-
Heliyon Nov 2023The efficacy and safety of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have yielded inconsistent findings.
Efficacy and safety of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials and observational studies.
BACKGROUND
The efficacy and safety of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have yielded inconsistent findings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, including comparative and noncomparative trials and cohort studies, to assess the efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel in advanced NSCLC. The search covered PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov until October 2022. Efficacy outcomes (OR, PR, progressive disease, OS, and PFS) and safety outcomes (neutropenia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, and sensory neuropathy) were analyzed.
RESULTS
Our meta-analysis included data from 35 studies (9 RCTs, 2 cohort studies, and 24 noncomparative studies). Nab-paclitaxel significantly improved OR rate (RR 1.35 [95% CI 1.19, 1.53], I = 36.6%; RR 1.67 [95% CI 1.30, 2.14], I = 4.3%) and PR rate (RR 1.34 [95% CI 1.18, 1.53], I = 38.8%; RR 1.59 [95% CI 1.22, 2.07], I = 19.4%) compared to the control group. It further demonstrated more pronounced benefits in squamous cell carcinoma and as a second-line treatment. Pooled evidence from the RCTs also indicated improved OS (HR 0.90 [95% CI 0.81, 0.99], I = 9.2%) and PFS (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.76, 0.93], I = 14.5%) However, evidence on the reduction of adverse events with nab-paclitaxel treatment was insufficient, and biases in study selection and detection may have influenced the results.
CONCLUSIONS
Nab-paclitaxel enhances OR, PR, PFS, and marginally improves OS in advanced NSCLC, particularly in patients with prior chemotherapy. Further research is needed to establish its safety advantages.
PubMed: 38027982
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21903 -
Medicine Dec 2022This paper aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of pembrolizumab and paclitaxel as a second line for patients with locally advanced gastroesophageal cancer. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This paper aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of pembrolizumab and paclitaxel as a second line for patients with locally advanced gastroesophageal cancer.
METHODS
By searching PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Ovid, any randomized clinical study comparing the effectiveness of paclitaxel and pembrolizumab as second-line therapy for advanced gastroesophageal cancer met the inclusion criteria. Only 3 of the 23 eligible studies that were fully reviewed were eligible for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
The total number of patients included in the meta-analysis was 635 in the pembrolizumab group and 596 in the paclitaxel group. In terms of objective response rate, there was no statistically significant difference between pembrolizumab and paclitaxel (relative risk = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.80-1.50, P = .57). Furthermore, Pembrolizumab and paclitaxel did not differ in terms of the rate of partial response statistically significantly from one another, according to the overall analysis (relative risk = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.57-1.52, P-value = .78).
CONCLUSION
There is no difference between pembrolizumab and paclitaxel in objective response rate. The objective response rate shows that doctors may consider either treatment for patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, given the time to response is comparable across therapies.
Topics: Humans; Paclitaxel; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Neoplasms
PubMed: 36482610
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000031940 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology Apr 2023Chemotherapy plays an important role in definitive chemoradiotherapy strategies. However, the most optimal concurrent chemotherapy scheme is still controversial. This...
Paclitaxel combined with platinum (PTX) versus fluorouracil combined with cisplatin (PF) in the treatment of unresectable esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and toxicity of two different regimens.
BACKGROUND
Chemotherapy plays an important role in definitive chemoradiotherapy strategies. However, the most optimal concurrent chemotherapy scheme is still controversial. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of paclitaxel/docetaxel combined with platinum (PTX) and fluorouracil combined with cisplatin (PF) in the concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) of unresectable esophageal cancer.
METHODS
The PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Google Scholar and Embase databases were searched by combining subject words and free words through December 31, 2021. The inclusion criteria were pathologically confirmed esophageal cancer studies using CCRT, where the chemotherapy regimen only compared PTX and PF. Quality evaluation and data extraction of studies that met the inclusion criteria were carried out independently. Stata 11.1 software was used to perform the meta-analysis. The begger analysis and egger analysis were used to assess publication bias, and the robustness of the pooled results further assessed by the Trim and Fill analysis.
RESULTS
After screening, 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. A total of 962 cases were enrolled, including 480 (49.9%) in the PTX group and 482 (50.1%) in the PF group. The gastrointestinal reaction to the PF regimen was the most serious [relative risk (RR) =0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36-0.80, P=0.003]. The complete remission (CR) rate, objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR) of the PTX group were higher than those of the PF group (RR =1.35, 95% CI: 1.03-1.76, P=0.030; RR =1.12, 95% CI: 1.03-1.22, P=0.006; RR =1.05, 95% CI: 1.01-1.09, P=0.022). In terms of the overall survival (OS) rate, the 2-year survival rates of the PTX group were higher than those of the PF group (P=0.005). There was no significant difference in the 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates between the two regimens (P=0.064, 0.144, and 0.341, respectively). There may be publication bias for ORR and DCR, and the results are reversed after applying the Trim and Fill method, so the combined results are not robust.
CONCLUSIONS
PTX may be the preferred regimen for CCRT of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, with better short-term therapeutic effect and 2-year OS rate and lower gastrointestinal toxicity.
PubMed: 37201087
DOI: 10.21037/jgo-23-33 -
Health Technology Assessment... Mar 2006To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intravenous formulations of topotecan monotherapy, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydorocholoride (PLDH)... (Review)
Review
Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride and paclitaxel for second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intravenous formulations of topotecan monotherapy, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydorocholoride (PLDH) monotherapy and paclitaxel used alone or in combination with a platinum-based compound for the second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases covering publication years 2000-4. Company submissions.
REVIEW METHODS
Seventeen databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews for the clinical effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel and economic evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel. Selected studies were quality assessed and data extracted, as were the three company submissions. A new model was developed to assess the costs of the alternative treatments, the differential mean survival duration and the impact of health-related quality of life. Monte-Carlo simulation was used to reflect uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs were identified. In five of these trials, both the comparators were used within their licensed indications. Of these five, three included participants with both platinum-resistant and platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer, and a further two only included participants with platinum-sensitive disease. The comparators that were assessed in the three trials that included both subtypes of participants were PLDH versus topotecan, topotecan versus paclitaxel and PLDH versus paclitaxel. In the further two trials that included participants with the subtype of platinum-sensitive disease, the comparators that were assessed were single-agent paclitaxel versus a combination of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and cisplatin (CAP) and paclitaxel plus platinum-based chemotherapy versus conventional platinum-based therapy alone. A further four trials were identified and included in the review in which one of the comparators in the trial was used outside its licensed indication. The comparators assessed in these trials were oxaliplatin versus paclitaxel, paclitaxel given weekly versus every 3 weeks, paclitaxel at two different dose levels and oral versus intravenous topotecan. Four studies met the inclusion criteria for the cost-effectiveness review. The review of the economic evidence from the literature and industry submissions identified a number of significant limitations in existing studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel. Analysis 1 assessed the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel administered as monotherapies. Sensitivity analysis was undertaken to explore the impact of patient heterogeneity (e.g. platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant/refractory patients), the inclusion of additional trial data and alternative assumptions regarding treatment and monitoring costs. In the base-case results for Analysis 1, paclitaxel monotherapy emerged as the cheapest treatment. When the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated, topotecan was dominated by PLDH. Hence the options considered in the estimation of the ICERs were paclitaxel and PLDH. The ICER for PLDH compared with paclitaxel was pound 7033 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in the overall patient population (comprising platinum-sensitive, -refractory and -resistant patients). The ICER was more favourable in the platinum-sensitive group ( pound 5777 per QALY) and less favourable in the platinum-refractory/resistant group ( pound 9555 per QALY). The cost-effectiveness results for the base-case analysis were sensitive to the inclusion of additional trial data. Incorporating the results of the additional trial data resulted in less favourable estimates for the ICER for PLDH versus paclitaxel compared with the base-case results. The ICER of PLDH compared with paclitaxel was pound 20,620 per QALY in the overall patient population, pound 16,183 per QALY in the platinum-sensitive population and pound 26,867 per QALY in the platinum-resistant and -refractory population. The results from Analysis 2 explored the cost-effectiveness of the full range of treatment comparators for platinum-sensitive patients. The treatment options considered in this model comprised PLDH, topotecan, paclitaxel-monotherapy, CAP, paclitaxel/platinum combination therapy and platinum monotherapy. Owing to the less robust approaches that were employed to synthesise the available evidence and the heterogeneity between the different trials, the reliability of these results should be interpreted with some caution. Topotecan, paclitaxel monotherapy and PLDH were all dominated by platinum monotherapy (i.e. higher costs and lower QALYs). After excluding these alternatives, the treatments that remained under consideration were platinum monotherapy, CAP and paclitaxel-platinum combination therapy. Of these three alternatives, platinum monotherapy was the least costly and least effective. The ICER for CAP compared with platinum monotherapy was pound 16,421 per QALY. The ICER for paclitaxel-platinum combination therapy compared with CAP was pound 20,950 per QALY.
CONCLUSIONS
For participants with platinum-resistant disease there was a low probability of response to treatment with PLDH, topotecan or paclitaxel. Furthermore, there was little difference between the three comparators in relation to overall survival. The comparators did, however, differ considerably in their toxicity profiles. Given the low survival times and response rates, it appears that the maintenance of quality of life and the control of symptoms and toxicity are paramount in this patient group. As the three comparators differed significantly in terms of their toxicity profiles, patient and physician choice is also an important element that should be addressed when decisions are made regarding second-line therapy. It can also be suggested that this group of patients may benefit from being included in further clinical trials of new drugs. For participants with platinum-sensitive disease there was a considerable range of median survival times observed across the trials. The most favourable survival times and response rates were observed for paclitaxel and platinum combination therapy. This suggests that treatment with combination therapy may be more beneficial than treatment with a single-agent chemotherapeutic regimen. In terms of single-agent compounds, the evidence suggests that PLDH is more effective than topotecan. Evidence from a further trial that compared PLDH and paclitaxel suggests that there is no significant difference between these two comparators in this trial. The three comparators did, however, differ significantly in terms of their toxicity profiles across the trials. Although treatment with PLDH may therefore be more beneficial than that with topotecan, patient and physician choice as to the potential toxicities associated with each of the comparators and the patient's ability and willingness to tolerate these are of importance. Assuming the NHS is willing to pay up to pound 20,000-40,000 per additional QALY, PLDH appears to be cost-effective compared with topotecan and paclitaxel monotherapy, in terms of the overall patient population and the main subgroups considered. The cost-effectiveness results for the base-case analysis were sensitive to the inclusion of additional trial data. Incorporating the results of additional trial data gave less favourable estimates for the ICER for PLDH versus paclitaxel monotherapy, compared with the base-case results. Although the ICER of PLDH compared with paclitaxel monotherapy was less favourable, PLDH was still cost-effective compared with topotecan and paclitaxel monotherapy. For platinum-sensitive patients, the combination of paclitaxel and platinum appears to be cost-effective. On the strength of the evidence reviewed here, it can be suggested that participants with platinum-resistant disease may benefit from being included in further clinical trials of new drugs. To assess the effectiveness of combination therapy against a single-agent non-platinum-based compound, it can be suggested that a trial that compared paclitaxel in combination with a platinum-based therapy versus single-agent PLDH would be a reasonable option.
Topics: Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Antineoplastic Agents; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Doxorubicin; Female; Humans; Liposomes; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Analysis; Topotecan
PubMed: 16545208
DOI: 10.3310/hta10090 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2008Chemotherapeutic agents such as topotecan can be used to treat ovarian cancer. The effects of using topotecan as a therapeutic agent have not been previously been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chemotherapeutic agents such as topotecan can be used to treat ovarian cancer. The effects of using topotecan as a therapeutic agent have not been previously been systematically reviewed.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of topotecan for the treatment of ovarian cancer.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (Issue 4, 2006); Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Review Group (CGCRG) Specialised Register (Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2006); MEDLINE (January 1990 to 27 July 2006); EMBASE (January 1990 to 27 July 2006); The European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) database (to 1 August 2006); CBM (Chinese Biomedical Database) (January 1990 to 27 July 2006).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which randomized patients with ovarian cancer to single or combined use of topotecan versus interventions without topotecan, or different remedies of topotecan.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted and analysed data.
MAIN RESULTS
Six studies including 1323 participants were eligible for this review (Gordon 2004a; Gore 2001a; Gore 2002; Hoskins 1998; Huinink 2004; Placido 2004) All studies, as reported, were identified as being of poor methodological quality. Topotecan had comparable effectiveness to prolong progression-free survival (PFS) compared with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), (16.1 weeks versus 17.0 weeks; p = 0.095). Overall survival (OS) time was similar in participants using PLD compared with topotecan (56.7 weeks versus 60 weeks; p = 0.341). Topotecan was more hematologically toxic compared with paclitaxel or PLD, relative risks (RRs) of hematological events: ranged from 1.03 to 14.46 and 1.73 to 27.12 respectively. A 21-day cycle of topotecan was more toxic than a 42-day cycle (RRs of hematological and non-hematological events ranged from 1.03 to 8). Intravenous and oral topotecan had comparable toxicity. Topotecan delayed progression more effectively compared with paclitaxel (23.1 weeks versus 14 weeks, p = 0.0021). Participants were more likely to respond to topotecan on a 21-day cycle as opposed to a 42-day cycle (RR 7.23, 95% CI 0.94 to 55.36). Small tumor diameter, sensitivity to platinum-based chemotherapy was associated with better prognosis. Small sample size, methodological flaws and poor reporting of the included trials made measurement bias of the trials difficult to assess.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Topotecan appears to have a similar level of effectiveness as paclitaxel and PLD, though with different patterns of side effects. Larger, well-designed RCTs are required in order to define an optimal regime.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Doxorubicin; Female; Humans; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Topotecan
PubMed: 18425923
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005589.pub2 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023Male testicular dysfunction is a considerable complication of anti-cancer therapies, including chemotherapy and radiotherapy, partly due to the increased oxidative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Protective effects of exogenous melatonin therapy against oxidative stress to male reproductive tissue caused by anti-cancer chemical and radiation therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies.
BACKGROUND
Male testicular dysfunction is a considerable complication of anti-cancer therapies, including chemotherapy and radiotherapy, partly due to the increased oxidative stress caused by these treatments. Melatonin is an effective antioxidant agent that protects testicles against physical and toxic chemical stressors in animal models. This study aims to systematically review the melatonin's protective effects against anti-cancer stressors on rodential testicular tissue.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
An extensive search was conducted in Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed for animal studies investigating exogenous melatonin's protective effects on rodent testicles exposed to anti-cancer chemicals and radiotherapeutic agents. Using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effect model, standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated from the pooled data. The protocol was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42022355293).
RESULTS
The meta-analysis included 38 studies from 43 studies that were eligible for the review. Rats and mice were exposed to radiotherapy (ionizing radiations such as gamma- and roentgen radiation and radioactive iodine) or chemotherapy (methotrexate, paclitaxel, busulfan, cisplatin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, bleomycin, cyclophosphamide, etoposide, Taxol, procarbazine, docetaxel, and chlorambucil). According to our meta-analysis, all outcomes were significantly improved by melatonin therapy, including sperm quantity and quality (count, motility, viability, normal morphology, number of spermatogonia, Johnsen's testicular biopsy score, seminiferous tubular diameter, and seminiferous epithelial height), serum level of reproductive hormones (Follicle-Stimulating Hormone and testosterone), tissue markers of oxidative stress (testicular tissue malondialdehyde, superoxide dismutase, glutathione peroxidase, catalase, glutathione, caspase-3, and total antioxidant capacity), and weight-related characteristics (absolute body, epididymis, testis, and relative testis to body weights). Most SYRCLE domains exhibited a high risk of bias in the included studies. Also, significant heterogeneity and small-study effects were detected.
CONCLUSION
In male rodents, melatonin therapy was related to improved testicular histopathology, reproductive hormones, testis and body weights, and reduced levels of oxidative markers in testicular tissues of male rodents. Future meticulous studies are recommended to provide a robust scientific backbone for human applications.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022355293, identifier CRD42022355293.
Topics: Humans; Male; Animals; Rats; Mice; Melatonin; Antioxidants; Iodine Radioisotopes; Semen; Thyroid Neoplasms; Oxidative Stress; Body Weight
PubMed: 37701901
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1184745 -
Health Technology Assessment... 2000SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, PACLITAXEL (MEDIAN PROGRESSION-FREE SURVIVAL): The median progression-free survival in the paclitaxel arm was 3.5 months. This was significantly... (Review)
Review
SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, PACLITAXEL (MEDIAN PROGRESSION-FREE SURVIVAL): The median progression-free survival in the paclitaxel arm was 3.5 months. This was significantly longer than the mitomycin control arm (1.6 months, p = 0.026). BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, PACLITAXEL (MEDIAN OVERALL SURVIVAL): The median length of overall survival in the paclitaxel arm was 12.7 months, compared with 8.4 months in the mitomycin arm. BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, PACLITAXEL (QUALITY OF LIFE): Quality of life was not reported. BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, PACLITAXEL (ECONOMIC EVALUATION): The only economic evaluation that compared paclitaxel with control (mitomycin) was submitted in confidence and has been removed from this report. Six economic evaluations involved comparisons of paclitaxel and docetaxel, which are given below. BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, DOCETAXEL: Four randomised controlled Phase III trials were identified: 303 Study, 304 Study, Scand and Bonneterre. A total of 1092 patients were included. One of these was a preliminary report of a study before completion of accrual (Bonneterre). Patients in the 303 Study had previously received chemotherapy involving alkylating agents; those in the other three had received anthracyclines. There were six economic evaluations on docetaxel. BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, DOCETAXEL (QUALITY OF TRIALS): The 303 and 304 Studies were analysed on an intention to treat basis; the Scand trial excluded a single patient. The length of follow-up ranged from 11 months (Scand) to 23 months (303 Study). At least two-thirds of the participants in these trials had died. The Scand study recommended cross-over to alternate treatment on objective signs of disease progression. Patients crossing over in this way were violating the randomisation; however, no details were given concerning whether or not such patients were censored. In the economic analyses, there were no direct comparisons for the estimation of benefits. BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, DOCETAXEL (MEDIAN PROGRESSION-FREE SURVIVAL): The median progression-free survival in the docetaxel arm ranged from 4.75 months (304 Study) to 7 months (Bonneterre). Patients in the docetaxel arms of the 304 and Scand studies had significantly longer progression-free survivals than controls (4.75 months versus 2.75 months, p = 0.001; 6.3 months versus 3 months, p = 0.001). BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, DOCETAXEL (MEDIAN OVERALL SURVIVAL): The median overall survival in the docetaxel arm ranged from 10.4 months (Scand) to 15 months (303 Study). Patients in the docetaxel arms of the 304 Study survived for significantly longer than the mitomycin plus vinblastine arm (11.4 months versus 8.7 months, p = 0.03). BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, DOCETAXEL (QUALITY OF LIFE): Quality of life was evaluated in two of the trials: the 303 and 304 Studies. There were no significant differences between docetaxel and control in either of these trials in terms of global health status, although differences were apparent on some subscales. These did not appear to follow a consistent pattern across the trials. BREAST CANCER - SECOND-LINE TREATMENT, DOCETAXEL (ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS): All six of these involved comparisons of paclitaxel and docetaxel, where the range of cost-utility ratios for incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was pound 1990-pound 2431. In addition, three analyses compared docetaxel and vinorelbine. The cost-utility ratio for incremental QALYs gained was pound 14,050 in the only one of these carried out in the UK. OVARIAN CANCER - FIRST-LINE TREATMENT, PACLITAXEL: Four randomised controlled Phase III trials were identified: EORTC, TITGANZ, E1193 and CA139-278. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Phytogenic; Breast Neoplasms; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Disease-Free Survival; Docetaxel; Female; Humans; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Quality of Life; Survival Analysis; Taxoids
PubMed: 11074389
DOI: No ID Found -
European Journal of Vascular and... Jan 2022There have been concerns about the long term safety of paclitaxel coated devices in the lower limbs. A formal systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Editor's Choice - Risk of Major Amputation Following Application of Paclitaxel Coated Balloons in the Lower Limb Arteries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.
OBJECTIVE
There have been concerns about the long term safety of paclitaxel coated devices in the lower limbs. A formal systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to examine the long term risk of major amputation using paclitaxel coated balloons in peripheral arterial disease (PAD).
METHOD
This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (ID 227761). A broad bibliographic search was performed for RCTs investigating paclitaxel coated balloons in the peripheral arteries (femoropopliteal and infrapopliteal) for treatment of intermittent claudication or critical limb ischaemia (CLI). The literature search was last updated on 20 February 2021 without any restrictions on publication language, date, or status. Major amputations were analysed with time to event methods employing one and two stage models. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses, combinatorial meta-analysis, and a multivariable dose response meta-analysis to examine presence of a biological gradient were also performed.
RESULTS
In all, 21 RCTs with 3 760 lower limbs were analysed (52% intermittent claudication and 48% CLI; median follow up two years). There were 87 major amputations of 2 216 limbs in the paclitaxel arms (4.0% crude risk) compared with 41 major amputations in 1 544 limbs in the control arms (2.7% crude risk). The risk of major amputation was significantly higher for paclitaxel coated balloons with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.66 (95% CI 1.14 - 2.42; p = .008, one stage stratified Cox model). The prediction interval was 95% CI 1.10 - 2.46 (two stage model). The observed amputation risk was consistent for both femoropopliteal (p = .055) and infrapopliteal (p = .055) vessels. Number needed to harm was 35 for CLI. There was good evidence of a significant non-linear dose response relationship with accelerated risk per cumulative paclitaxel dose (chi square model p = .007). There was no evidence of publication bias (p = .80) and no significant statistical heterogeneity between studies (I = 0%, p = .77). Results were stable across sensitivity analyses (different models and subgroups based on anatomy and clinical indication and excluding unpublished trials). There were no influential single trials. Level of certainty in evidence was downrated from high to moderate because of sparse events in some studies.
CONCLUSION
There appears to be heightened risk of major amputation after use of paclitaxel coated balloons in the peripheral arteries. Further investigations are warranted urgently.
Topics: Humans; Amputation, Surgical; Angioplasty, Balloon; Femoral Artery; Lower Extremity; Paclitaxel; Peripheral Arterial Disease; Popliteal Artery; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34326002
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2021.05.027 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2011Uterine carcinosarcomas are uncommon with about 35% not confined to the uterus at diagnosis. The survival of patients with advanced uterine carcinosarcoma is poor with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Uterine carcinosarcomas are uncommon with about 35% not confined to the uterus at diagnosis. The survival of patients with advanced uterine carcinosarcoma is poor with pattern of failure indicating greater likelihood of upper abdominal and distant metastatic recurrence.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of radiotherapy and/or systemic chemotherapy in the management of stage III-IV persistent or recurrent uterine carcinosarcoma.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2, MEDLINE and EMBASE to May 2010. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing adjuvant radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy in women with uterine carcinosarcoma.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. We pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for overall and progression-free survival and risk ratios (RRs) comparing adverse events in women who received radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy in meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
Three trials (579 women, of whom all were assessed at the end of the trials) met the inclusion criteria. Two trials (373 women with stage III-IV persistent or recurrent disease) found that women who received combination therapy had a significantly lower risk of death and disease progression than women who received single agent ifosfamide. There was no statistically significant difference in all reported adverse events, with the exception of nausea and vomiting, which affected significantly more women in the combination therapy group than in the ifosamide group.One trial found no statistically significant difference in the risk of death and disease progression in women who received whole abdominal irradiation and chemotherapy, after adjustment for age and FIGO stage (HR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.05 and HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.18 for overall survival and progression-free survival respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in all reported adverse events, with the exception of haematological and neuropathy morbidities, which affected significantly fewer women in the whole body irradiation group than in the chemotherapy group (RR = 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.16).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The results of this review are limited to two trials. In the primary treatment/ first line therapy of advanced stage metastatic uterine carcinosarcoma, as well as in recurrent disease, adjuvant combination chemotherapy with ifosfamide and paclitaxel should be considered. None of the included studies reported on quality of life.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Alkylating; Carcinosarcoma; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Female; Humans; Ifosfamide; Radiotherapy, Adjuvant; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Uterine Neoplasms
PubMed: 21249682
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006812.pub2 -
European Journal of Vascular and... Oct 2021A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to determine the effectiveness and safety of drug coated balloon (DCB)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Editor's Choice - Paclitaxel Coated Balloon Angioplasty vs. Plain Balloon Angioplasty for Haemodialysis Arteriovenous Access Stenosis: A Systematic Review and a Time to Event Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.
OBJECTIVE
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to determine the effectiveness and safety of drug coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty compared with uncoated plain balloon (PB) angioplasty in treating arteriovenous access stenosis.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for RCTs comparing paclitaxel coated DCB and PB angioplasty for arteriovenous access stenosis. The last date of the literature search was 31 December 2020. Risk of bias of the retrieved studies was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias (RoB 2.0). The random effects model was used to estimate the risk of loss of target lesion patency (six and 12 months) and circuit patency (six and 12 months). Procedure related adverse events and mortality rate were also compared. Patency results were pooled using the time to event meta-analytical method and the quality of evidence was assessed according to the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
Sixteen eligible trials, including 1 682 lesions, were included in the quantitative analysis for the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel coated DCBs. DCBs were associated with a lower risk of loss of target lesion patency at six months (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.42 - 0.66) and 12 months (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.47 - 0.76), and were also associated with improved six and 12 month circuit patency. Overall quality of evidence was moderate to low. Procedural complications were rare, and the risk of death up to 12 months was similar between the two groups (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.68 - 1.56).
CONCLUSION
Paclitaxel coated DCBs reduced the risk of loss of target lesion patency and circuit patency in arteriovenous access stenosis compared with PBs. Considering the heterogeneity of the included trials, there is a need to investigate optimal treatment regimens regarding drug dose and agent of the DCB and the treatment procedure.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Angioplasty, Balloon; Arteriovenous Shunt, Surgical; Cardiovascular Agents; Coated Materials, Biocompatible; Female; Graft Occlusion, Vascular; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Paclitaxel; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Dialysis; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Vascular Access Devices; Vascular Patency
PubMed: 34420890
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2021.05.043