-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015Despite the development of new treatment options, the prognosis of high-risk neuroblastoma patients is still poor; more than half of patients experience disease... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Despite the development of new treatment options, the prognosis of high-risk neuroblastoma patients is still poor; more than half of patients experience disease recurrence. High-dose chemotherapy and haematopoietic stem cell rescue (i.e. myeloablative therapy) might improve survival. This review is the second update of a previously published Cochrane review.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objectiveTo compare the efficacy, that is event-free and overall survival, of high-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow or stem cell rescue with conventional therapy in children with high-risk neuroblastoma. Secondary objectivesTo determine adverse effects (e.g. veno-occlusive disease of the liver) and late effects (e.g. endocrine disorders or secondary malignancies) related to the procedure and possible effects of these procedures on quality of life.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the electronic databases The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, issue 11), MEDLINE/PubMed (1966 to December 2014) and EMBASE/Ovid (1980 to December 2014). In addition, we searched reference lists of relevant articles and the conference proceedings of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP) (from 2002 to 2014), American Society for Pediatric Hematology and Oncology (ASPHO) (from 2002 to 2014), Advances in Neuroblastoma Research (ANR) (from 2002 to 2014) and American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) (from 2008 to 2014). We searched for ongoing trials by scanning the ISRCTN register (www.isrct.com) and the National Institute of Health Register (www.clinicaltrials.gov). Both registers were screened in April 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of myeloablative therapy with conventional therapy in high-risk neuroblastoma patients.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. If appropriate, we pooled studies. The risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for dichotomous outcomes. For the assessment of survival data, we calculated the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI. We used Parmar's method if hazard ratios were not reported in the study. We used a random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified three RCTs including 739 children. They all used an age of one year as the cut-off point for pre-treatment risk stratification. The first updated search identified a manuscript reporting additional follow-up data for one of these RCTs, while the second update identified an erratum of this study. There was a significant statistical difference in event-free survival in favour of myeloablative therapy over conventional chemotherapy or no further treatment (three studies, 739 patients; HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.90). There was a significant statistical difference in overall survival in favour of myeloablative therapy over conventional chemotherapy or no further treatment (two studies, 360 patients; HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.98). However, when additional follow-up data were included in the analyses the difference in event-free survival remained statistically significant (three studies, 739 patients; HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.90), but the difference in overall survival was no longer statistically significant (two studies, 360 patients; HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.01). The meta-analysis of secondary malignant disease and treatment-related death did not show any significant statistical differences between the treatment groups. Data from one study (379 patients) showed a significantly higher incidence of renal effects, interstitial pneumonitis and veno-occlusive disease in the myeloablative group compared to conventional chemotherapy, whereas for serious infections and sepsis no significant difference between the treatment groups was identified. No information on quality of life was reported. In the individual studies we evaluated different subgroups, but the results were not univocal in all studies. All studies had some methodological limitations.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the currently available evidence, myeloablative therapy seems to work in terms of event-free survival. For overall survival there is currently no evidence of effect when additional follow-up data are included. No definitive conclusions can be made regarding adverse effects and quality of life, although possible higher levels of adverse effects should be kept in mind. A definitive conclusion regarding the effect of myeloablative therapy in different subgroups is not possible. This systematic review only allows a conclusion on the concept of myeloablative therapy; no conclusions can be made regarding the best treatment strategy. Future trials on the use of myeloablative therapy for high-risk neuroblastoma should focus on identifying the most optimal induction and/or myeloablative regimen. The best study design to answer these questions is a RCT. These RCTs should be performed in homogeneous study populations (e.g. stage of disease and patient age) and have a long-term follow-up. Different risk groups, using the most recent definitions, should be taken into account.It should be kept in mind that recently the age cut-off for high risk disease was changed from one year to 18 months. As a result it is possible that patients with what is now classified as intermediate-risk disease have been included in the high-risk groups. Consequently the relevance of the results of these studies to the current practice can be questioned. Survival rates may be overestimated due to the inclusion of patients with intermediate-risk disease.
Topics: Age Factors; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bone Marrow; Child; Child, Preschool; Disease-Free Survival; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Infant; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neuroblastoma; Prognosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salvage Therapy
PubMed: 26436598
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006301.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2013Despite the development of new treatment options, the prognosis of high-risk neuroblastoma patients is still poor; more than half of patients experience disease... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Despite the development of new treatment options, the prognosis of high-risk neuroblastoma patients is still poor; more than half of patients experience disease recurrence. High-dose chemotherapy and haematopoietic stem cell rescue (i.e. myeloablative therapy) might improve survival. This review is an update of a previously published Cochrane review.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of myeloablative therapy with conventional therapy in children with high-risk neuroblastoma. Secondary objectives were to determine possible effects of these interventions on adverse events, late effects and quality of life.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the electronic databases CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, issue 6), MEDLINE/PubMed (1966 to June 2012) and EMBASE/Ovid (1980 to June 2012). In addition, we searched reference lists of relevant articles and the conference proceedings of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP) (from 2002 to 2011), American Society for Pediatric Hematology and Oncology (ASPHO) (from 2002 to 2012), Advances in Neuroblastoma Research (ANR) (from 2002 to 2012) and American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) (from 2008 to 2012). We searched for ongoing trials by scanning the ISRCTN register and the National Institute of Health Register (http://www.controlled-trials.com; both screened July 2012).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of myeloablative therapy with conventional therapy in high-risk neuroblastoma patients.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. If appropriate, we pooled studies. The risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for dichotomous outcomes. For the assessment of survival data, we calculated the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI. We used Parmar's method if hazard ratios were not reported in the study. We used a random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified three RCTs including 739 children. They all used an age of one year as the cut-off point for pre-treatment risk stratification. The updated search identified a manuscript reporting additional follow-up data for one of these RCTs. There was a statistically significant difference in event-free survival in favour of myeloablative therapy over conventional chemotherapy or no further treatment (3 studies, 739 patients; HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.90). There was a statistically significant difference in overall survival in favour of myeloablative therapy over conventional chemotherapy or no further treatment (2 studies, 360 patients; HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.98). However, when additional follow-up data were included in the analyses the difference in event-free survival remained statistically significant (3 studies. 739 patients; HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.90), but the difference in overall survival was no longer statistically significant (2 studies, 360 patients; HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.01). The meta-analysis of secondary malignant disease and treatment-related death did not show any statistically significant differences between the treatment groups. Data from one study (379 patients) showed a significantly higher incidence of renal effects, interstitial pneumonitis and veno-occlusive disease in the myeloablative group compared to conventional chemotherapy, whereas for serious infections and sepsis no significant difference between the treatment groups was identified. No information on quality of life was reported. In the individual studies we evaluated different subgroups, but the results were not univocal in all studies. All studies had some methodological limitations.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the currently available evidence, myeloablative therapy seems to work in terms of event-free survival. For overall survival there is currently no evidence of effect when additional follow-up data are included. No definitive conclusions can be made regarding adverse effects and quality of life, although possible higher levels of adverse effects should be kept in mind. A definitive conclusion regarding the effect of myeloablative therapy in different subgroups is not possible. This systematic review only allows a conclusion on the concept of myeloablative therapy; no conclusions can be made regarding the best treatment strategy. Future trials on the use of myeloablative therapy for high-risk neuroblastoma should focus on identifying the most optimal induction and/or myeloablative regimen. The best study design to answer these questions is a RCT. These RCTs should be performed in homogeneous study populations (e.g. stage of disease and patient age) and have a long-term follow-up. Different risk groups, using the most recent definitions, should be taken into account.It should be kept in mind that recently the age cut-off for high risk disease was changed from one year to 18 months. As a result it is possible that patients with what is now classified as intermediate-risk disease have been included in the high-risk groups. Consequently the relevance of the results of these studies to the current practice can be questioned. Survival rates may be overestimated due to the inclusion of patients with intermediate-risk disease.
Topics: Age Factors; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bone Marrow; Child; Child, Preschool; Disease-Free Survival; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Infant; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neuroblastoma; Prognosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Salvage Therapy
PubMed: 23970444
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006301.pub3 -
Journal of the National Cancer Institute Jan 2012The impact of high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) vs conventional-dose chemotherapy in the initial management of adults with advanced... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The impact of high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) vs conventional-dose chemotherapy in the initial management of adults with advanced follicular lymphoma (FL) on overall survival remains uncertain. We performed a systematic review of the randomized clinical trials addressing this question.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, American Society of Hematology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, BIOSIS, PAPERSFIRST, PROCEEDINGS, clinical trials registries, and bibliographies of relevant studies for randomized clinical trials comparing myeloablative chemotherapy with ASCT to any chemotherapy in adults with untreated advanced FL. We performed a meta-analysis using random effects models to estimate overall survival, event-free survival, and risks of adverse outcomes. Statistical heterogeneity was calculated by using the I(2) statistic.
RESULTS
Seven trials proved eligible, four of which provided data from 941 patients that could be included in a meta-analysis and three of which remain unpublished. In two of the trials, patients in both arms received rituximab during the induction treatment. Moderate quality evidence from the three trials that reported overall survival (n = 701 patients) suggests that ASCT did not result in improved overall survival (hazard ratio of death = 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.73 to 1.33). Low-quality evidence from the four trials of 941 patients suggests improvement in event-free survival in favor of ASCT (hazard ratio of death = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.36 to 0.82) with substantial heterogeneity (I(2) = 80%). Adverse outcomes of treatment-related mortality, myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia, and solid tumors were not different between the two arms (relative risk [RR] of treatment-related mortality = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.29 to 3.70; RR of myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia = 2.19, 95% CI = 0.45 to 10.55; I(2) = 48%; and RR of solid tumors = 1.30, 95% CI = 0.33 to 5.08). The absolute risk of death from treatment was 14 per 1000 patients for those who received chemotherapy and 15 per 1000 for those who received ASCT (range = 4-52).
CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence suggests that high-dose therapy and ASCT as part of FL initial treatment does not improve overall survival. Future trials of ASCT in the context of current chemoimmunotherapy approaches to FL are needed.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Murine-Derived; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic; Disease-Free Survival; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Lymphoma, Follicular; Odds Ratio; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction; Rituximab; Selection Bias; Stem Cell Transplantation; Survival Analysis; Transplantation, Autologous; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 22190633
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djr450 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2011Consolidation chemotherapy, autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and allogeneic HCT represent potential treatment alternatives for post-remission therapy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Consolidation chemotherapy, autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and allogeneic HCT represent potential treatment alternatives for post-remission therapy in adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), but there is genuine uncertainty regarding the optimal approach.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of matched sibling donor vs. no donor status for adults with ALL in first complete remission (CR1).
SEARCH STRATEGY
We performed a search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic databases in September 2010 along with handsearching of literature cited in relevant primary articles, search of abstracts from American Society of Hematology and American Society of Clinical Oncology meetings, as well as consultation with content experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Review was performed by two authors, and Inclusion criteria included the following: controlled trials with donor vs. no donor comparison with assignment by genetic randomizationin adults with ALL in CR1.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data on benefits (overall survival, progression-free survival) and harms (treatment-related mortality, relapse) of compared treatments. Adverse events were considered, but analysis of individual adverse events was not possible from the reported literature. We pooled summary results from each study using a random-effects model. We assessed heterogeneity. We performed subgroup analyses for disease risk categories. We performed sensitivity analyses according to methodological quality.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 14 relevant trials were identified, consisting of a total of 3157 patients. There was a statistically significant overall survival advantage in favor of the donor versus no donor group (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.97; P = 0.01), as well as significant improvement in disease-free survival in the donor group(HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94; P = 0.004). Those in the donor group had significant reduction in primary disease relapse(RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.76; P = 0.0004) and significant increase in non-relapse mortality(RR 2.8; 95% CI 1.66 to 4.73; P = 0.001). Significant heterogeneity was detected in analysis of relapse (Chi(2) 40.51, df = 6, P < 0.00001; I(2) = 85%). In regard to methodologic quality, the majority of included studies were free of selective reporting, and performed analyses according to intention to treat. Conversely, few reported sample size calculation that informed the study design. While blinding was considered as an important domain of methodological quality, none of the studies reported on whether any of the study personnel were blinded (e.g. subjects, personnel, outcome assessors, data analysts etc). Therefore, we did not consider blinding further in the analysis of methodological quality in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis support matched sibling donor allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation as the optimal post-remission therapy in ALL patients aged 15 years or over. This therapy offers superior overall survival and disease-free survival, and significantly reduces the risk of disease relapse, but does impose an increased risk of non-relapse mortality. Importantly these data are based on adult ALL treated with largely total body irradiation-based myeloablative conditioning and sibling donor transplantation and, therefore, cannot be generalized to pediatric ALL, alternative donors including HLA (human leukocyte antigen) mismatched or unrelated donors, or reduced toxicity or non-myeloablative conditioning regimens.
Topics: Adult; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Histocompatibility; Humans; Living Donors; Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Remission Induction; Siblings; Transplantation Conditioning; Transplantation, Homologous
PubMed: 21975786
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008818.pub2 -
Health Technology Assessment... Dec 2010Acute leukaemia is a group of rapidly progressing cancers of bone marrow and blood classified as either acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) or acute lymphoblastic leukaemia... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute leukaemia is a group of rapidly progressing cancers of bone marrow and blood classified as either acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) or acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). Haemopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT) has developed as an adjunct to or replacement for conventional chemotherapy with the aim of improving survival and quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
A systematic overview of the best available evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SCT in the treatment of acute leukaemia.
DATA SOURCES
Clinical effectiveness: electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, were searched from inception to December 2008 to identify published systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index (SCI) were searched from 1997 to March 2009 to identify primary studies. Cost-effectiveness: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) were searched from inception to January 2009.
STUDY SELECTION
Potentially relevant papers were retrieved and independently checked against predefined criteria by two reviewers (one in the case of the cost-effectiveness review).
STUDY APPRAISAL
Included reviews and meta-analyses were critically appraised and data extracted and narratively presented. Included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and donor versus no donor (DvND) studies were mapped to the evidence covered in existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses according to a framework of 12 decision problems (DPs): DP1 related to SCT in adults with AML in first complete remission (CR1); DP2 to adults with AML in second or subsequent remission or with refractory disease (CR2+); DP3 to children with AML in CR1; DP4 to children with AML in CR2+; DP5 to adults with ALL in CR1; DP6 to adults with ALL in CR2+; DP7 to children with ALL in CR1; DP8 to children with ALL in CR2+; DP9 to comparison of different sources of stem cells in transplantation; DP10 to different conditioning regimens; DP11 to the use of purging in autologous SCT; and DP12 to the use of T-cell depletion in allogeneic SCT.
RESULTS
Fifteen systematic reviews/meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria for the review of clinical effectiveness, thirteen of which were published from 2004 onwards. Taking into account the timing of their publications, most reviews appeared to have omitted an appreciable proportion of potentially available evidence. The best available evidence for effectiveness of allogeneic SCT using stem cells from matched sibling donors came from DvND studies: there was sufficient evidence to support the use of allogeneic SCT in DP1 (except in good-risk patients), DP3 (role of risk stratification unclear) and DP5 (role of risk stratification unclear). There was conflicting evidence in DP7 and a paucity of evidence from DvND studies for all decision problems concerning patient groups in CR2+. The best available evidence for effectiveness of autologous SCT came from RCTs: overall, evidence suggested that autologous SCT was either similar to or less effective than chemotherapy. There was a paucity of evidence from published reviews of RCTs for DPs 9-12. Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria in the cost-effectiveness review, most reporting only cost information and only one incorporating an economic model. Although there is a wealth of information on costs and some information on cost-effectiveness of allogeneic SCT in adults with AML (DPs 1 and 2), there is very limited evidence on relative costs and cost-effectiveness for other DPs.
LIMITATIONS
Time and resources did not permit critical appraisal of the primary studies on which the reviews/meta-analyses reviewed were based; there were substantial differences in methodologies, and consequently quantitative synthesis of data was neither planned in the protocol nor carried out; some of the studies were quite old and might not reflect current practice; and a number of the studies might not be applicable to the UK.
CONCLUSIONS
Bearing in mind the limitations, existing evidence suggests that sibling donor allogeneic SCT may be more effective than chemotherapy in adult AML (except in good-risk patients) in CR1, childhood AML in CR1 and adult ALL in CR1, and that autologous SCT is equal to or less effective than chemotherapy. No firm conclusions could be drawn regarding the cost-effectiveness of SCT in the UK NHS owing to the limitations given above. Future research should include the impact of the treatments on patients' quality of life as well as information on health service use and costs associated with SCT from the perspective of the UK NHS.
Topics: Adult; Child; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma
PubMed: 21138675
DOI: 10.3310/hta14540 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2010Despite the development of new treatment options, the prognosis of high-risk neuroblastoma patients is still poor; more than half of patients experience disease... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Despite the development of new treatment options, the prognosis of high-risk neuroblastoma patients is still poor; more than half of patients experience disease recurrence. High-dose chemotherapy and haematopoietic stem cell rescue (i.e. myeloablative therapy) might improve survival.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness of myeloablative therapy with conventional therapy in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 1), MEDLINE/PubMed (1966 to January 2009) and EMBASE/Ovid (1980 to January 2009). In addition, we searched reference lists of relevant articles, conference proceedings and ongoing trial databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of myeloablative therapy with conventional therapy in high-risk neuroblastoma patients.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. If possible, we pooled results.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified three RCTs including 739 children. The meta-analysis of event-free survival showed a significant difference in favour of the myeloablative therapy group (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.90), as did the meta-analysis of overall survival (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.98). The meta-analysis of secondary malignant disease and treatment-related death did not show a significant difference between the treatment groups. In one study a significant difference in favour of the conventional therapy group was identified for renal effects, interstitial pneumonitis and veno-occlusive disease, whereas for serious infections and sepsis no significant difference between the treatment groups was identified. In the individual studies we evaluated different subgroups, but the results were not univocal in all studies. All studies had some methodological limitations.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the currently available evidence, myeloablative therapy seems to be a good treatment option for children with high-risk neuroblastoma. It results in higher survival rates than conventional therapy, although possible higher levels of adverse effects should be kept in mind. A definitive conclusion regarding the effect of myeloablative therapy in different subgroups is not possible. This systematic review only allows a conclusion on the concept of myeloablative therapy; no conclusions can be made regarding the best treatment strategy. Future trials on the use of myeloablative therapy for high-risk neuroblastoma should focus on identifying the most optimal induction and/or myeloablative regimen. The best study design to answer these questions is a RCT. These RCTs should be performed in homogeneous study populations (for example, regarding stage of disease and patient age) and have a long-term follow up. Different risk groups should be taken into account.
Topics: Age Factors; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bone Marrow; Child; Child, Preschool; Disease-Free Survival; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Infant; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neuroblastoma; Prognosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 20464740
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006301.pub2 -
JAMA Jun 2009The optimal treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first complete remission (CR1) is uncertain. Current consensus, based on cytogenetic risk, recommends... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
The optimal treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first complete remission (CR1) is uncertain. Current consensus, based on cytogenetic risk, recommends myeloablative allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT) for poor-risk but not for good-risk AML. Allogeneic SCT, autologous transplantation, and consolidation chemotherapy are considered of equivalent benefit for intermediate-risk AML.
OBJECTIVE
To quantify relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival benefit of allogeneic SCT for AML in CR1 overall and also for good-, intermediate-, and poor-risk AML.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective trials evaluating allogeneic SCT vs nonallogeneic SCT therapies for AML in CR1. The search used the combined search terms allogeneic; acut* and leukem*/leukaem*/leucem*/leucaem*/aml; myelo* or nonlympho* in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials databases in March 2009. The search identified 1712 articles.
STUDY SELECTION
Prospective trials assigning adult patients with AML in CR1 to undergo allogeneic SCT vs nonallogeneic SCT treatment(s) based on donor availability and trials reporting RFS and/or overall survival outcomes on an intention-to-treat, donor vs no-donor basis were identified.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, interventions, and outcomes. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Overall, 24 trials and 6007 patients were analyzed (5951 patients in RFS analyses and 5606 patients in overall survival analyses); 3638 patients were analyzed by cytogenetic risk (547, 2499, and 592 with good-, intermediate-, and poor-risk AML, respectively). Interstudy heterogeneity was not significant. Fixed-effects meta-analysis was performed. Compared with nonallogeneic SCT, the HR of relapse or death with allogeneic SCT for AML in CR1 was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.74-0.86). Significant RFS benefit of allogeneic SCT was documented for poor-risk (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57-0.84) and intermediate-risk AML (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.85) but not for good-risk AML (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.80-1.42). The HR of death with allogeneic SCT for AML in CR1 was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82-0.97). Significant overall survival benefit with allogeneic SCT was documented for poor-risk (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.90) and intermediate-risk AML (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93) but not for good-risk AML (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.83-1.38).
CONCLUSION
Compared with nonallogeneic SCT therapies, allogeneic SCT has significant RFS and overall survival benefit for intermediate- and poor-risk AML but not for good-risk AML in first complete remission.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Remission Induction; Risk Assessment; Stem Cell Transplantation; Survival Analysis; Transplantation, Homologous
PubMed: 19509382
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2009.813 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2009Febrile neutropenia (FN) and other infectious complications are some of the most serious treatment-related toxicities of chemotherapy for cancer, with a mortality rate... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Febrile neutropenia (FN) and other infectious complications are some of the most serious treatment-related toxicities of chemotherapy for cancer, with a mortality rate of 2% to 21%. The two main types of prophylactic regimens are granulocyte (G-CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factors (GM-CSF); and antibiotics, frequently quinolones or cotrimoxazole. Important current guidelines recommend the use of colony stimulating factors when the risk of febrile neutropenia is above 20% but they do not mention the use of antibiotics. However, both regimens have been shown to reduce the incidence of infections. Since no systematic review has compared the two regimens, a systematic review was undertaken.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness of G-CSF or GM-CSF with antibiotics in cancer patients receiving myeloablative chemotherapy with respect to preventing fever, febrile neutropenia, infection, infection-related mortality, early mortality and improving quality of life.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, databases of ongoing trials, and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 to 2007). We planned to include both full-text and abstract publications.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with G-CSF or GM-CSF versus antibiotics in cancer patients of all ages receiving chemotherapy or bone marrow or stem cell transplantation were included for review. Both study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy regimes and other supportive care.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Trial eligibility and quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were done in duplicate. Authors were contacted to obtain missing data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two eligible randomised controlled trials with 195 patients. Due to differences in the outcomes reported, the trials could not be pooled for meta-analysis. Both trials showed non-significant results favouring antibiotics for the prevention of fever or hospitalisation for febrile neutropenia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence for or against antibiotics compared to G(M)-CSFs for the prevention of infections in cancer patients.
Topics: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Fever; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor; Humans; Infection Control; Neoplasms; Neutropenia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 19160320
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007107.pub2 -
Biology of Blood and Marrow... Feb 2007Myeloablative high-dose therapy and single autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT) is frequently performed early in the course of multiple myeloma, supported by some... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
High-dose therapy with single autologous transplantation versus chemotherapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Myeloablative high-dose therapy and single autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT) is frequently performed early in the course of multiple myeloma, supported by some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicating overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) benefit compared with nonmyeloablative standard-dose therapy (SDT). Other RCTs, however, suggest variable benefit. We therefore undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of all RCTs evaluating upfront HDT versus SDT in myeloma. The primary objective was to quantify OS benefit with HDT, with PFS benefit a secondary objective. Anticipating heterogeneity, sensitivity and subgroup analyses were undertaken to assess robustness of results. Assessment of harms (treatment-related mortality) was also undertaken. We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Collection of Controlled Trials databases using the terms myeloma combined with autologous or transplant or myeloablative or stem cell. In total, 3407 articles were accessed, and 10 RCTs prospectively comparing upfront HDT with SDT, with > or =2-year follow-up, and reporting OS benefit on an intent-to-treat basis were identified. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, interventions, and outcomes. Hazard ratios (with 95% confidence interval) were determined. Nine studies comprising 2411 patients were fully analyzed. Significant heterogeneity was present. The combined hazard of death with HDT was 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.13). The combined hazard of progression with HDT was 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.96). The totality of the randomized data indicates PFS benefit but not OS benefit for HDT with single autologous transplantation performed early in multiple myeloma. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses supported the findings and indicated that, contrary to current reimbursement criteria, PFS benefit with upfront HDT is not restricted to chemoresponsive myeloma. However, the overall risk of developing treatment-related mortality with HDT was increased significantly (odds ratio, 3.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-5.50). Hence, evaluating alternative therapeutic options upfront may also be reasonable.
Topics: Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Myeloablative Agonists; Odds Ratio; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Analysis; Transplantation Conditioning; Transplantation, Autologous
PubMed: 17241924
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2006.09.010 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2005Transfusions of granulocytes have a long history of usage in clinical practice to support and treat severe infection in high risk groups of patients with neutropenia or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Transfusions of granulocytes have a long history of usage in clinical practice to support and treat severe infection in high risk groups of patients with neutropenia or neutrophil dysfunction. However, there is considerable current variability in therapeutic granulocyte transfusion practice, and uncertainty about the beneficial effect of transfusions given as an adjunct to antibiotics on mortality.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of granulocyte transfusions compared to no granulocyte transfusions for treating infections in patients with neutropenia or disorders of neutrophil function in reducing mortality.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were searched for in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in 2003. Searching was also undertaken on the OVID versions of Medline and Embase using an RCT search filter strategy.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs involving transfusions of granulocytes, given therapeutically, to patients with neutropenia or disorders of neutrophil dysfunction.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers completed data extraction independently. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random effects model were reported for dichotomous outcomes. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were done and reported eg granulocyte dose.
MAIN RESULTS
Eight parallel RCTs were included with 310 total analysed patient episodes. Different policies were applied for the schedule of transfusion, method of granulocyte procurement and process of donor selection including leucocyte compatibility. Each study used different criteria for neutropenia (range < 0.1 to < 1.0 x 10(9)/L) and definition of infection requiring treatment. For mortality, which was extracted from six trials, the summary RR = 0.64 in favour of transfusion (95% CI 0.33, 1.26), but with evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity (Chi-square 11.3 and I(2) = 56%). The data for the combined RR for mortality for the four studies transfusing higher granulocyte doses greater than 1x10(10) indicated a significant summary RR= 0.37 (95% CI 0.17, 0.82); Chi-square 3.9, I(2) 23%. Data on rates of reversal of infection could be extracted from four studies, and the combined RR was 0.94 (95% CI 0.71, 1.26), again with evidence of heterogeneity. In addition to the observed clinical diversity between all studies, uncertainty about the quantitative and qualitative analyses for these studies is compounded by methodological deficiencies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently, there is inconclusive evidence from RCTs to support or refute the generalised use of granulocyte transfusion therapy in the most common neutropenic patient populations, that is caused by myeloablative chemotherapy with or without haematopoietic stem cell support. Contemporary well designed prospective trials are required to evaluate the efficacy of this intervention in these patient populations and to establish definitively whether it has clinical benefit. In such studies, average numbers of collected granulocytes for adults should be (at least) greater than 1x10(10).
Topics: Cause of Death; Granulocytes; Humans; Infections; Leukocyte Transfusion; Neutropenia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 16034970
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005339