-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2015Anthracycline combined with cytarabine has been the standard for induction therapy of newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) for several decades. Due to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Anthracycline combined with cytarabine has been the standard for induction therapy of newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) for several decades. Due to theoretical advantages, idarubicin (IDA) might be the most effective and tolerable anthracycline. However, there is no evidence that would definitively prove the superiority of IDA over other anthracyclines.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of IDA versus other anthracyclines in induction therapy of newly diagnosed AML.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (from 1946 to 3 August 2014), EMBASE (from 1974 to 3 August 2014), Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (1978 to 3 August 2014), relevant conference proceedings and databases of ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs that compared IDA with other anthracyclines in induction therapy of newly diagnosed AML.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of studies according to methodological standards of the Cochrane Collaboration. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event data outcomes using the inverse variance method, and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data outcomes using the Mantel-Haenszel method. We adopted a fixed-effect model and repeated the main meta-analysis by a random-effects model in a sensitivity analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 2017 references. Ultimately, 27 RCTs (including 22 two-armed RCTs and five three-armed RCTs) involving 9549 patients were eligible. The consolidation treatments adopted in the studies were comparable and had no impact on the results. Overall, the risk of bias of the studies was unclear to high.Eighteen RCTs (N = 6755) assessed IDA versus daunorubicin (DNR). The main meta-analyses showed that IDA compared with DNR prolonged overall survival (OS) (12 studies, 5976 patients; HR 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.96, P = 0.0008; high quality of evidence) and disease-free survival (DFS) (eight studies, 3070 patients; HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96, P = 0.004; moderate quality of evidence), increased complete remission (CR) rate (18 studies, 6692 patients; RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07, P = 0.009; moderate quality of evidence), and reduced relapse rate (four studies, 1091 patients; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, P = 0.02; moderate quality of evidence), although increased the risks of death on induction therapy (14 studies, 6349 patients; RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.36, P = 0.03; moderate quality of evidence) and grade 3/4 mucositis (five studies, 2000 patients; RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.44, P = 0.02; moderate quality of evidence). There was no evidence for difference in the risks of grade 3/4 cardiac toxicity (six studies, 2795 patients; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.37, P = 0.91; moderate quality of evidence) and other grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs). None of the studies reported on quality of life (QoL).Eight RCTs (N = 2419) evaluated IDA versus mitoxantrone (MIT). The main meta-analyses showed that there was no evidence for difference between arms in OS (six studies, 2171 patients; HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.08, P = 0.69; high quality of evidence), DFS (four studies, 249 patients; HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.10, P = 0.26; low quality of evidence), CR rate (eight studies, 2411 patients; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.03, P = 0.32;moderate quality of evidence), the risks of death on induction therapy (five studies, 2055 patients; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.38, P = 0.39; moderate quality of evidence) and relapse (three studies, 328 patients; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22, P = 0.89; moderate quality of evidence). There was no evidence for difference in the risks of grade 3/4 cardiac toxicity (one study, 160 patients; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.88, P = 0.65; low quality of evidence) and other grade 3/4 AEs. None of the studies reported on QoL.Two RCTs (N = 211) compared IDA with doxorubicin (DOX). Neither study assessed OS. One study showed that there was no evidence for difference in DFS (63 patients; HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.14, P = 0.12; low quality of evidence). The main meta-analysis for CR rate showed an improved CR rate with IDA (two studies, 187 patients; RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.59, P = 0.02; low quality of evidence). Neither study provided data for the risks of death on induction therapy and relapse. One trial showed that there was no evidence for difference in the risk of grade 3/4 cardiac toxicity (one study, 100 patients; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.39, P = 0.47; very low quality of evidence). Neither study reported on QoL.Two RCTs (N = 1037) evaluated IDA versus zorubicin (ZRB). Neither study assessed OS. One trial showed that there was no evidence for difference in DFS (one study, 155 patients; HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.88, P = 0.29; low quality of evidence). The main meta-analyses for CR and death on induction therapy both showed that there was no evidence for difference (CR rate: two studies, 964 patients; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.13, P = 0.31; low quality of evidence. risk of death on induction therapy: two studies, 964 patients; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.13, P = 0.17; moderate quality of evidence). Neither study reported the risks of relapse and grade 3/4 cardiotoxicity. One trial showed that IDA reduced the risk of grade 3/4 mucositis. Neither study reported on QoL.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with DNR in induction therapy of newly diagnosed AML, IDA prolongs OS and DFS, increases CR rate and reduces relapse rate, although increases the risks of death on induction therapy and grade 3/4 mucositis. The currently available evidence does not show any difference between IDA and MIT used in induction therapy of newly diagnosed AML. There is insufficient evidence regarding IDA versus DOX and IDA versus ZRB to make final conclusions. Additionally, there is no evidence for difference on the effect of IDA compared with DNR, MIT, DOX or ZRB on QoL.
Topics: Anthracyclines; Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Daunorubicin; Doxorubicin; Humans; Idarubicin; Induction Chemotherapy; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Mitoxantrone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26037486
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010432.pub2 -
PloS One 2015The right dose of daunorubicin (DNR) for the treatment of newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is uncertain. Previous trials have shown conflicting results... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The right dose of daunorubicin (DNR) for the treatment of newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is uncertain. Previous trials have shown conflicting results concerning the efficacy of high or low doses of daunorubicin to induction chemotherapy for newly diagnosed AML. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to resolve this controversial issue. We compared the efficacy and safety of high doses of daunorubicin (HD-DNR) and traditional low doses of daunorubicin (LD-DNR) or idarubicin (IDA) during induction therapy of newly diagnosed AML. Data of 3,824 patients from 1,796 articles in the literature were retrieved and six randomized controlled trials were analyzed. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and event-free survival (EFS). The secondary outcomes included complete remission (CR), relapse, and toxicity. The meta-analysis results suggest that comparing HD-DNR with LD-DNR, there were significant differences in CR (RR = 1.19, 95%CI[1.12,1.18], p<0.00001), OS(HR = 0.88, 95%CI[0.79,0.99], p = 0.002), and EFS (HR = 0.86, 95%CI [0.74, 1.00], p = 0.008), but not in DFS, relapse, and toxicity. There were no statistically significant differences in any other outcomes between HD-DNR and IDA. The analysis indicates that compared with LD-DNR, HD-DNR can significantly improve CR, OS and EFS but not DFS, and did not increase occurrence of relapse and toxicity.
Topics: Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Daunorubicin; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 25993000
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125612 -
Acta Haematologica 2015The current standard therapy for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (RCHOP).... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The Role of Consolidative Radiotherapy after a Complete Response to Chemotherapy in the Treatment of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma in the Rituximab Era: Results from a Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
The current standard therapy for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (RCHOP). The role of radiotherapy (RT) after complete response (CR) to RCHOP in patients with DLBCL remains unclear. This systematic review with a meta-analysis is an attempt to evaluate this role.
METHODS
Studies that evaluated RT versus no-RT after CR to RCHOP for DLBCL patients were searched in databases. Hazard ratios (HR) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 4 qualified retrospective studies (633 patients) were included in this review. The results suggested that RT improved overall survival (OS; HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14-0.77) and progression-free/event-free survival (PFS/EFS; HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11-0.50) in all patients compared with no-RT. In a subgroup analysis of patients with stage III-IV DLBCL, RT improved PFS/EFS (HR 0.19, 95% CI 0.07-0.51) and local control (HR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03-0.44), with a trend of improving OS (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.12-1.05).
CONCLUSION
Consolidation RT could significantly improve outcomes of DLBCL patients who achieved a CR to RCHOP. However, the significance of these results was limited by these retrospective data. Further investigation of the role of consolidation RT in the rituximab era is needed.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Murine-Derived; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cyclophosphamide; Doxorubicin; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, Diffuse; Prednisone; Radiotherapy, Adjuvant; Retrospective Studies; Rituximab; Survival Analysis; Vincristine
PubMed: 25925586
DOI: 10.1159/000370096 -
British Journal of Haematology Jul 2015This study systematically reviewed and meta-analysed the prognostic value of complete remission status at end-of-treatment (18) F-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study systematically reviewed and meta-analysed the prognostic value of complete remission status at end-of-treatment (18) F-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (R-CHOP). The systematic PubMed/MEDLINE search yielded seven suitable studies comprising a total of 737 R-CHOP-treated DLBCL patients who were in complete remission at end-of-treatment FDG-PET. Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was reasonable. The disease relapse rate among all patients with complete remission status according to end-of-treatment FDG-PET ranged from 7·0% to 20·0%, with a weighted summary proportion of 13·7%. Five of seven studies reported progression-free survival (PFS) of these patients at various specific time points, i.e., 2-year PFS (n = 1), estimated 3-year PFS (n = 3) and 5-year PFS (n = 1), which was 83%, 85-86·4% and 75%, respectively. Three of seven studies reported overall survival (OS) of these patients at various specific time points, i.e., estimated 3-year OS (n = 2) and estimated 5-year OS (n = 1), which were 90%, 93·6% and 83%, respectively. In conclusion, a non-negligible proportion of R-CHOP-treated DLBCL patients who achieve complete remission according to end-of-treatment FDG-PET experiences disease relapse during follow-up.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Murine-Derived; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cyclophosphamide; Doxorubicin; Fluorodeoxyglucose F18; Humans; Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, Diffuse; Positron-Emission Tomography; Prednisone; Prognosis; Remission Induction; Rituximab; Treatment Outcome; Vincristine
PubMed: 25833790
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.13420 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2014Kaposi's sarcoma remains the most common cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa and the second most common cancer in HIV-infected patients worldwide. Since the introduction of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Kaposi's sarcoma remains the most common cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa and the second most common cancer in HIV-infected patients worldwide. Since the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), there has been a decline in its incidence.However, Kaposi's sarcoma continues to be diagnosed in HIV-infected patients.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the added advantage of chemotherapy plus HAART compared to HAART alone; and the advantages of different chemotherapy regimens in HAART and HAART naive HIV infected adults with severe or progressive Kaposi's sarcoma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and , GATEWAY, the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the US National Institutes of Health's ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials and the Aegis archive of HIV/AIDS for conference abstracts. An updated search was conducted in July 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials and observational studies evaluating the effects of any chemotherapeutic regimen in combination with HAART compared to HAART alone, chemotherapy versus HAART, and comparisons between different chemotherapy regimens.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed the studies independently and extracted outcome data.We used the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) as the measure of effect.We did not conduct meta-analysis as none of the included trials assessed identical chemotherapy regimens.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six randomised trials and three observational studies involving 792 HIV-infected adults with severe Kaposi's sarcoma.Seven studies included patients with a mix of mild to moderate (T0) and severe (T1) Kaposi's sarcoma. However, this review was restricted to the subset of participants with severe Kaposi's sarcoma disease.Studies comparing HAART plus chemotherapy to HAART alone showed the following: one trial comparing HAART plus doxorubicin,bleomycin and vincristine (ABV) to HAART alone showed a significant reduction in disease progression in the HAART plus ABV group (RR 0.10; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.75, 100 participants); there was no statistically significant reduction in mortality and no difference in adverse events. A cohort study comparing liposomal anthracyclines plus HAART to HAART alone showed a non-statistically significant reduction in Kaposi's sarcoma immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome in patients that received HAART plus liposomal anthracyclines (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.55, 129 participants).Studies comparing HAART plus chemotherapy to HAART plus a different chemotherapy regimen showed the following: one trial involving 49 participants and comparing paclitaxel versus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients on HAART showed no difference in disease progression. Another trial involving 46 patients and comparing pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus liposomal daunorubicin showed no participants with progressive Kaposi's sarcoma disease in either group.Studies comparing different chemotherapy regimens in patients from the pre-HAART era showed the following: in the single RCT comparing liposomal daunorubicin to ABV, there was no significant difference with the use of liposomal daunorubicin compared to ABV in disease progression (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.82, 227 participants) and overall response rate. Another trial involving 178 participants and comparing oral etoposide versus ABV demonstrated no difference in mortality in either group. A non-randomised trial comparing bleomycin alone to ABV demonstrated a higher median survival time in the ABV group; there was also a non-statistically significant reduction in adverse events and disease progression in the ABV group (RR 11; 95% CI 0.67 to 179.29, 24 participants).An additional non-randomised study showed a non-statistically significant overall mortality benefit from liposomal doxorubicin as compared to conservative management consisting of either bleomycin plus vinblastine, vincristine or single-agent antiretroviral therapy alone (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15, 29 participants). The overall quality of evidence can be described as moderate quality. The quality of evidence was downgraded due to the small size of many of the included studies and small number of events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The findings from this review suggest that HAART plus chemotherapy may be beneficial in reducing disease progression compared to HAART alone in patients with severe or progressive Kaposi's sarcoma. For patients on HAART, when choosing from different chemotherapy regimens, there was no observed difference between liposomal doxorubicin, liposomal daunorubicin and paclitaxel.
Topics: Alitretinoin; Antineoplastic Agents; Antiretroviral Therapy, Highly Active; Bleomycin; Doxorubicin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Etoposide; HIV Infections; Humans; Liposomes; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sarcoma, Kaposi; Skin Neoplasms; Tretinoin; Vincristine
PubMed: 25221796
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003256.pub2