-
Medicine Apr 2021In recent years, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) including atezolizumab, durvalumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab have reported their efficacy and safety profile in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of atezolizumab, durvalumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab as first-line treatment in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
In recent years, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) including atezolizumab, durvalumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab have reported their efficacy and safety profile in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). However, given the diverse efficacy and inconsistent safety among the ICIs, with the absence of head-to-head researches designed to evaluate the efficacy among them, it might bring with confusion on selection in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES
The present systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed to conduct indirect comparisons on efficacy and safety profile among ICIs, including atezolizumab, durvalumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab as first-line treatment in patients with ES-SCLC.
DESIGN
Several databases were retrieved with established criteria until June 20, 2020, with the main MeSH Terms and their similarities. Hazard ratios of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), odds ratios (ORs) of disease control rate (DCR), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs) were compared indirectly with network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Cochrane library, and Embase.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Prospective, randomized, controlled clinical studies, which reported PFS, OS, and AEs.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Clinical characteristics were extracted by the 2 authors independently. Comparisons of HRs were calculated for PFS and OS by random effect model. ORR, DCR, and AEs were presented with ORs. Based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve, and forest plots, efficacy and safety of the treatments were ranked, with predicted histogram described.
RESULTS
In total, there were 4 studies including 1547 patients who met the eligibility criteria and enrolled. For indirect comparisons, no significant difference on PFS was observed between atezolizumab and durvalumab (HR 0.96, 95% CI, 0.72-1.29), or between atezolizumab and pembrolizumab (HR 1.05, 95% CI, 0.78-1.43), or between atezolizumab and nivolumab (HR 1.18, 95% CI, 0.79-1.79), or between durvalumab and pembrolizumab (HR 1.10, 95% CI, 0.84-1.43). or between durvalumab and nivolumab (HR 1.23, 95% CI, 0.83-1.82), or between pembrolizumab and nivolumab (HR 1.12, 95% CI, 0.76-1.66), nor significant difference on OS observed between atezolizumab and durvalumab (HR 0.93, 95% CI, 0.67-1.30), or between atezolizumab and pembrolizumab (HR 0.88, 95% CI, 0.62-1.24), or between atezolizumab and nivolumab (HR 1.04, 95% CI, 0.66-1.66), or between durvalumab and pembrolizumab (HR 0.94, 95% CI, 0.70-1.25), or between durvalumab and nivolumab (HR 1.12, 95% CI, 0.73-1.71), or between pembrolizumab and nivolumab (HR 1.19, 95% CI, 0.77-1.84). However, durvalumab was shown statistical superiority on ORR when compared with atezolizumab (HR 0.79, 95% CI, 0.64-0.98), also with significantly higher risk on immune-related AEs when compared with atezolizumab (OR 0.22, 95% CI, 0.10-0.50), and pembrolizumab (OR 3.12, 95% CI, 1.27-7.64).
CONCLUSIONS
Results of the study revealed that there was no statistical difference on PFS or OS among agents of atezolizumab, durvalumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab as first-line treatment in patients with ES-SCLC. However, durvalumab was shown superiority on ORR when compared with atezolizumab, also with significantly higher risk on immune-related AEs.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Neoplasm Staging; Network Meta-Analysis; Nivolumab; Progression-Free Survival; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Small Cell Lung Carcinoma
PubMed: 33847617
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025180 -
Dermatology and Therapy Jun 2021H-1 antihistamines are commonly used in dermatological practice for itch and urticaria control. The widespread expression of H-1 receptor on different cells in the skin... (Review)
Review
H-1 antihistamines are commonly used in dermatological practice for itch and urticaria control. The widespread expression of H-1 receptor on different cells in the skin and various biologic functions of H-1 antihistamines indicate the possible treatment potentials of H-1 antihistamines in dermatology. A literature search was performed on PubMed and Embase, targeting articles reporting use of antihistamine for purposes other than itch and urticaria control in dermatological practice. Several off-label usages of antihistamines were identified, including alopecia, acne, Darier disease, eosinophilic dermatoses, paraneoplastic dermatoses, psoriasis, lichen nitidus, radiation dermatitis, skin dysesthesia, and cutaneous malignancies. Additional benefits were observed when H-1 antihistamines were used either alone or in combination with other therapeutic modalities. Although various novel uses of H-1 antihistamines have been uncovered, the evidence level of most included studies is weak. Further randomized control trials are warranted to better evaluate the efficacy and dosage of H-1 antihistamine for dermatological disorders.
PubMed: 33846906
DOI: 10.1007/s13555-021-00524-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Keratoconus is the most common corneal dystrophy. It can cause loss of uncorrected and best-corrected visual acuity through ectasia (thinning) of the central or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Keratoconus is the most common corneal dystrophy. It can cause loss of uncorrected and best-corrected visual acuity through ectasia (thinning) of the central or paracentral cornea, irregular corneal scarring, or corneal perforation. Disease onset usually occurs in the second to fourth decade of life, periods of peak educational attainment or career development. The condition is lifelong and sight-threatening. Corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL) using ultraviolet A (UVA) light applied to the cornea is the only treatment that has been shown to slow progression of disease. The original, more widely known technique involves application of UVA light to de-epithelialized cornea, to which a photosensitizer (riboflavin) is added topically throughout the irradiation process. Transepithelial CXL is a recently advocated alternative to the standard CXL procedure, in that the epithelium is kept intact during CXL. Retention of the epithelium offers the putative advantages of faster healing, less patient discomfort, faster visual rehabilitation, and less risk of corneal haze.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the short- and long-term effectiveness and safety of transepithelial CXL compared with epithelium-off CXL for progressive keratoconus.
SEARCH METHODS
To identify potentially eligible studies, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2020, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not impose any date or language restrictions. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 January 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which transepithelial CXL had been compared with epithelium-off CXL in participants with progressive keratoconus.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 studies with 723 eyes of 578 participants enrolled; 13 to 119 participants were enrolled per study. Seven studies were conducted in Europe, three in the Middle East, and one each in India, Russia, and Turkey. Seven studies were parallel-group RCTs, one study was an RCT with a paired-eyes design, and five studies were RCTs in which both eyes of some or all participants were assigned to the same intervention. Eleven studies compared transepithelial CXL with epithelium-off CXL in participants with progressive keratoconus. There was no evidence of an important difference between intervention groups in maximum keratometry (denoted 'maximum K' or 'Kmax'; also known as steepest keratometry measurement) at 12 months or later (mean difference (MD) 0.99 diopters (D), 95% CI -0.11 to 2.09; 5 studies; 177 eyes; I = 41%; very low certainty evidence). Few studies described other outcomes of interest. The evidence is very uncertain that epithelium-off CXL may have a small (data from two studies were not pooled due to considerable heterogeneity (I = 92%)) or no effect on stabilization of progressive keratoconus compared with transepithelial CXL; comparison of the estimated proportions of eyes with decreases or increases of 2 or more diopters in maximum K at 12 months from one study with 61 eyes was RR 0.32 (95% CI 0.09 to 1.12) and RR (non-event) 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.00), respectively (very low certainty). We did not estimate an overall effect on corrected-distance visual acuity (CDVA) because substantial heterogeneity was detected (I = 70%). No study evaluated CDVA gain or loss of 10 or more letters on a logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) chart. Transepithelial CXL may result in little to no difference in CDVA at 12 months or beyond. Four studies reported that either no adverse events or no serious adverse events had been observed. Another study noted no change in endothelial cell count after either procedure. Moderate certainty evidence from 4 studies (221 eyes) found that epithelium-off CXL resulted in a slight increase in corneal haze or scarring when compared to transepithelial CXL (RR (non-event) 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14). Three studies, one of which had three arms, compared outcomes among participants assigned to transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis versus those assigned to epithelium-off CXL. No conclusive evidence was found for either keratometry or visual acuity outcomes at 12 months or later after surgery. Low certainty evidence suggests that transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis results in no difference in logMAR CDVA (MD 0.00 letter, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.04; 2 studies; 51 eyes). Only one study examined gain or loss of 10 or more logMAR letters. In terms of adverse events, one case of subepithelial infiltrate was reported after transepithelial CXL with iontophoresis, whereas two cases of faint corneal scars and four cases of permanent haze were observed after epithelium-off CXL. Vogt's striae were found in one eye after each intervention. The certainty of the evidence was low or very low for the outcomes in this comparison due to imprecision of estimates for all outcomes and risk of bias in the studies from which data have been reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Because of lack of precision, frequent indeterminate risk of bias due to inadequate reporting, and inconsistency in outcomes measured and reported among studies in this systematic review, it remains unknown whether transepithelial CXL, or any other approach, may confer an advantage over epithelium-off CXL for patients with progressive keratoconus with respect to further progression of keratoconus, visual acuity outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Arrest of the progression of keratoconus should be the primary outcome of interest in future trials of CXL, particularly when comparing the effectiveness of different approaches to CXL. Furthermore, methods of assessing and defining progressive keratoconus should be standardized. Trials with longer follow-up are required in order to assure that outcomes are measured after corneal wound-healing and stabilization of keratoconus. In addition, perioperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care should be standardized to permit meaningful comparisons of CXL methods. Methods to increase penetration of riboflavin through intact epithelium as well as delivery of increased dose of UVA may be needed to improve outcomes. PROs should be measured and reported. The visual significance of adverse outcomes, such as corneal haze, should be assessed and correlated with other outcomes, including PROs.
Topics: Adult; Bias; Collagen; Corneal Pachymetry; Cross-Linking Reagents; Dextrans; Disease Progression; Epithelium, Corneal; Female; Humans; Iontophoresis; Keratoconus; Male; Photosensitizing Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Riboflavin; Ultraviolet Therapy; Visual Acuity; Young Adult
PubMed: 33765359
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013512.pub2 -
Radiation Oncology (London, England) Mar 2021Due to improved imaging sensitivity, the term "oligometastatic" prostate cancer disease is diagnosed more often, leading to an increasing interest in metastasis-directed...
BACKGROUND
Due to improved imaging sensitivity, the term "oligometastatic" prostate cancer disease is diagnosed more often, leading to an increasing interest in metastasis-directed therapy (MDT). There are two types of radiation based MDT applied when treating oligometastatic disease: (1) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) generally used for bone metastases; or (2) SBRT for isolated nodal oligometastases combined with prophylactic elective nodal radiotherapy. This review aims to summarize current evidence data, which may shed light on the optimal management of this heterogeneous group of patients.
METHODS
A systematic review of the Medline database through PubMed was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. All relevant studies published up to November 2020 were identified and screened. Fifty-six titles were included. Besides outcome parameters, different prognostic and predictive factors were assessed, including site of metastases, time between primary treatment and MDT, use of systemic therapies, hormone sensitivity, as well as pattern of recurrence.
FINDINGS
Evidence consists largely of retrospective case series and no consistent precise definition of oligometastasis exists, however, most investigators seem to acknowledge the need to distinguish between patients presenting with what is frequently called "synchronous" versus "metachronous" oligometastatic disease. Available data on radiotherapy as MDT demonstrate high local control rates and a small but relevant proportion of patients without progressive disease after 2 years. This holds true for both hormone sensitive and castration resistant prostate cancer diseases. The use of Ga-PSMA PET/CT for staging increased dramatically. Radiation doses and field sizes varied considerably among the studies. The search for relevant prognostic and predictive factors is ongoing.
CONCLUSIONS
To our best knowledge this review on oligometastatic prostate cancer included the largest number of original articles. It demonstrates the therapeutic potential and challenges of MDT for oligometastatic prostate cancer. Prospective studies are under way and will provide further high-level evidence.
Topics: Bone Neoplasms; Humans; Lymph Nodes; Lymphatic Metastasis; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms; Radiosurgery; Radiotherapy Dosage
PubMed: 33750437
DOI: 10.1186/s13014-021-01776-8 -
BMC Cancer Feb 2021Radiotherapy is the mainstay of brain metastasis (BM) management. Radiation necrosis (RN) is a serious complication of radiotherapy. Bevacizumab (BV), an anti-vascular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Radiotherapy is the mainstay of brain metastasis (BM) management. Radiation necrosis (RN) is a serious complication of radiotherapy. Bevacizumab (BV), an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody, has been increasingly used for RN treatment. We systematically reviewed the medical literature for studies reporting the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab for treatment of RN in BM patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane library were searched with various search keywords such as "bevacizumab" OR "anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody" AND "radiation necrosis" OR "radiation-induced brain necrosis" OR "RN" OR "RBN" AND "Brain metastases" OR "BM" until 1st Aug 2020. Studies reporting the efficacy and safety of BV treatment for BM patients with RN were retrieved. Study selection and data extraction were carried out by independent investigators. Open Meta Analyst software was used as a random effects model for meta-analysis to obtain mean reduction rates.
RESULTS
Two prospective, seven retrospective, and three case report studies involving 89 patients with RN treated with BV were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. In total, 83 (93%) patients had a recorded radiographic response to BV therapy, and six (6.7%) had experienced progressive disease. Seven studies (n = 73) reported mean volume reductions on gadolinium-enhanced T1 (mean: 47.03%, +/- 24.4) and T2-weighted fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) MRI images (mean: 61.9%, +/- 23.3). Pooling together the T1 and T2 MRI reduction rates by random effects model revealed a mean of 48.58 (95% CI: 38.32-58.85) for T1 reduction rate and 62.017 (95% CI: 52.235-71.799) for T2W imaging studies. Eighty-five patients presented with neurological symptoms. After BV treatment, nine (10%) had stable symptoms, 39 (48%) had improved, and 34 (40%) patients had complete resolution of their symptoms. Individual patient data was available for 54 patients. Dexamethasone discontinuation or reduction in dosage was observed in 30 (97%) of 31 patients who had recorded dosage before and after BV treatment. Side effects were mild.
CONCLUSIONS
Bevacizumab presents a promising treatment strategy for patients with RN and brain metastatic disease. Radiographic response and clinical improvement was observed without any serious adverse events. Further class I evidence would be required to establish a bevacizumab recommendation in this group of patients.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Bevacizumab; Brain Neoplasms; Humans; Necrosis; Prognosis; Radiation Injuries; Radiotherapy
PubMed: 33593308
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-07889-3 -
JPMA. the Journal of the Pakistan... Jan 2021To build evidence about the effectiveness of computerized tomography virtual hysterosalpingography (CT-VHSG) in the evaluation of female infertility and to assess the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To build evidence about the effectiveness of computerized tomography virtual hysterosalpingography (CT-VHSG) in the evaluation of female infertility and to assess the estimated radiation dose imposed.
METHODS
A systematic review method was utilized to evaluate relevant diagnostic studies. Electronic database was searched from July to October 2017. Hand search was also conducted when applicable. Study quality was assessed according to standardised criteria. Heterogeneity was assessed using subjective and statistical measures. Meta-analysis was judged appropriate and conducted using Open met-analyst software utilizing the random effect model.
RESULTS
Based on the assessment of risk of bias of the eligible studies, five studies were included in the final review. Random effects models showed that CT-VHSG has high diagnostic performance (pooled sensitivity 0.992 and specificity 0.98, with negative and positive likelihood ratios of 14.671 and 0.04 respectively). CT-VHSG had comparatively lesser radiation dose than conventional HSG (pooled mean effective dose 4.14 mSV vs 6 mSV respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
CT-VHSG is a reliable procedure with high diagnostic performance in evaluation of the female reproductive tract. CT-VHSG can be regarded as generally safe imaging diagnostic technique in the infertility workup. In contrary to common belief, CT-VHSG has comparable or lower radiation dose than conventional HSG.
Topics: Female; Humans; Hysterosalpingography; Infertility, Female; Radiation Dosage; Sensitivity and Specificity; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 33484533
DOI: 10.47391/JPMA.537 -
Journal of Cancer Research and... Dec 2020Mucositis is a frequent, severe consequence of radiation therapy among patients undergoing radiotherapy for the head-and-neck cancer, often requiring hospitalization and...
Mucositis is a frequent, severe consequence of radiation therapy among patients undergoing radiotherapy for the head-and-neck cancer, often requiring hospitalization and even breaks or discontinuity in treatment. Mouth rinsing with various agents has demonstrated effectiveness in the prevention and treatment of radiation-induced mucositis (OM), but evidence for the same is lacking. This systematic review is therefore conducted with the aim of assessing the evidence for the effectiveness of mouthrinses in prevention and treatment of OM. Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines were followed to conduct this review. Six databases were searched and a total of 25 randomized clinical trials published over a period of the past 31 years were included for qualitative synthesis. Analysis of 25 studies revealed that 1299 participants, aged 46-69 years were assigned to the test groups and control groups. A total of 16 different formulations were studied among patients over a duration of 6 days to 1 year in varying dosages. The overall preventive fraction ranged from 1.9% to 77.8% for a reduction in clinical grades of mucositis, 7.6%-83.3% for a reduction in pain and 20%-50% for a reduction in bacterial counts. Adverse effects such as mouth burning, altered taste, sore throat, have been reported, especially with chlorhexidine and benzydamine hydrochloride. Evidence for the included studies is IC and ID. Studies using herbal based products and tissue regenerating agents revealed comparatively better effectiveness with lesser side effects. However, the number of studies to support such a claim is very limited.
Topics: Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Mouthwashes; Mucositis; Radiation Injuries; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33380645
DOI: 10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_176_18 -
Journal of Cancer Research and... 2020In recent times, research on the use of ultrahigh-dose rates delivered in super-fast times in cancer treatment has been garnering interest. This has brought about the...
In recent times, research on the use of ultrahigh-dose rates delivered in super-fast times in cancer treatment has been garnering interest. This has brought about the term "FLASH" radiotherapy (RT). Thus, in the present study, we systematically review these recent studies on FLASH RT with regard to its efficacy and safety. The reporting of this systematic review was done in line with the statement of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. Electronic search of the databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Embase was conducted to retrieve relevant studies investigating the FLASH effect. From an initial search of 216 potential articles, 16 articles (in vivo, in vitro , and clinical studies) were finally included in this systematic review. Results showed that FLASH RT dose rates had protective effects on normal tissues in addition to antitumor effect. Although still in its early research stages, FLASH RT has the potential to rival present RT regimens in terms of safety and antitumor effect. However, further studies are needed to address the aspects such as optimal dose rate, effect on deep tumors, tumor recurrence, longer follow-up time, and mechanism of action.
Topics: Humans; Neoplasms; Organ Sparing Treatments; Radiation Oncology; Radiation Tolerance; Radiotherapy; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33342774
DOI: 10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_180_20 -
European Urology Sep 2021Management of locally recurrent prostate cancer after definitive radiotherapy remains controversial due to the perceived high rates of severe genitourinary (GU) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
Management of locally recurrent prostate cancer after definitive radiotherapy remains controversial due to the perceived high rates of severe genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity associated with any local salvage modality.
OBJECTIVE
To quantitatively compare the efficacy and toxicity of salvage radical prostatectomy (RP), high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), cryotherapy, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy, and high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We performed a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. Two- and 5-yr recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates and crude incidences of severe GU and GI toxicity were extracted as endpoints of interest. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted to characterize summary effect sizes and quantify heterogeneity. Estimates for each modality were then compared with RP after adjusting for individual study-level covariates using mixed-effect regression models, while allowing for differences in between-study variance across treatment modalities.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of 150 studies were included for analysis. There was significant heterogeneity between studies within each modality, and covariates differed between modalities, necessitating adjustment. Adjusted 5-yr RFS ranged from 50% after cryotherapy to 60% after HDR brachytherapy and SBRT, with no significant differences between any modality and RP. Severe GU toxicity was significantly lower with all three forms of radiotherapeutic salvage than with RP (adjusted rates of 20% after RP vs 5.6%, 9.6%, and 9.1% after SBRT, HDR brachytherapy, and LDR brachytherapy, respectively; p ≤ 0.001 for all). Severe GI toxicity was significantly lower with HDR salvage than with RP (adjusted rates 1.8% vs 0.0%, p < 0.01), with no other differences identified.
CONCLUSIONS
Large differences in 5-yr outcomes were not uncovered when comparing all salvage treatment modalities against RP. Reirradiation with SBRT, HDR brachytherapy, or LDR brachytherapy appears to result in less severe GU toxicity than RP, and reirradiation with HDR brachytherapy yields less severe GI toxicity than RP. Prospective studies of local salvage for radiorecurrent disease are warranted.
PATIENT SUMMARY
In a large study-level meta-analysis, we looked at treatment outcomes and toxicity for men treated with a number of salvage treatments for radiorecurrent prostate cancer. We conclude that relapse-free survival at 5 years is equivalent among salvage modalities, but reirradiation may lead to lower toxicity.
Topics: Brachytherapy; Cryotherapy; High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation; Humans; Male; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Prospective Studies; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Radiation Dosage; Radiosurgery; Salvage Therapy
PubMed: 33309278
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.11.010 -
The Eurasian Journal of Medicine Oct 2020The use of some agents as radioprotectors has been evaluated for protection against normal tissue toxicity following exposure to ionizing radiation. Resveratrol, a... (Review)
Review
The use of some agents as radioprotectors has been evaluated for protection against normal tissue toxicity following exposure to ionizing radiation. Resveratrol, a natural flavonoid, with antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties has attracted research interests for its radioprotective potential. This study systematically evaluates existing studies to examine the radioprotective effectiveness of resveratrol. A literature search of the electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Embase was conducted to retrieve articles investigating the protective effect of resveratrol against ionizing radiation-induced damage to normal tissues. The search timeframe ranged from the inception of each database to January 2020. From an initial search of 231 articles, and after the removal of duplicates as well as applying the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 33 articles were finally included for this systematic review. Results showed promising protective effect of resveratrol against ionizing radiation-induced damage to normal tissues. Furthermore, no adverse effect was observed after administering resveratrol. Resveratrol showed the potential to protect against ionizing radiation-induced damage to normal tissue cells via notable mechanisms, including anti-apoptotic and anti-inflammatory effects. However, further studies on the efficacy of clinical translation of resveratrol would open up more insights, while other gray areas such as the optimal radioprotective dosage of resveratrol requires further investigation. Overall, resveratrol is a potential double-edged sword in cancer therapy while protecting healthy tissues.
PubMed: 33209085
DOI: 10.5152/eurasianjmed.2020.20143