-
World Journal of Oncology Oct 2023The efficacy and safety of Folfirinox (FFX) or gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (GnP) to be used as the first-line drugs for pancreatic cancer (PC) is yet to be established.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The efficacy and safety of Folfirinox (FFX) or gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (GnP) to be used as the first-line drugs for pancreatic cancer (PC) is yet to be established. We conducted an analysis of retrospective studies to assess the efficacy and safety of these two regimens by comparing their survival and safety outcomes in patients with PC.
METHODS
We conducted an extensive review of two electronic databases from inception till February 2023 to include all the relevant studies that compared FFX with GnP published and unpublished work. Retrospective studies were only included. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were pooled using hazard ratios (HRs), while objective response rate (ORR) and safety outcomes were pooled using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 7,030 patients were identified in a total of 21 articles that were shortlisted. Pooled results concluded that neither FFX nor GnP was associated to increase the OS time (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.83 - 1.04; P = 0.0001); however, FFX was more likely associated with increased PFS when compared to GnP (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81 - 0.97; P < 0.0001). ORR proved to be non-significant between the two regimens (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.64 - 1.27; P = 0.15). Safety outcomes included neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia and diarrhea. GnP was more associated with diarrhea (OR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.22 - 3.15; P = 0.001), while FFX was seen to cause anemia (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51 - 0.98; P = 0.10) in PC patients. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were in-significant in the two drug regimens (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.92 - 1.31; P = 0.33 and OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60 - 1.13; P = 0.23, respectively).
CONCLUSION
FFX and GnP showed a significant difference in increasing the PFS, while no difference was observed while measuring OS. Safety outcomes showed that FFX and GnP shared similar safety profiles as FFX was associated with hematological outcomes, while GnP was more associated with non-hematological outcomes.
PubMed: 37869244
DOI: 10.14740/wjon1604 -
Cancers Aug 2021Therapy with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GNP) is the most commonly used palliative chemotherapy, but its advantage in the neoadjuvant setting remains unclear.... (Review)
Review
Therapy with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GNP) is the most commonly used palliative chemotherapy, but its advantage in the neoadjuvant setting remains unclear. Accordingly, our aim is to evaluate the impact of first-line neoadjuvant therapy with GNP in patients with borderline resectable (BRPC) and locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). A systematic search for published studies until August 2020 was performed. The primary endpoint included resection and R0 resection rates in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints were response rate, survival and toxicity. Among 21 studies, 950 patients who received neoadjuvant GNP were evaluated. Treatment with GNP resulted in surgical resection and R0 resection rates as follows: 49% (95% CI 30-68%) and 36% (95% CI 17-58%) for BRPC and 16% (95% CI 7-26%) and 11% (95% CI 5-19%) for LAPC, respectively. The objective response rates and the median overall survival (mOS) ranged from 0 to 67% and 12 to 30 months, respectively. Neutropenia (range 5-77%) and neuropathy (range 0-22%) were the most commonly reported grade 3 to 4 adverse events. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with GNP can be performed safely and with valuable effects in patients with BRPC and LAPC. The utility of GNP in comparison to FOLFIRINOX in the neoadjuvant setting requires further investigation in prospective randomized trials.
PubMed: 34503138
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13174326 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Mar 2024: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the feasibility of paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty for de novo lesions in patients with acute... (Review)
Review
Cardiovascular Outcomes after Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty versus Drug-Eluting Stent Placement for Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the feasibility of paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty for de novo lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) by comparing with drug-eluting stent (DES) placement. : By a systematic literature search, nine (five randomized controlled, two retrospective propensity-score matched, and two retrospective baseline-balanced) studies comparing the midterm clinical and angiographic outcomes after PCB angioplasty and DES placement were included, yielding 974 and 1130 ACS cases in PCB and DES groups, respectively. Major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was defined as a composite of cardiac mortality (CM), all-cause mortality (ACM), myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Late luminal loss (LLL) and bleeding events (BLD) were also estimated. : The frequencies of MACE in PCB and DES groups were 8.42% and 10.62%, respectively. PCB angioplasty had no significant impacts on all of MACE (risk ratio: 0.90, 95%CI: 0.68-1.18, = 0.44), CM, ACM, MI, TVR, TLR, BLD, and LLL, compared to DES placement in random-effects model. : The present systematic review and meta-analysis showed the feasibility of PCB angioplasty for the de novo lesions in patients with ACS in comparison with DES placement by the emergent procedures.
PubMed: 38592314
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13051481 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jan 2015Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, and the fourth most common cause of cancer death. Of those people successfully treated with first-line... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride, paclitaxel, trabectedin and gemcitabine for advanced recurrent or refractory ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
BACKGROUND
Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, and the fourth most common cause of cancer death. Of those people successfully treated with first-line chemotherapy, 55-75% will relapse within 2 years. At this time, it is uncertain which chemotherapy regimen is more clinically effective and cost-effective for the treatment of recurrent, advanced ovarian cancer.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan (Hycamtin(®), GlaxoSmithKline), pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride (PLDH; Caelyx(®), Schering-Plough), paclitaxel (Taxol(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), trabectedin (Yondelis(®), PharmaMar) and gemcitabine (Gemzar(®), Eli Lilly and Company) for the treatment of advanced, recurrent ovarian cancer.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases (MEDLINE(®), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluations Database) and trial registries were searched, and company submissions were reviewed. Databases were searched from inception to May 2013.
METHODS
A systematic review of the clinical and economic literature was carried out following standard methodological principles. Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials, evaluating topotecan, PLDH, paclitaxel, trabectedin and gemcitabine, and economic evaluations were included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was carried out. A de novo economic model was developed.
RESULTS
For most outcomes measuring clinical response, two networks were constructed: one evaluating platinum-based regimens and one evaluating non-platinum-based regimens. In people with platinum-sensitive disease, NMA found statistically significant benefits for PLDH plus platinum, and paclitaxel plus platinum for overall survival (OS) compared with platinum monotherapy. PLDH plus platinum significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with paclitaxel plus platinum. Of the non-platinum-based treatments, PLDH monotherapy and trabectedin plus PLDH were found to significantly increase OS, but not PFS, compared with topotecan monotherapy. In people with platinum-resistant/-refractory (PRR) disease, NMA found no statistically significant differences for any treatment compared with alternative regimens in OS and PFS. Economic modelling indicated that, for people with platinum-sensitive disease and receiving platinum-based therapy, the estimated probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER; incremental cost per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)] for paclitaxel plus platinum compared with platinum was £24,539. Gemcitabine plus carboplatin was extendedly dominated, and PLDH plus platinum was strictly dominated. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and receiving non-platinum-based therapy, the probabilistic ICERs associated with PLDH compared with paclitaxel, and trabectedin plus PLDH compared with PLDH, were estimated to be £25,931 and £81,353, respectively. Topotecan was strictly dominated. For people with PRR disease, the probabilistic ICER associated with topotecan compared with PLDH was estimated to be £324,188. Paclitaxel was strictly dominated.
LIMITATIONS
As platinum- and non-platinum-based treatments were evaluated separately, the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these regimens is uncertain in patients with platinum-sensitive disease.
CONCLUSIONS
For platinum-sensitive disease, it was not possible to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of platinum-based therapies with non-platinum-based therapies. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and treated with platinum-based therapies, paclitaxel plus platinum could be considered cost-effective compared with platinum at a threshold of £30,000 per additional QALY. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and treated with non-platinum-based therapies, it is unclear whether PLDH would be considered cost-effective compared with paclitaxel at a threshold of £30,000 per additional QALY; trabectedin plus PLDH is unlikely to be considered cost-effective compared with PLDH. For patients with PRR disease, it is unlikely that topotecan would be considered cost-effective compared with PLDH. Randomised controlled trials comparing platinum with non-platinum-based treatments might help to verify the comparative effectiveness of these regimens.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003555.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Deoxycytidine; Dioxoles; Disease-Free Survival; Double-Blind Method; Doxorubicin; Female; Health Care Costs; Humans; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasm Staging; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Polyethylene Glycols; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Survival Analysis; Tetrahydroisoquinolines; Topotecan; Trabectedin; Treatment Outcome; United Kingdom; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 25626481
DOI: 10.3310/hta19070 -
International Journal of Molecular... Jan 2023Taste and smell disorders (TSDs) are common side effects in patients undergoing cancer treatments. Knowing which treatments specifically cause them is crucial to improve... (Review)
Review
Taste and smell disorders (TSDs) are common side effects in patients undergoing cancer treatments. Knowing which treatments specifically cause them is crucial to improve patients' quality of life. This review looked at the oncological treatments that cause taste and smell alterations and their time of onset. We performed an integrative rapid review. The PubMed, PROSPERO, and Web of Science databases were searched in November 2022. The article screening and study selection were conducted independently by two reviewers. Data were analyzed narratively. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. A high heterogeneity was detected. Taste disorders ranged between 17 and 86%, while dysosmia ranged between 8 and 45%. Docetaxel, paclitaxel, nab-paclitaxel, capecitabine, cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, anthracyclines, and oral 5-FU analogues were found to be the drugs most frequently associated with TSDs. This review identifies the cancer treatments that mainly lead to taste and smell changes and provides evidence for wider studies, including those focusing on prevention. Further studies are warranted to make conclusive indication possible.
Topics: Humans; Neoplasms; Olfaction Disorders; Quality of Life; Smell; Taste; Taste Disorders
PubMed: 36768861
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24032538 -
Medicine Feb 2016Several meta-analyses have shown no significant difference in stent thrombosis (ST) between sirolimus eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel eluting stents (PES). However,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Is There Any Significant Difference in Stent Thrombosis Between Sirolimus and Paclitaxel Eluting Stents?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Several meta-analyses have shown no significant difference in stent thrombosis (ST) between sirolimus eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel eluting stents (PES). However, other meta-analyses have found SES to be superior to PES. Therefore, to solve this issue, we aim to compare the clinical outcomes between SES and PES during a follow-up period of about 1 or more years.We have searched Medline and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SES with PES. These RCTs have been carefully analyzed and then different types of ST including ST defined by the Academic Research Consortium (ARC), acute ST, late and very late ST have all been considered as the clinical endpoints in this study. A follow-up period of about 1 year, between 1 and 2 years as well as a longer follow-up period between 1 and 5 years have been considered. Data were retrieved and combined by means of a fixed-effect model because of a lower heterogeneity observed among the results. Odd ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and the pooled analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3 software.Twenty-nine studies from 19 RCTs comprising of 16,724 patients (8115 patients in the SES group and 8609 patients in the PES group) satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. No significant differences in ST have been observed between SES and PES. Results were as follow: definite ST with OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.64-1.18, P = 0.36; probable ST with OR:0.72; 95% CI: 0.42-1.21, P = 0.21; definite, probable and/or possible ST with OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.75-1.17, P = 0.57; acute ST with OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.38-2.56, P = 0.98; subacute ST with OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.41-1.25, P = 0.25; early ST with OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.53-1.25, P = 0.34; late ST with OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.39-1.34, P = 0.30; very late ST with OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.72-1.44, P = 0.92; and any ST with OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.69-1.07, P = 0.18. Long-term ST between 1 and 5 years with OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.71-1.22, P = 0.60 was also not significantly different.No significant difference in ST has been observed between patients treated with either SES or PES. Hence SES and PES can both be considered almost equally effective.
Topics: Aged; Drug-Eluting Stents; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Paclitaxel; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sirolimus; Thrombosis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26844487
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002651 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy (TIPN) is an important cause of premature treatment cessation and dose-limitation in cancer therapy. It also reduces quality of...
Taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy (TIPN) is an important cause of premature treatment cessation and dose-limitation in cancer therapy. It also reduces quality of life and survivorship in affected patients. Genetic polymorphisms in the CYP3A family have been investigated but the findings have been inconsistent and contradictory. A systematic review identified 12 pharmacogenetic studies investigating genetic variation in and and TIPN. In our candidate gene study, 288 eligible participants (211 taxane participants receiving docetaxel or paclitaxel, and 77 control participants receiving oxaliplatin) were successfully genotyped for and . Genotyping data was transformed into a combined CYP3A metaboliser phenotype: Poor metabolisers, intermediate metabolisers and extensive metabolisers. Individual genotypes and combined CYP3A metaboliser phenotypes were assessed in relation to neurotoxicity, including by meta-analysis where possible. In the systematic review, no significant association was found between and TIPN in seven studies, with one study reporting a protective association. For , one study has reported an association with TIPN, while four other studies failed to show an association. Evaluation of our patient cohort showed that paclitaxel was found to be more neurotoxic than docetaxel ( < 0.001). Diabetes was also significantly associated with the development of TIPN. The candidate gene analysis showed no significant association between either SNP () and the development of TIPN overall, or severe TIPN. Meta-analysis showed no association between these two variants and TIPN. Transformed into combined CYP3A metaboliser phenotypes, 30 taxane recipients were poor metabolisers, 159 were intermediate metabolisers, and 22 were extensive metabolisers. No significant association was observed between metaboliser status and case-control status. We have shown that the risk of peripheral neuropathy during taxane chemotherapy is greater in patients who have diabetes. CYP3A genotype or phenotype was not identified as a risk factor in either the candidate gene analysis or the systematic review/meta-analysis, although we cannot exclude the possibility of a minor contribution, which would require a larger sample size.
PubMed: 37469869
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1178421 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Jul 2022Prophylaxis against infusion-related reactions (IRR) from paclitaxel with steroids and antihistamines is a standard of care due to high rates of IRR. This systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Prophylaxis against infusion-related reactions (IRR) from paclitaxel with steroids and antihistamines is a standard of care due to high rates of IRR. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively summarize the evidence behind various prophylaxis strategies.
METHODS
EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched (1946 to May 14, 2021). The primary outcomes were Grade 3/4 IRR and any-grade IRR. Secondary outcomes included treatment delay or discontinuation and adverse events secondary to pre-medications.
RESULTS
Of the 1285 unique citations, 26 studies were selected: 11 studies for quantitative analysis and 15 studies for qualitative analysis. Studies included randomized controlled trials and observational studies (n = 25-281). There was a non-significant benefit in favour of oral steroids starting 12 h prior to paclitaxel administration versus intravenous steroids immediately prior to paclitaxel administration for grade 3/4 IRRs, with a risk difference (RD) of 2% [95%CI 0 to 5%], any-grade IRR with a RD of 4% [95%CI: -1% to 9%] and treatment discontinuation with a RD of 1% [95%CI -1% to 2%]. For de-escalation strategies, a point-estimate for any-grade IRR was 0.44% [95% CI, 0 to 0.02, p = 0.98] and for grade 3/4 IRR was 3.1% (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.07, p = 0.11).
CONCLUSION
Although studies have high risk of bias and risk, differences between steroid routes of administration were small, there was a non-significant trend in favour of oral steroids. De-escalation strategies after two previous successful paclitaxel infusions have an overall low incidence rate of severe IRR and warrant further prospective clinical trials. Insufficient evidence remains to recommend for or against other interventions for the prevention of paclitaxel IRR.
Topics: Clinical Protocols; Humans; Paclitaxel; Steroids
PubMed: 35150312
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-022-06891-0 -
BMC Cancer Nov 2022Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is clinically aggressive breast cancer with a poor prognosis. Approximately 20% of TNBC has been found to express programmed death... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is clinically aggressive breast cancer with a poor prognosis. Approximately 20% of TNBC has been found to express programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), making it a potential therapeutic target. As a PD-L1 inhibitor, atezolizumab is a recently approved immunotherapeutic drug for TNBC, this meta-analysis (MA) was aimed to review the randomized controlled trial studies (RCTs) of combined atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel in the treatment of TNBC and synthesize the evidence-based results on its effectiveness and safety.
METHOD
We searched PubMed, Embase, EBSCOhost and ClinicalTrials.gov for the eligible RCTs which compared the efficacy and safety of combined atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel with nab-paclitaxel alone. The outcomes analyzed included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse effects (AEs).
RESULTS
A total of six RCTs were included in this MA. For efficacy, although OS was not significantly prolonged with combined atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel (HR 0.90, 95% CI [0.79, 1.01], p=0.08), this combination therapy significantly improved PFS (HR 0.72, 95% CI [0.59, 0.87], p=0.0006) and ORR (RR 1.25, 95% CI [0.79, 1.01] p<0.00001). For safety, any AEs, haematological, gastrointestinal, and liver AEs showed no statistically significant differences between the atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel combination group and nab-paclitaxel alone group. However, serious AEs, high grade, dermatological, pulmonary, endocrine, and neurological AEs were significantly lower with nab-paclitaxel alone compared to atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel combined (p-value range from <0.00001 to 0,02).
CONCLUSION
Atezolizumab combined with nab-paclitaxel was associated with improved outcomes in the treatment of TNBC; however, this combination resulted in more toxicity compared to nab-paclitaxel alone. While nab-paclitaxel alone produced chemotherapy-related AEs, the combination of atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel produced AEs, especially immune-related AEs such as haematological, pulmonary, endocrine, and neurological AEs.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This research work of systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42022297952).
Topics: Humans; Albumins; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Paclitaxel; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms
PubMed: 36335316
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-10225-y -
Journal of Endovascular Therapy : An... Apr 2016To provide a qualitative analysis and quantitative synthesis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty in the Femoropopliteal Arteries: Role of Paclitaxel Dose and Bioavailability.
PURPOSE
To provide a qualitative analysis and quantitative synthesis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs) in the femoropopliteal artery.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, AMED, Scopus, CENTRAL, online content, and abstracts from international meetings were last screened in April 2015 for eligible RCTs using the PRISMA selection process. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool, and quality of evidence was evaluated with the GRADE system. Outcome measures included late lumen loss (LLL) at 6 months and event rates of major limb amputations, binary lesion restenosis, and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Pooled treatment effects were analyzed in a random effects model to account for clinical heterogeneity; the outcomes are presented as the rate ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Extensive meta-regression was performed to analyze potential confounders. The review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42015023938; www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).
RESULTS
Eleven RCTs with 1609 subjects (1403 claudicants and 206 patients with critical limb ischemia) with medium-length femoropopliteal lesions (mean range 5.1-11.9 cm) were included. There was consistently high-quality evidence supporting the clear superiority of PCBs in terms of reduced LLL (mean difference -0.89 mm, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.64, p<0.001), less binary restenosis (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.61, p<0.001), and fewer TLR events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.49, p<0.001). Major amputations were rare in both active and control arms (pooled event rate: 0.7%, 95% CI 0.3% to 1.2%). Results were stable across all potential risk modifiers and in the presence of stents as well. There was high-quality evidence that the dose of paclitaxel was related to the magnitude of the treatment effect; standard dose (3.0-μg and 3.5-μg) PCBs were significantly more effective compared with low-dose 2-μg PCB in reducing both restenosis (RR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2 to 3.4, p<0.001) and TLR (RR 2.5, 95% CI 1.9 to 3.8, p<0.001).
CONCLUSION
PCBs reduce by more than half the rates of restenosis and TLR in the femoropopliteal artery regardless of stent placement. Biologic effect size may vary according to paclitaxel bioavailability.
Topics: Amputation, Surgical; Angioplasty, Balloon; Biological Availability; Cardiovascular Agents; Chi-Square Distribution; Coated Materials, Biocompatible; Constriction, Pathologic; Equipment Design; Femoral Artery; Humans; Limb Salvage; Odds Ratio; Paclitaxel; Peripheral Arterial Disease; Popliteal Artery; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Vascular Access Devices; Vascular Patency
PubMed: 26823485
DOI: 10.1177/1526602815626557