Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35267593›Full record

ReviewCancers2022

Feasibility Study of a Network Meta-Analysis and Unanchored Population-Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison of Niraparib, Olaparib, and Bevacizumab as Maintenance Therapies in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

Domenica Lorusso, Holly Guy, Yevgeniy Samyshkin, Carol Hawkes, Kasey Estenson, Robert L Coleman

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02655016 (A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Study of Niraparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer Following Response on Front-Line Platinum-Based Chemotherapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02655016 phase3active not recruitingnot on this map

A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Study of Niraparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer Following Response on Front-Line Platinum-Based Chemotherapy

TypeinterventionalSponsorTesaro, Inc.Ran2016 to 2026Enrolled733ConditionsOvarian NeoplasmsArmsNiraparib, Placebo
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Domenica LorussoFondazione Policlinico Gemelli of Rome, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Holly GuyFIECON Ltd., St Albans AL3 4PA, UK.
Yevgeniy SamyshkinGlaxoSmithKline, Brentford TW8 9GS, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3561-5585
Carol HawkesGlaxoSmithKline, Brentford TW8 9GS, UK.
Kasey EstensonGlaxoSmithKline, Philadelphia, PA 19112, USA.
Robert L ColemanTexas Oncology, US Oncology Research, The Woodlands, TX 77380, USA.
GlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom) · GBGlaxoSmithKline (United States) · USTexas Oncology · USUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · IT

Funding

GlaxoSmithKline 213646
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Selecting a first-line (1L) maintenance option for ovarian cancer is challenging given the variety of therapies, differing trials, and the lack of head-to-head data for angiogenesis and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Thus, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) can aid treatment decision making. This study assessed the feasibility of two ITCs, a network meta-analysis (NMA) and a population-adjusted ITC (PAIC), comparing the efficacy of the PARP inhibitor niraparib in the PRIMA trial (NCT02655016) with other 1L maintenance treatments. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify trials using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions to assess differences in trial design, population characteristics, treatment arms, and outcome measures. All 12 trials identified were excluded from the NMA due to the absence of a common comparator and differences in survival measures and/or inclusion criteria. The PAIC comparing PRIMA and PAOLA-1 trials was also not feasible due to differences in inclusion criteria, survival measures, and the previous receipt of chemotherapy/bevacizumab. Neither ITC met recommended guidelines for analysis; the results of such comparisons would not be considered appropriate evidence when selecting 1L maintenance options in ovarian cancer. ITCs in this setting should be performed cautiously, as many factors can preclude objective trial comparisons.

Indexed as

bevacizumabfirst-line maintenance therapyniraparibNMAolaparibovarian cancer

Identifiers

PMID35267593
PMCPMC8909094
OpenAlexW4214881302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.