-
Journal of Cancer Research and... 2018The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the two most commonly used chemotherapy regimens gemcitabine plus cisplatin... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the two most commonly used chemotherapy regimens gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) and methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin/adriamycin, and cisplatin (MVAC) regimens for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) patients.
METHODS
We searched for all studies investigating GC and MVAC for MIBC patients in PubMed, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Central Search Library. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed.
RESULTS
Our searches identified 13 studies among 2174 patients. In the meta-analysis, the pathological complete response to GC regimens was superior to MVAC regimens. No significant difference in pathological partial response was found between the two groups. GC regimens were associated with a significant decrease risk in Grade 3-4 neutropenia, mucositis, and febrile neutropenia, but a significant increase risk in Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia. There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS) and disease-free survival (DFS) when compared GC regimens to MVAC regimens.
CONCLUSIONS
GC regimens significantly improved pathological complete response compared to MVAC regimens. GC regimens were associated with a significant decrease risk in Grade 3-4 neutropenia, mucositis, and febrile neutropenia, but a significant increase risk in Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia. There was no significant difference in OS, DSS, and DFS when compared the two regimens.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cisplatin; Deoxycytidine; Doxorubicin; Humans; Methotrexate; Muscle Neoplasms; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Prognosis; Survival Rate; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms; Vinblastine; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 30488841
DOI: 10.4103/0973-1482.188434 -
Current Drug Delivery Nov 2023Liposomal Doxorubicin (Doxil®) was one of the first nanoformulations approved for the treatment of solid tumors. Although there is already extensive experience in its...
BACKGROUND
Liposomal Doxorubicin (Doxil®) was one of the first nanoformulations approved for the treatment of solid tumors. Although there is already extensive experience in its use for different tumors, there is currently no grouped evidence of its therapeutic benefits in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A systematic review of the literature was performed on the therapeutic effectiveness and benefits of Liposomal Doxil® in NSCLC.
METHODS
A total of 1022 articles were identified in publications up to 2020 (MEDLINE, Cochrane, Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus). After applying inclusion criteria, the number was restricted to 114, of which 48 assays, including in vitro (n=20) and in vivo (animals, n=35 and humans, n=6) studies, were selected.
RESULTS
The maximum inhibitory concentration (IC50), tumor growth inhibition rate, response and survival rates were the main indices for evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of Liposomal DOX. These have shown clear benefits both in vitro and in vivo, improving the IC50 of free DOX or untargeted liposomes, depending on their size, administration, or targeting.
CONCLUSION
Doxil® significantly reduced cellular proliferation in vitro and improved survival in vivo in both experimental animals and NSCLC patients, demonstrating optimal safety and pharmacokinetic behavior indices. Although our systematic review supports its benefits for the treatment of NSCLC, additional clinical trials with larger sample sizes are necessary to obtain more precise clinical data on its activity and effects in humans.
PubMed: 38099532
DOI: 10.2174/0115672018272162231116093143 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Jan 2023To investigate the association between asthma and oral conditions in children and adolescents. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the association between asthma and oral conditions in children and adolescents.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Observational studies that evaluated the association between asthma and oral conditions in children and/or adolescents were retrieved from five databases, grey literature and reference lists up to April 7, 2022. Meta-analyses were performed, and I statistics were calculated. The mean difference was used as a measure of effect for continuous variables. Event frequencies were evaluated to determine odds ratios for dichotomous variables. Publication bias was investigated using Egger's test. The methodological quality (JBI) and certainty of the evidence (GRADE) were assessed.
RESULTS
Forty-two studies were eligible, and sixteen were included in the meta-analysis. Mean dmft (MD: 1.11, 95%CI: 0.48-1.73), DMFT (MD: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.45-1.56), dmfs (MD: 3.62, 95%CI: 2.60-4.63) and DMFS (MD: 4.47, 95%CI: 0.98-7.96) indices were significantly higher in asthmatic children and adolescents compared to those without asthma. In the analysis of biofilm, asthmatic children and adolescents had a higher Plaque Index compared to those without asthma (MD: 0.18, 95%CI: 0.03-0.33).
CONCLUSION
Asthmatic children and adolescents may be more likely to develop tooth decay and build up biofilm compared to those without asthma. It is suggested that there are no differences between asthmatic and non-asthmatic children and adolescents regarding gingivitis, developmental defects of enamel or erosive tooth wear. The certainty of the evidence was classified as 'very low'.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Knowledge of the risks that asthma and asthma medications for oral health can assist in counselling families of children and adolescents with this condition in terms of control and prevention measures for oral problems.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Humans; Dental Caries; Doxorubicin; Fluorouracil; Gingivitis; Oral Health; Asthma
PubMed: 36459238
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-022-04803-4 -
Pathology International Jul 2022Immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4)-positive marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) is rare and undefined. It is unclear whether IgG4-positive MZLs have as favorable an outcome as MZLs in...
Immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4)-positive marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) is rare and undefined. It is unclear whether IgG4-positive MZLs have as favorable an outcome as MZLs in general. Also, correlation with IgG4-related disease (IgG4-RD) and IgG4-positive MZLs is unknown. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for all peer-reviewed articles using keywords including"IgG4" and "marginal zone lymphoma" from their inception to February 20, 2022. Twenty-two articles, including six observational studies and 24 cases from 16 case reports and case series, were included. Only one study had a comparative group, and the other five were exploratory observational studies. IgG4-positive MZLs commonly occurred in males (83.3%). It primarily involved ocular adnexa (41.7%) and skin (29.2%). Only 29.2% had concurrent IgG4-RD, and no expiration was noted. While most cases were treated with excision, resection, or clinical observation, 21.7% received rituximab-cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone as a first-line treatment. This systematic review summarizes the current understanding of the characteristics of IgG4-positive MZLs. While there seems to be IgG4-RD-related and de novo IgG4-positive MZLs, future research needs to clearly define MZL with polyclonal IgG4-positive cells and IgG4-producing lymphoma. Further studies are critical to clarifying long-term prognosis and optimal surveillance planning.
Topics: Humans; Immunoglobulin G; Immunoglobulin G4-Related Disease; Lymphoma, B-Cell, Marginal Zone; Male; Prognosis; Rituximab
PubMed: 35678201
DOI: 10.1111/pin.13251 -
Urologic Oncology May 2022The purpose of this systematic literature review and meta-analysis was to compare the pathological response rate and prognosis of the dose dense Methotrexate,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this systematic literature review and meta-analysis was to compare the pathological response rate and prognosis of the dose dense Methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin (ddMVAC) regimen and gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) regimen as neoadjuvant chemotherapy choices for bladder cancer.
METHODS
A literature review of articles published before February 28, 2021, was conducted using the PubMed, Web of Sciences and Embase databases. Data for comparison included pathological response rate and overall survival.
RESULTS
Five studies including 1,206 patients were identified and assessed for the meta-analysis. The pooled analysis yielded an odds ratio value of 1.29 (95% CI, 0.86-1.92) with a downstaging rate and an odds ratio value of 1.57 (95% CI, 1.10-2.25) with a complete response rate when comparing ddMVAC with the GC regimen. The pooled analysis yielded a hazard ratio of 0.47 (95% CI, 0.30-0.72) with regard to overall survival between the two regimens.
CONCLUSION
Compared with the GC regimen, ddMVAC has a better pathological response rate, especially the complete response rate, and provides longer overall survival as a neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen for bladder cancer.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cisplatin; Doxorubicin; Female; Humans; Male; Methotrexate; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Retrospective Studies; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms; Vinblastine
PubMed: 34949512
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.11.016 -
Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology Oct 2020The treatment modality for desmoid-type fibromatosis has shifted from surgery to conservative treatment. The guideline committee for clinical care of extra-abdominal...
OBJECTIVE
The treatment modality for desmoid-type fibromatosis has shifted from surgery to conservative treatment. The guideline committee for clinical care of extra-abdominal desmoid-type fibromatosis in Japan conducted a systematic review of treatment with doxorubicin-based chemotherapy for desmoid-type fibromatosis.
METHODS
We searched the pertinent literature. Two reviewers evaluated and screened it independently for eligibility and extracted data. They rated each report according to the grading of recommendations development and evaluation methodology. Based on the 'body of evidence', which the reviewers created, the clinical guideline committee decided a recommendation for the clinical question, 'Is doxorubicin-based chemotherapy effective for patients with extra-abdominal desmoid-type fibromatosis?'
RESULTS
Fifty-three articles were extracted by the literature search, and one from hand search. After the first and second screenings, five articles were subjected to the final evaluation. There were no randomized controlled trials. According to response evaluation criteria in solid tumors criteria, the response rates of doxorubicin-based regimens and liposomal doxorubicin were 44% (28.6-54) and 33.3% (0-75) on average, respectively. In two reports, the response rates of doxorubicin-based regimens were higher than those of non-doxorubicin-based ones; 54% vs 12%, 40% vs 11%, respectively. The rates of G3 or G4 complications according to common terminology criteria for adverse events were 28% and 13% with doxorubicin-based and liposomal doxorubicin chemotherapy, respectively, including neutropenia or cardiac dysfunction. None of the reports addressed the issue of QOL.
CONCLUSION
Although the evidence level was low in the evaluated studies, doxorubicin-based and liposomal doxorubicin chemotherapy was observed to be effective. However, doxorubicin-based chemotherapy is associated with non-ignorable adverse events, and is not covered by insurance in Japan. We weakly recommend doxorubicin-based chemotherapy for patients with extra-abdominal desmoid-type fibromatosis in cases resistant to other treatments.
Topics: Abdomen; Antineoplastic Agents; Doxorubicin; Fibromatosis, Aggressive; Humans; Japan; Polyethylene Glycols; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32700733
DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyaa125 -
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 -
Cancers Jun 2021Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is widely used for treating muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). A systematic review was performed following PRISMA... (Review)
Review
Comparison of Oncologic Outcomes of Dose-Dense Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, and Cisplatin (ddMVAC) with Gemcitabine and Cisplatin (GC) as Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is widely used for treating muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to December 2020. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the oncologic outcomes of ddMVAC (dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin) and GC (gemcitabine and cisplatin), which are the most widely used NAC regimens. Endpoints included pathologic complete response (pCR), pathologic downstaging (pDS), overall survival (OS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Five studies, with a total of 1206 patients, were included for meta-analysis. pCR was observed in 35.2% of the ddMVAC arm and in 25.1% of the GC arm, and pCR was significantly higher in ddMVAC than in GC (odds ratio (OR), 1.45; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.89; = 0.006). There was no significant difference in pDS (OR, 1.37; CI, 0.84-2.21; = 0.20). OS was significantly higher in ddMVAC than in GC (hazard ratio, 2.16; CI, 1.42-3.29; = 0.0004). Only one study reported CSS outcomes. The results of this analysis indicate that ddMVAC is superior to GC in terms of pCR and OS, suggesting that ddMVAC is more effective than GC in NAC for MIBC. However, this should be interpreted with caution because of the inherent limitations of retrospective studies.
PubMed: 34199565
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13112770 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022The (R)-CDOP combination regimen, based on pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, is increasingly used for elderly patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. However, the...
Cardiovascular adverse events associated with cyclophosphamide, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone with or without rituximab ((R)-CDOP) in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
The (R)-CDOP combination regimen, based on pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, is increasingly used for elderly patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. However, the cardiotoxicity and efficacy of the (R)-CDOP regimen compared with conventional anthracyclines have not been demonstrated in the general population. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the risk of cardiotoxicity and efficacy associated with the (R)-CDOP regimen in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang Database, and VIP were searched. The search covered the period from the start of the clinical use of (R)-CDOP to April 2022. We searched the literature for cardiovascular adverse events associated with (R)-CDOP in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The data were analyzed using R 4.2.0 and Stata 12.0. From the included studies, the important findings were as follows: total cardiovascular event rate, 7.45% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.86%-10.44%); non-serious cardiovascular adverse event rate, 6.48% (95% CI = 3.70%-9.8%); serious cardiovascular adverse event rate, 0.67% (95% CI = 0.00%-2.12%); heart failure rate, 0.55% (95% CI = 0.00%-1.93%); rate of treatment discontinuation attributable to left ventricular dysfunction or heart failure, 0.02% (95% CI = 0.00%-0.57%); and cardiovascular death rate, 0.00% (95% CI = 0.00%-0.37%). Compared with the (R)-CHOP regimen, the (R)-CDOP regimen reduced the risk of cardiovascular events, including total cardiovascular adverse events (odds ratio [OR] = 0.161, 95% CI = 0.103-0.251, < 0.001, and NNT = 3.7), non-serious cardiovascular adverse events (OR = 0.171, 95% CI = 0.093-0.314, < 0.001, and NNT = 3.6), serious cardiovascular adverse events (OR = 0.252, 95% CI = 0.119-0.535, < 0.001, and NNT = 6.8), and heart failure (OR = 0.294, 95% CI = 0.128-0.674, = 0.004, and NNT = 9.5). To evaluate the survival benefits, we compared (R)-CDOP and (R)-CHOP regimens. We found that the (R)-CDOP regimen was no less efficacious, including complete remission (CR) (OR = 1.398, 95% CI = 0.997-1.960, and = 0.052), partial response (PR) (OR = 1.631, 95% CI = 1.162-2.289, and = 0.005), objective response rate (ORR) (OR = 2.236, 95% CI = 1.594-3.135, and < 0.001), stable disease (SD) (OR = 0.526, 95% CI = 0.356-0.776, and = 0.001), and progressive disease (PD) (OR = 0.537, 95% CI = 0.323-0.894, and = 0.017). Our findings suggested that the (R)-CDOP regimen had a lower risk of cardiovascular adverse events in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma than the (R)-CHOP regimen, demonstrating its safety with regard to cardiotoxicity. In addition, this study found the (R)-CDOP regimen was no less efficacious than the (R)-CHOP regimen in the treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. These findings need to be validated by higher-quality research because of the limited number and quality of included studies.
PubMed: 36532720
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1060668 -
World Journal of Urology Aug 2023The present systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the current different neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) regimes for bladder cancer patients to rank... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison between different neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens and local therapy alone for bladder cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of oncologic outcomes.
PURPOSE
The present systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the current different neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) regimes for bladder cancer patients to rank them.
METHODS
We used the Bayesian approach in NMA of six different therapy regimens cisplatin, cisplatin/doxorubicin, (gemcitabine/cisplatin) GC, cisplatin/methotrexate, methotrexate, cisplatin, and vinblastine (MCV) and (MVAC) compared to locoregional treatment.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies comprised 4276 patients who met the eligibility criteria. Six different regimes were not significantly associated with a lower likelihood of overall mortality rate compared to local treatment alone. In progression-free survival (PFS) rates, cisplatin, GC, cisplatin/methotrexate, MCV and MVAC were not significantly associated with a higher likelihood of PFS rate compared to locoregional treatment alone. In local control outcome, MCV, MVAC, GC and cisplatin/methotrexate were not significantly associated with a higher likelihood of local control rate versus locoregional treatment alone. Nevertheless, based on the analyses of the treatment ranking according to SUCRA, it was highly likely that MVAC with high certainty of results appeared as the most effective approach in terms of mortality, PFS and local control rates. GC and cisplatin/doxorubicin with low certainty of results was found to be the best second options.
CONCLUSION
No significant differences were observed in mortality, progression-free survival and local control rates before and after adjusting the type of definitive treatment in any of the six study arms. However, MVAC was found to be the most effective regimen with high certainty, while cisplatin alone and cisplatin/methotrexate should not be recommended as a neoadjuvant chemotherapy regime.
Topics: Humans; Cisplatin; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Methotrexate; Bayes Theorem; Network Meta-Analysis; Gemcitabine; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms; Doxorubicin; Vinblastine; Cystectomy
PubMed: 37347252
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04478-w