4.3 Article

The efficacy and toxicity of mirvetuximab soravtansine, a novel antibody-drug conjugate, in the treatment of advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17512433.2023.2262673

关键词

Adverse event; efficacy; folate receptor-alpha; mirvetuximab soravtansine; ovarian cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This meta-analysis demonstrates that mirvetuximab soravtansine (MIRV) has proven efficacy and good safety as a second-line and above treatment for advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer, offering promising application for patients with platinum-resistant diseases.
Introduction This meta-analysis aims to systematically analyze the efficacy and toxicity of mirvetuximab soravtansine (MIRV) as second-line and above treatment for advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer.Methods Candidate studies were identified in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang databases up to 1 May 2023. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), the incidence of adverse events (AEs), and incidence of grade >= 3 AEs were extracted and calculated by meta-analysis of merging ratios or mean to describe the efficacy and toxicity of MIRV.Results Seven eligible prospective studies were included in this meta-analysis, including 605 patients with advanced ovarian cancer who received second-line or higher therapy. ORR of MIRV was 34.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.0-43.5), and PFS was 5.82 months (95%CI 4.47-7.18). The overall incidence of AEs was 87.4% (95%CI 52.9-100.0) and the incidence of grade >= 3 AEs was 27.1% (95%CI 18.9-36.1). The most common AEs were vision blurring, nausea, and diarrhea, with incidence of 46.7% (39.6-53.8), 41.8% (34.0-49.9), and 41.3% (30.4-52.5), respectively.Conclusions MIRV has definite efficacy and good safety as a novel choice for second-line and above treatment of advanced or recurrent FR alpha positive ovarian cancer. This may have promising application in patients with platinum-resistant diseases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据