from −28% to 84%. Because of the significant heterogeneity, no quantitative synthesis of data was performed. There was a general trend towards higher ORR in patients with GCN+. The difference in ORRs between patients with GCN + and those with GCN- was even greater in KRAS wild-type patients, while in KRAS mutated patients the difference often did not exist. Almost all patients with EGFR amplification responded to the treatment. However, the prevalence of EGFR amplification was generally low. Incomplete data on progression-free survival and overall survival seemingly supported the findings on ORR.ConclusionsAlthough increased EGFR GCN is generally associated with a better outcome of anti-EGFR MAbs treatment, especially among patients with wild-type KRAS, the clinical utility of this biomarker for selecting recipients of anti-EGFR MAbs would be severely limited by the heterogeneous scoring system and the poor reproducibility of EGFR GCN enumeration due to technical reasons.

Distribution and epidemiological characteristics of published individual patient data meta-analyses.

Background Individual patient data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) prevail as the gold standard in clinical evaluations. We investigated the distribution and epidemiological characteristics of published IPDMA articles. Methodology/Principal Findings IPDMA articles were identified through comprehensive literature searches from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library. Two investigators independently conducted article identification, data classification and extraction. Data related to the article characteristics were collected and analyzed descriptively. A total of 829 IPDMA articles indexed until 9 August 2012 were identified. An average of 3.7 IPDMA articles was published per year. Malignant neoplasms (267 [32.2%]) and circulatory diseases (179 [21.6%]) were the most frequently occurring topics. On average, each IPDMA article included a median of 8 studies (Interquartile range, IQR 5 to 15) involving 2,563 patients (IQR 927 to 8,349). Among 829 IPDMA articles, 229 (27.6%) did not perform a systematic search to identify related studies. In total, 207 (25.0%) sought and included individual patient data (IPD) from the “grey literature”. Only 496 (59.8%) successfully obtained IPD from all identified studies. Conclusions/Significance The number of IPDMA articles exhibited an increasing trend over the past few years and mainly focused on cancer and circulatory diseases. Our data indicated that literature searches, including grey literature and data availability were inconsistent among different IPDMA articles. Possible biases may arise. Thus, decision makers should not uncritically accept all IPDMAs.

Is Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Associated With a Declined Immunogenicity and Poor Safety of Influenza Vaccination?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AbstractThere are conflicts on whether influenza vaccinated systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients are associated with a decreased immunogenicity and safety, compared with healthy controls. We conducted meta-analyses to compare SLE patients with healthy controls for flu-vaccine immunogenicity, as well as for adverse events.PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched by October 15, 2015. Studies were included when they met the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics, methodological quality, and outcomes. The primary outcome was seroprotection (SP) rate after immunization.A total of 15 studies were included. There were significant differences in SP rates between the SLE patients and healthy controls, respectively, for H1N1 (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.73–0.87) and B strain (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65–0.87), but not for H3N2 (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68–1.03). Subgroup analyses demonstrated SLE patients with immunosuppressants, corticosteroids, azathioprine and prednisone had significantly lower SP rates, compared with healthy controls. SLE patients with nonadjuvanted H1N1 vaccine had significantly lower SP rate, compared with healthy controls. SLE patients were not associated with increased adverse events (RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.94–3.77).SLE generates immunogenicity differently, compared with healthy controls in pandemic H1N1 and B strains, but same in seasonal H3N2 strain. Nonadjuvant and special kind of immunosuppressive biologics can play an important role in SLE immunogenicity to flu vaccine. There is no significant difference in adverse event rates between SLE patients and healthy controls.

Comparing the Overall Result and Interaction in Aggregate Data Meta-Analysis and Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

AbstractThe aim of the study was to examine how well aggregate data meta-analyses (ADMAs) and individual patient data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) agree in their overall results and how frequently interactions are detected in IPDMAs and ADMAs.ADMA articles immediately published before the IPDMA and matching the research topic were identified. Agreement in the overall result was achieved if the estimate was in the same direction. The number of subgroup analyses, in particular that of significant interactions, was compared between the 2 types of meta-analyses.A total of 829 IPDMA articles were identified; 129 (15.6%) were found to have a matched ADMA article and 204 paired meta-analyses were identified. Agreement in the overall effect was observed in 187 (91.7%) of the 204 paired meta-analyses. Fifty-three (26.0%) ADMAs and 121 (59.3%) IPDMAs conducted subgroup analyses and presented 150 and 634 subgroup analyses, respectively. The IPDMAs conducted 7 times more subgroup analyses on interaction (544 in IPDMAs vs 68 in ADMAs) and identified 14 times more potential interactions (44 in IPDMAs vs 3 in ADMAs).ADMAs will almost always agree with their corresponding IPDMAs in the overall result if greater efforts are made to improve the methodology in conducting ADMAs. The IPDMA is required mostly if interactions are suspected.

Yoga for asthma

BACKGROUND Asthma is a common chronic inflammatory disorder affecting about 300 million people worldwide. As a holistic therapy, yoga has the potential to relieve both the physical and psychological suffering of people with asthma, and its popularity has expanded globally. A number of clinical trials have been carried out to evaluate the effects of yoga practice, with inconsistent results. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of yoga in people with asthma. METHODS SEARCH METHODS We systematically searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, and PsycINFO, and handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also searched PEDro. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP search portal. We searched all databases from their inception to 22 July 2015, and used no restriction on language of publication. We checked the reference lists of eligible studies and relevant review articles for additional studies. We attempted to contact investigators of eligible studies and experts in the field to learn of other published and unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared yoga with usual care (or no intervention) or sham intervention in people with asthma and reported at least one of the following outcomes: quality of life, asthma symptom score, asthma control, lung function measures, asthma medication usage, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted bibliographic information, characteristics of participants, characteristics of interventions and controls, characteristics of methodology, and results for the outcomes of our interest from eligible studies. For continuous outcomes, we used mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) to denote the treatment effects, if the outcomes were measured by the same scale across studies. Alternatively, if the outcomes were measured by different scales across studies, we used standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI. For dichotomous outcomes, we used risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI to measure the treatment effects. We performed meta-analysis with Review Manager 5.3. We used the fixed-effect model to pool the data, unless there was substantial heterogeneity among studies, in which case we used the random-effects model instead. For outcomes inappropriate or impossible to pool quantitatively, we conducted a descriptive analysis and summarized the findings narratively. MAIN RESULTS We included 15 RCTs with a total of 1048 participants. Most of the trials were conducted in India, followed by Europe and the United States. The majority of participants were adults of both sexes with mild to moderate asthma for six months to more than 23 years. Five studies included yoga breathing alone, while the other studies assessed yoga interventions that included breathing, posture, and meditation. Interventions lasted from two weeks to 54 months, for no more than six months in the majority of studies. The risk of bias was low across all domains in one study and unclear or high in at least one domain for the remainder.There was some evidence that yoga may improve quality of life (MD in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) score per item 0.57 units on a 7-point scale, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.77; 5 studies; 375 participants), improve symptoms (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.65; 3 studies; 243 participants), and reduce medication usage (RR 5.35, 95% CI 1.29 to 22.11; 2 studies) in people with asthma. The MD for AQLQ score exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 0.5, but whether the mean changes exceeded the MCID for asthma symptoms is uncertain due to the lack of an established MCID in the severity scores used in the included studies. The effects of yoga on change from baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (MD 0.04 liters, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.19; 7 studies; 340 participants; I2 = 68%) were not statistically significant. Two studies indicated improved asthma control, but due to very significant heterogeneity (I2 = 98%) we did not pool data. No serious adverse events associated with yoga were reported, but the data on this outcome was limited. AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS We found moderate-quality evidence that yoga probably leads to small improvements in quality of life and symptoms in people with asthma. There is more uncertainty about potential adverse effects of yoga and its impact on lung function and medication usage. RCTs with a large sample size and high methodological and reporting quality are needed to confirm the effects of yoga for asthma.