Table 3.
Clinical trial efficacy outcomes included in meta-analysis.
| Study |
N
(Q2W vs Q1W) |
OS HR of Q2W vs Q1W (95% CI)a |
PFS HR of Q2W vs Q1W (95% CI)a |
ORR (Q2W vs Q1W)b |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CECOG | 77 vs 75 | 1.16 (0.76, 1.79) | 1.09 (0.74, 1.59) | 62% vs 53% |
| NORDIC 7.5 vs NORDIC VII | 152 vs 109 | 0.88 (0.64, 1.22) | 0.85 (0.66, 1.09) | 62% vs 51% |
| CELINE vs CRYSTAL | 60 vs 303 | 1.05 (0.86, 1.28) | 0.90 (0.64, 1.27) | 70% vs 69% |
| OPTIMIX vs CRYSTAL | 99 vs 303 | 1.12 (0.91, 1.39) | 1.01 (0.77, 1.33) | 61% vs 52% |
| APEC(FOLFIRI) vs CRYSTAL | 101 vs 303 | 0.95 (0.82, 1.11) | 0.96 (0.80,1.15) | 54% vs 59% |
| APEC(FOLFOX) vs CRYSTAL | 188 vs 303 | 0.85 (0.74, 0.99) | 0.98 (0.84, 1.15) | 61% vs 60% |
PFS and OS: HR <1 is in favor of Q2W schedule.
The ORR in the Crystal study were adjusted by entropy balancing method (Fig. 1).
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; N, number of patients; Q1W, weekly; Q2W, biweekly; ORR, overall response rate; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival.