Evidence Hub

The Era of PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer: "Class Action" or not? A systematic review and meta-analysis

N. Staropoli, D. Ciliberto, T. Del Giudice, E. Iuliano, M. Cucè, F. Grillone, Angela Salvino, V. Barbieri et al.

Critical reviews in oncology/hematology, 2018

1,839 participants · 37 citations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Carboplatin is the milestone of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) treatment, thus response to platinum is the major prognostic factor. Among platinum-sensitive patients, 40% carry a germline or somatic BRCA1/2 mutation. In this scenario a new class of drugs, the PARP inhibitors (PARPis), produced a significant improvement in long-term disease control. In order to make an aggregate evaluation of the impact of these agents, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Clinical trials were selected by searching "Pubmed" database and abstracts from major cancer meetings. We considered the January 2008 - April 2018 time frame. Progression free survival (PFS) was the primary end-point, toxicities were secondary end-points. Hazard ratios (HRs) of PFS, with confidence intervals, and risk ratios of grade 3-4 toxicity rates, were extracted from retrieved studies and included in the current analysis. Meta-analysis was carried out by the fixed and random effect models. We conducted this meta-analysis to also compare indirectly the efficacy of different PARPis in EOC patients.

RESULTS

Five randomized trials for a total of 1839 patients were selected and included in the final analysis. In particular, we evaluated a BRCA-mutant cohort (871 patients) with a pooled HR 0.25 (95%CI 0.21-0.31) and the BRCA-wild type cohort (836 patients) with a pooled HR 0.41 (95%CI 0.31-0.55), respectively. Regarding safety profile, no significant differences were…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,839 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free