Abstract
Background The clinical background of cancer patients is complex, and the efficacy and safety of different poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) vary greatly. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of the six PARPis and systematically evaluated the differences in PARPis in the relevant clinical contexts.
Methods Databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, etc.) were searched from Jan 1, 1980 to Oct 20, 2023, for randomized clinical trials. The overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) were the main outcomes and measures.
Results Forty-seven trials targeting 17 300 patients comparing six different PARPis. Talazoparib was associated with the highest PFS (HR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.52-0.68), accompanied by grade 3-5 AEs (HR = 4.96, 95% CI: 1.49-18.08). There were additional potential beneficial relationships in populations: homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) with PFS (HR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.24-0.43); BRCA gene mutations with OS (HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.68-0.93) and PFS (HR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.27-0.34); new diagnoses with OS (HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.61-0.97); and sensitivity to prior platinum therapy with PFS (HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.39-0.47).
Conclusion PARPis are more effective in HRD, newly diagnosed or platinum-sensitive cancer populations, and talazoparib is recommended as the first choice.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was funded by the Science and Technology (Medical and Health) of Shaoxing (No. 2020A13061), Department of Education of Zhejiang Province (No.Y202043224) and Health Science and Technology program of Zhejiang Province (No. 2019KY730). We thank LetPub (www.letpub.com) for its linguistic assistance during the preparation of this manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, etc.) were searched from Jan 1, 1980 to Oct 20, 2023, for randomized clinical trials.
