-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018People with advanced ovarian or gastrointestinal cancer may develop malignant bowel obstruction (MBO). They are able to tolerate limited, if any, oral or enteral (via a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
People with advanced ovarian or gastrointestinal cancer may develop malignant bowel obstruction (MBO). They are able to tolerate limited, if any, oral or enteral (via a tube directly into the gut) nutrition. Parenteral nutrition (PN) is the provision of macronutrients, micronutrients, electrolytes and fluid infused as an intravenous solution and provides a method for these people to receive nutrients. There are clinical and ethical arguments for and against the administration of PN to people receiving palliative care.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of home parenteral nutrition (HPN) in improving survival and quality of life in people with inoperable MBO.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), BNI, CINAHL, Web of Science and NHS Economic Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment up to January 2018, ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/) and in the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/). In addition, we handsearched included studies and used the 'Similar articles' feature on PubMed for included articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included any studies with more than five participants investigating HPN in people over 16 years of age with inoperable MBO.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted the data and assessed risk of bias for each study. We entered data into Review Manager 5 and used GRADEpro to assess the quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 studies with a total of 721 participants in the review. The studies were observational, 12 studies had only one relevant treatment arm and no control and for the one study with a control arm, very few details were given. The risk of bias was high and the certainty of evidence was graded as very low for all outcomes. Due to heterogeneity of data, meta-analysis was not performed and therefore the data were synthesised via a narrative summary.The evidence for benefit derived from PN was very low for survival and quality of life. All the studies measured overall survival and 636 (88%) of participants were deceased at the end of the study. However there were varying definitions of overall survival that yielded median survival intervals between 15 to 155 days (range three to 1278 days). Three studies used validated measures of quality of life. The results from assessment of quality of life were equivocal; one study reported improvements up until three months and two studies reported approximately similar numbers of participants with improvements and deterioration. Different quality of life scales were used in each of the studies and quality of life was measured at different time points. Due to the very low certainty of the evidence, we are very uncertain about the adverse events related to PN use. Adverse events were measured by nine studies and data for individual participants could be extracted from eight studies. This revealed that 32 of 260 (12%) patients developed a central venous catheter infection or were hospitalised because of complications related to PN.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are very uncertain whether HPN improves survival or quality of life in people with MBO as the certainty of evidence was very low for both outcomes. As the evidence base is limited and at high risk of bias, further higher-quality prospective studies are required.
Topics: Abdominal Neoplasms; Adult; Aged; Female; Humans; Intestinal Obstruction; Male; Middle Aged; Observational Studies as Topic; Parenteral Nutrition, Home; Quality of Life
PubMed: 30095168
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012812.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Cyclophosphamide, in combination with corticosteroids, has been first-line treatment for inducing disease remission for proliferative lupus nephritis, reducing death at... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cyclophosphamide, in combination with corticosteroids, has been first-line treatment for inducing disease remission for proliferative lupus nephritis, reducing death at five years from over 50% in the 1950s and 1960s to less than 10% in recent years. Several treatment strategies designed to improve remission rates and minimise toxicity have become available. Treatments, including mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and calcineurin inhibitors, alone and in combination, may have equivalent or improved rates of remission, lower toxicity (less alopecia and ovarian failure) and uncertain effects on death, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and infection. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004 and updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
Our objective was to assess the evidence and evaluate the benefits and harms of different immunosuppressive treatments in people with biopsy-proven lupus nephritis. The following questions relating to management of proliferative lupus nephritis were addressed: 1) Are new immunosuppressive agents superior to or as effective as cyclophosphamide plus corticosteroids? 2) Which agents, dosages, routes of administration and duration of therapy should be used? 3) Which toxicities occur with the different treatment regimens?
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register up to 2 March 2018 with support from the Cochrane Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Specialised Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing any immunosuppressive treatment for biopsy-proven class III, IV, V+III and V+VI lupus nephritis in adult or paediatric patients were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were abstracted and the risks of bias were assessed independently by two authors. Dichotomous outcomes were calculated as risk ratio (RR) and measures on continuous scales calculated as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary outcomes were death (all causes) and complete disease remission for induction therapy and disease relapse for maintenance therapy. Evidence certainty was determined using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
In this review update, 26 new studies were identified, to include 74 studies involving 5175 participants overall. Twenty-nine studies included children under the age of 18 years with lupus nephritis, however only two studies exclusively examined the treatment of lupus nephritis in patients less than 18 years of age.Induction therapy Sixty-seven studies (4791 participants; median 12 months duration (range 2.5 to 48 months)) reported induction therapy. The effects of all treatment strategies on death (all causes) and ESKD were uncertain (very low certainty evidence) as this outcome occurred very infrequently. Compared with intravenous (IV) cyclophosphamide, MMF may have increased complete disease remission (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.42; low certainty evidence), although the range of effects includes the possibility of little or no difference.Compared to IV cyclophosphamide, MMF is probably associated with decreased alopecia (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.46; 170 less (129 less to 194 less) per 1000 people) (moderate certainty evidence), increased diarrhoea (RR 2.42, 95% CI 1.64 to 3.58; 142 more (64 more to 257 more) per 1000 people) (moderate certainty evidence) and may have made little or no difference to major infection (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.54; 2 less (38 less to 62 more) per 1000 people) (low certainty evidence). It is uncertain if MMF decreased ovarian failure compared to IV cyclophosphamide because the certainty of the evidence was very low (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.18; 26 less (39 less to 49 more) per 1000 people). Studies were not generally designed to measure ESKD.MMF combined with tacrolimus may have increased complete disease remission (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.07 to 5.30; 336 more (17 to 1048 more) per 1000 people (low certainty evidence) compared with IV cyclophosphamide, however the effects on alopecia, diarrhoea, ovarian failure, and major infection remain uncertain. Compared to standard of care, the effects of biologics on most outcomes were uncertain because of low to very low certainty of evidence.Maintenance therapyNine studies (767 participants; median 30 months duration (range 6 to 63 months)) reported maintenance therapy. In maintenance therapy, disease relapse is probably increased with azathioprine compared with MMF (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.55; 114 more (30 to 236 more) per 1000 people (moderate certainty evidence). Multiple other interventions were compared as maintenance therapy, but patient-outcome data were sparse leading to imprecise estimates.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this review update, studies assessing treatment for proliferative lupus nephritis were not designed to assess death (all causes) or ESKD. MMF may lead to increased complete disease remission compared with IV cyclophosphamide, with an acceptable adverse event profile, although evidence certainty was low and included the possibility of no difference. Calcineurin combined with lower dose MMF may improve induction of disease remission compared with IV cyclophosphamide, but the comparative safety profile of these therapies is uncertain. Azathioprine may increase disease relapse as maintenance therapy compared with MMF.
Topics: Adult; Azathioprine; Calcineurin; Child; Cyclophosphamide; Female; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Induction Chemotherapy; Lupus Nephritis; Maintenance Chemotherapy; Male; Mycophenolic Acid; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Tacrolimus
PubMed: 29957821
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002922.pub4 -
Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and... 2015HIV infected women have higher rates of infertility. Objective. The purpose of this literature review is to evaluate the effectiveness of fresh IVF/ICSI cycles in HIV... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
HIV infected women have higher rates of infertility. Objective. The purpose of this literature review is to evaluate the effectiveness of fresh IVF/ICSI cycles in HIV infected women.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A search of the PubMed database was performed to identify studies assessing fresh nondonor oocyte IVF/ICSI cycle outcomes of serodiscordant couples with an HIV infected female partner.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Whenever a comparison with a control group was available, with the exception of one case, ovarian stimulation cancelation rate was higher and pregnancy rate (PR) was lower in HIV infected women. However, statistically significant differences in both rates were only seen in one and two studies, respectively. A number of noncontrolled sources of bias for IVF outcome were identified. This fact, added to the small size of samples studied and heterogeneity in study design and methodology, still hampers the performance of a meta-analysis on the issue. Conclusion. Prospective matched case-control studies are necessary for the understanding of the specific effects of HIV infection on ovarian response and ART outcome.
Topics: Adult; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; HIV Infections; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious
PubMed: 26778910
DOI: 10.1155/2015/517208 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2016Ovarian cancer tends to be chemosensitive and confine itself to the surface of the peritoneal cavity for much of its natural history. These features have made it an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ovarian cancer tends to be chemosensitive and confine itself to the surface of the peritoneal cavity for much of its natural history. These features have made it an obvious target for intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy. Chemotherapy for ovarian cancer is usually given as an intravenous (IV) infusion repeatedly over five to eight cycles. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy is given by infusion of the chemotherapeutic agent directly into the peritoneal cavity. There are biological reasons why this might increase the anticancer effect and reduce some systemic adverse effects in comparison to IV therapy.
OBJECTIVES
To determine if adding a component of the chemotherapy regime into the peritoneal cavity affects overall survival, progression-free survival, quality of life (QOL) and toxicity in the primary treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Gynaecological Cancer Review Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 2, 2011, MEDLINE (1951 to May 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to May 2011). We updated these searches in February 2007, August 2010, May 2011 and September 2015. In addition, we handsearched and cascade searched the major gynaecological oncology journals up to May 2011.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The analysis was restricted to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing women with a new diagnosis of primary epithelial ovarian cancer, of any FIGO stage, following primary cytoreductive surgery. Standard IV chemotherapy was compared with chemotherapy that included a component of IP administration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data on overall survival, disease-free survival, adverse events and QOL and performed meta-analyses of hazard ratios (HR) for time-to-event variables and relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes using RevMan software.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine randomised trials studied 2119 women receiving primary treatment for ovarian cancer. We considered six trials to be of high quality. Women were less likely to die if they received an IP component to chemotherapy (eight studies, 2026 women; HR = 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72 to 0.90). Intraperitoneal component chemotherapy prolonged the disease-free interval (five studies, 1311 women; HR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.70 to 0.86). There was greater serious toxicity with regard to gastrointestinal effects, pain, fever and infection but less ototoxicity with the IP than the IV route.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Intraperitoneal chemotherapy increases overall survival and progression-free survival from advanced ovarian cancer. The results of this meta-analysis provide the most reliable estimates of the relative survival benefits of IP over IV therapy and should be used as part of the decision making process. However, the potential for catheter related complications and toxicity needs to be considered when deciding on the most appropriate treatment for each individual woman. The optimal dose, timing and mechanism of administration cannot be addressed from this meta-analysis. This needs to be addressed in the next phase of clinical trials.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Infusions, Intravenous; Infusions, Parenteral; Ovarian Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26755441
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005340.pub4 -
World Journal of Hepatology Oct 2015To review published methods for detection of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection.
AIM
To review published methods for detection of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection.
METHODS
A thorough search on Medline database was conducted to find original articles describing different methods or techniques of detection of HBV, which are published in English in last 10 years. Articles outlining methods of detection of mutants or drug resistance were excluded. Full texts and abstracts (if full text not available) were reviewed thoroughly. Manual search of references of retrieved articles were also done. We extracted data on different samples and techniques of detection of HBV, their sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp) and applicability.
RESULTS
A total of 72 studies were reviewed. HBV was detected from dried blood/plasma spots, hepatocytes, ovarian tissue, cerumen, saliva, parotid tissue, renal tissue, oocytes and embryos, cholangiocarcinoma tissue, etc. Sensitivity of dried blood spot for detecting HBV was > 90% in all the studies. In case of seronegative patients, HBV DNA or serological markers have been detected from hepatocytes or renal tissue in many instances. Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay and Chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) are most commonly used serological tests for detection. CLIA systems are also used for quantitation. Molecular techniques are used qualitatively as well as for quantitative detection. Among the molecular techniques version 2.0 of the CobasAmpliprep/CobasTaqMan assay and Abbott's real time polymerase chain reaction kit were found to be most sensitive with a lower detection limit of only 6.25 IU/mL and 1.48 IU/mL respectively.
CONCLUSION
Serological and molecular assays are predominant and reliable methods for HBV detection. Automated systems are highly sensitive and quantify HBV DNA and serological markers for monitoring.
PubMed: 26483870
DOI: 10.4254/wjh.v7.i23.2482 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Assisted reproduction techniques (ART), such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), can help subfertile couples to create a family.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Assisted reproduction techniques (ART), such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), can help subfertile couples to create a family. It is necessary to induce multiple follicles, which is achieved by follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) injections. Current treatment regimens prescribe daily injections of FSH (urinary FSH either with or without luteinizing hormone (LH) injections or recombinant FSH (rFSH)).Recombinant DNA technologies have produced a new recombinant molecule which is a long-acting FSH, named corifollitropin alfa (Elonva) or FSH-CTP. A single dose of long-acting FSH is able to keep the circulating FSH level above the threshold necessary to support multi-follicular growth for an entire week. The optimal dose of long-acting FSH is still being determined. A single injection of long-acting FSH can replace seven daily FSH injections during the first week of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and can make assisted reproduction more patient friendly.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness of long-acting FSH versus daily FSH in terms of pregnancy and safety outcomes in women undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment cycles.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases, trial registers and websites from inception to June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialized Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, electronic trial registers for ongoing and registered trials, citation indexes, conference abstracts in the ISI Web of Knowledge, LILACS, Clinical Study Results (for clinical trial results of marketed pharmaceuticals), PubMed and OpenSIGLE. We also carried out handsearches.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing long-acting FSH versus daily FSH in women who were part of a couple with subfertility and undertaking IVF or ICSI treatment cycles with a GnRH antagonist or agonist protocol.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. We contacted trial authors in cases of missing data. We calculated risk ratios for each outcome, and our primary outcomes were live birth rate and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate. Our secondary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, any other adverse event (including ectopic pregnancy, congenital malformations, drug side effects and infection) and patient satisfaction with the treatment. Trials reported all outcomes, except patient satisfaction with the treatment.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six RCTs with a total of 3753 participants and we graded the quality of the included studies as moderate. All studies included women with an indication for COS as part of an IVF/ICSI cycle with age ranging from 18 to 41 years. A comparison of long-acting FSH versus daily FSH did not show evidence of difference in effect on overall live birth rate (Risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.07; 2363 participants, eight studies; I² statistic = 44%) or OHSS (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.37; 3753 participants, nine studies; I² statistic = 0%). We compared subgroups by dose of long-acting FSH. There was evidence of reduced live birth rate in women who received lower doses (60 to 120 μg) of long-acting FSH compared to daily FSH (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.93; 645 participants, three studies; I² statistic = 0%). There was no evidence a difference between the groups in live births in the medium dose (150 to 180 μg) subgroup (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.18; 1685 participants, four studies; I² statistic = 6%). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the clinical pregnancy rate (any dose), ongoing pregnancy rate (any dose), multiple pregnancy rate (any dose), miscarriage rate (low or medium dose), ectopic pregnancy rate (any dose), congenital malformation rate, congenital malformation rate; major or minor (low or medium dose).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The use of a medium dose (150 to 180 μg) of long-acting FSH is a safe treatment option and equally effective compared to daily FSH in women with unexplained subfertility. There was evidence of reduced live birth rate in women receiving a low dose (60 to 120 μg) of long-acting FSH compared to daily FSH. Further research is needed to determine whether long-acting FSH is safe and effective for use in hyper- or poor responders and in women with all causes of subfertility.
Topics: Adult; Delayed-Action Preparations; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Follicle Stimulating Hormone; Follicle Stimulating Hormone, Human; Hormones; Humans; Live Birth; Luteinizing Hormone; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Proteins; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic
PubMed: 26171903
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009577.pub3 -
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica... Jan 2014The role of human papillomavirus (HPV) in the pathogenesis of ovarian cancer is controversial, and conflicting results have been published. We conducted a systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The role of human papillomavirus (HPV) in the pathogenesis of ovarian cancer is controversial, and conflicting results have been published. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of HPV in epithelial ovarian cancer tissue.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Observational studies published until 4 March 2013 were identified in PubMed and Embase. We adhered to MOOSE guidelines and included 22 studies (case-control, cross-sectional studies). A pooled estimate of the HPV prevalence with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated based on a random effect model. In a meta-regression analysis we examined the contribution of different factors to heterogeneity. Furthermore, publication bias was evaluated.
RESULTS
The pooled HPV prevalence in ovarian cancer tissue was 15.5%, but wide variation was found (0-66.7%). After stratification by geographical region, publication year, tissue type and method of HPV detection, we found that the prevalence of HPV varied most markedly by geographical area, the prevalence being 45.6% (95% CI, 31.0-60.3) in Asia, 18.5% (95% CI, 8.5-28.6) in Eastern Europe, 1.1% (95% CI, -1.6 to 3.8) in Western Europe and zero in North America. A meta-regression analysis revealed that the difference between geographical regions could not be explained by HPV detection method or type of tissue.
CONCLUSIONS
Great geographical variation exists in HPV prevalence in ovarian cancer tissue, which is not explained by different HPV detection methods. The results suggest that HPV is unlikely to play an important role in Western European and American women, but cannot reject a role of HPV in other populations.
Topics: Female; Humans; Ovarian Neoplasms; Ovary; Papillomaviridae; Papillomavirus Infections
PubMed: 24033121
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12254 -
International Journal of Rheumatology 2013This paper assessed the burden of adverse events (AEs) associated with azathioprine (AZA), cyclophosphamide (CYC), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), methotrexate (MTX), and...
Adverse event burden, resource use, and costs associated with immunosuppressant medications for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic literature review.
This paper assessed the burden of adverse events (AEs) associated with azathioprine (AZA), cyclophosphamide (CYC), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), methotrexate (MTX), and cyclosporine (CsA) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Thirty-eight publications were included. Incidence of AEs ranged from 42.8% to 97.3%. Common AEs included infections (2.4-77%), gastrointestinal AEs (3.2-66.7%), and amenorrhea and/or ovarian complications (0-71%). More hematological cytopenias were associated with AZA (14 episodes) than MMF (2 episodes). CYC was associated with more infections than MMF (40-77% versus 12.5-32%, resp.) or AZA (17-77% versus 11-29%, resp.). Rates of hospitalized infections were similar between MMF and AZA patients, but higher for those taking CYC. There were more gynecological toxicities with CYC than MMF (32-36% versus 3.6-6%, resp.) or AZA (32-71% versus 8-18%, resp.). Discontinuation rates due to AEs were 0-44.4% across these medications. In summary, the incidence of AEs associated with SLE immunosuppressants was consistently high as reported in the literature; discontinuations due to these AEs were similar across treatments. Studies on the economic impact of these AEs were sparse and warrant further study. This paper highlights the need for more treatment options with better safety profiles.
PubMed: 23762067
DOI: 10.1155/2013/347520 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2013Any form of screening aims to reduce disease-specific and overall mortality, and to improve a person's future quality of life. Screening for prostate cancer has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Any form of screening aims to reduce disease-specific and overall mortality, and to improve a person's future quality of life. Screening for prostate cancer has generated considerable debate within the medical and broader community, as demonstrated by the varying recommendations made by medical organizations and governed by national policies. To better inform individual patient decision-making and health policy decisions, we need to consider the entire body of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on prostate cancer screening summarised in a systematic review. In 2006, our Cochrane review identified insufficient evidence to either support or refute the use of routine mass, selective, or opportunistic screening for prostate cancer. An update of the review in 2010 included three additional trials. Meta-analysis of the five studies included in the 2010 review concluded that screening did not significantly reduce prostate cancer-specific mortality. In the past two years, several updates to studies included in the 2010 review have been published thereby providing the rationale for this update of the 2010 systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether screening for prostate cancer reduces prostate cancer-specific mortality or all-cause mortality and to assess its impact on quality of life and adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
An updated search of electronic databases (PROSTATE register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT, and the NHS EED) was performed, in addition to handsearching of specific journals and bibliographies, in an effort to identify both published and unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All RCTs of screening versus no screening for prostate cancer were eligible for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The original search (2006) identified 99 potentially relevant articles that were selected for full-text review. From these citations, two RCTs were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. The search for the 2010 version of the review identified a further 106 potentially relevant articles, from which three new RCTs were included in the review. A total of 31 articles were retrieved for full-text examination based on the updated search in 2012. Updated data on three studies were included in this review. Data from the trials were independently extracted by two authors.
MAIN RESULTS
Five RCTs with a total of 341,342 participants were included in this review. All involved prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, with or without digital rectal examination (DRE), though the interval and threshold for further evaluation varied across trials. The age of participants ranged from 45 to 80 years and duration of follow-up from 7 to 20 years. Our meta-analysis of the five included studies indicated no statistically significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between men randomised to the screening and control groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.17). The methodological quality of three of the studies was assessed as posing a high risk of bias. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial were assessed as posing a low risk of bias, but provided contradicting results. The ERSPC study reported a significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.95), whilst the PLCO study concluded no significant benefit (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.54). The ERSPC was the only study of the five included in this review that reported a significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality, in a pre-specified subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years of age. Sensitivity analysis for overall risk of bias indicated no significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality when referring to the meta analysis of only the ERSPC and PLCO trial data (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30). Subgroup analyses indicated that prostate cancer-specific mortality was not affected by the age at which participants were screened. Meta-analysis of four studies investigating all-cause mortality did not determine any significant differences between men randomised to screening or control (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.03). A diagnosis of prostate cancer was significantly greater in men randomised to screening compared to those randomised to control (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.65). Localised prostate cancer was more commonly diagnosed in men randomised to screening (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.70), whilst the proportion of men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer was significantly lower in the screening group compared to the men serving as controls (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.87). Screening resulted in a range of harms that can be considered minor to major in severity and duration. Common minor harms from screening include bleeding, bruising and short-term anxiety. Common major harms include overdiagnosis and overtreatment, including infection, blood loss requiring transfusion, pneumonia, erectile dysfunction, and incontinence. Harms of screening included false-positive results for the PSA test and overdiagnosis (up to 50% in the ERSPC study). Adverse events associated with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies included infection, bleeding and pain. No deaths were attributed to any biopsy procedure. None of the studies provided detailed assessment of the effect of screening on quality of life or provided a comprehensive assessment of resource utilization associated with screening (although preliminary analyses were reported).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Prostate cancer screening did not significantly decrease prostate cancer-specific mortality in a combined meta-analysis of five RCTs. Only one study (ERSPC) reported a 21% significant reduction of prostate cancer-specific mortality in a pre-specified subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years. Pooled data currently demonstrates no significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific and overall mortality. Harms associated with PSA-based screening and subsequent diagnostic evaluations are frequent, and moderate in severity. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment are common and are associated with treatment-related harms. Men should be informed of this and the demonstrated adverse effects when they are deciding whether or not to undertake screening for prostate cancer. Any reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality may take up to 10 years to accrue; therefore, men who have a life expectancy less than 10 to 15 years should be informed that screening for prostate cancer is unlikely to be beneficial. No studies examined the independent role of screening by DRE.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Biopsy, Fine-Needle; Digital Rectal Examination; Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration; Humans; Male; Mass Screening; Middle Aged; Prostate; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23440794
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004720.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2012Epithelial ovarian cancer presents at an advanced stage in the majority of women. These women require surgery and chemotherapy for optimal treatment. Conventional... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Epithelial ovarian cancer presents at an advanced stage in the majority of women. These women require surgery and chemotherapy for optimal treatment. Conventional treatment is to perform surgery first and then give chemotherapy. However, it is not yet clear whether there are any advantages to using chemotherapy before surgery.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether there is an advantage to treating women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer with chemotherapy before cytoreductive surgery (neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT)) compared with conventional treatment where chemotherapy follows maximal cytoreductive surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
For the original review we searched, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3, 2006), MEDLINE (Silver Platter, from 1966 to 1 Sept 2006), EMBASE via Ovid (from 1980 to 1 Sept 2006), CANCERLIT (from 1966 to 1 Sept 2006), PDQ (search for open and closed trials) and MetaRegister (most current search Sept 2006). For this update randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3, 2011) and the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Specialised Register (2011), MEDLINE (August week 1, 2011), EMBASE (to week 31, 2011), PDQ (search for open and closed trials) and MetaRegister (August 2011).
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs of women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (Federation of International Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (FIGO) stage III/IV) who were randomly allocated to treatment groups that compared platinum-based chemotherapy before cytoreductive surgery with platinum-based chemotherapy following cytoreductive surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted by two review authors independently, and the quality of included trials was assessed by two review authors independently.
MAIN RESULTS
One high-quality RCT met the inclusion criteria. This multicentre trial randomised 718 women with stage IIIc/IV ovarian cancer to NACT followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS) or primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by chemotherapy. There were no significant differences between the study groups with regard to overall survival (OS) (670 women; HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18) or progression-free survival (PFS) (670 women; HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.17).Significant differences occurred between the NACT and PDS groups with regard to some surgically related serious adverse effects (SAE grade 3/4) including haemorrhage (12 in NACT group vs 23 in PDS group; RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.99), venous thromboembolism (none in NACT group vs eight in PDS group; RR 0.06; 95% CI 0 to 0.98) and infection (five in NACT group vs 25 in PDS group; RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.50). Quality of life (QoL) was reported to be similar for the NACT and PDS groups.Three ongoing RCTs were also identified.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We consider the use of NACT in women with stage IIIc/IV ovarian cancer to be a reasonable alternative to PDS, particularly in bulky disease. With regard to selecting who will benefit from NACT, treatment should be tailored to the patient and should take into account resectability, age, histology, stage and performance status. These results cannot be generalised to women with stage IIIa and IIIb ovarian cancer; in these women, PDS is the standard. We await the results of three ongoing trials, which may change these conclusions.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Disease-Free Survival; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Humans; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Ovarian Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 22895947
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005343.pub3