The oncologist · 2013
The role of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
СтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gibson Jean-Marie, Alzghari Saeed, Ahn Chul, Trantham Holly, La-Beck Ninh M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that carboplatin with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (C+PLD) is as efficacious as carboplatin with paclitaxel (C+P) and possibly is more tolerable for ovarian cancer therapy. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) may also be efficacious and tolerable as monotherapy in recurrent or platinum-resistant disease. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials in order to elucidate the role of PLD in ovarian cancer.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge for studies comparing C+PLD with C+P and comparing PLD with another monotherapy. Summary hazard ratios (HRs) and relative risks with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a fixed-effects model.
RESULTS: Three trials were included in the doublet regimen analysis, and five trials were included in the monotherapy regimen analysis. C+PLD provided superior progression-free survival (PFS) (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.96) and similar overall survival (OS; HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.84-1.07) compared with C+P. There was no evidence of improved tolerability: C+PLD had more gastrointestinal toxicity, anemia, thrombocytopenia, cutaneous toxicity, and mucositis/stomatitis, although there was less neutropenia, neuropathy, and alopecia. PLD monotherapy had similar PFS (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.89-1.11) and OS (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.88-1.11) to other monotherapies, but it was more tolerable. There was less neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and gastrointestinal toxicity, although cutaneous toxicity was increased.
CONCLUSION: C+PLD had better PFS and similar OS compared with C+P and had a very different toxicity profile. Therapy selection could be based on patient risks for side effects. PLD is as efficacious as other monotherapies and is more tolerable.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge for studies comparing C+PLD with C+P and comparing PLD with another monotherapy. Summary hazard ratios (HRs) and relative risks with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a fixed-effects model.
RESULTS: Three trials were included in the doublet regimen analysis, and five trials were included in the monotherapy regimen analysis. C+PLD provided superior progression-free survival (PFS) (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.96) and similar overall survival (OS; HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.84-1.07) compared with C+P. There was no evidence of improved tolerability: C+PLD had more gastrointestinal toxicity, anemia, thrombocytopenia, cutaneous toxicity, and mucositis/stomatitis, although there was less neutropenia, neuropathy, and alopecia. PLD monotherapy had similar PFS (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.89-1.11) and OS (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.88-1.11) to other monotherapies, but it was more tolerable. There was less neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and gastrointestinal toxicity, although cutaneous toxicity was increased.
CONCLUSION: C+PLD had better PFS and similar OS compared with C+P and had a very different toxicity profile. Therapy selection could be based on patient risks for side effects. PLD is as efficacious as other monotherapies and is more tolerable.