Search

Aim: The aim was to compare the efficacy and toxicity of paclitaxel plus platinum (TP) with gemcitabine plus platinum (GP) in untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer by a meta-analysis. Methods: An extensive literature search was performed for relevant randomized controlled trials. Studies were evaluated for eligibility and quality, and then the data were extracted and analyzed using Review Manager 5.1 software. Publication bias was evaluated according to Begg's funnel plot and Egger's test using Stata/SE version 10.1 software. Results: Six randomized controlled trials including 2,793 patients were ultimately identified. The meta-analysis demonstrated that the efficacy was comparable between TP and GP regimens according to the pooled relative risks (RRs) for overall response rate [0.99, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.88-1.13, p = 0.92], disease control rate (0.96, 95 % CI = 0.90-1.03, p = 0.24) and 1-year survival (0.99, 95 % CI = 0.90-1.09, p = 0.87), and the hazard ratios for overall survival (1.06; 95 % CI = 1.00-1.13, p = 0.07) and time-to-progression of disease (1.05, 95 % CI = 0.97-1.14, p = 0.20). Grade 3-4 nausea or vomiting, anemia and thrombocytopenia were less frequent in the TP group (RR = 0.53, 95 % CI = 0.35-0.78, p = 0.002; RR = 0.37, 95 % CI = 0.30-0.45, p < 0.00001; RR = 0.20, 95 % CI = 0.14-0.27, p < 0.00001; respectively). Grade 3-4 sensory neuropathy, fatigue and neutropenia were comparable between the two groups. Sensitivity analyses in studies of paclitaxel compared with gemcitabine combined with the same platinum strengthened the above conclusion. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis showed that paclitaxel plus platinum had similar efficacy and less toxicity compared with gemcitabine plus platinum in first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the efficacy, quality of life (QOL), symptom improvement and toxicities of gefitinib with docetaxel in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods. The PubMed database, the Cochrane Library and references of published trials were searched. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the trials and extracted data. The hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), relative risks (RRs) for overall response rate, QOL and symptom improvement, and odds ratios (ORs) for main toxicities were pooled using STATA package. Results. Four multicenter, randomized controlled trials involving 2257 patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC were ultimately analyzed. The pooled HRs showed no significant difference in OS and PFS between the two groups (HR == 1.02, 95% CI == 0.92--1.12, p == 0.70; HR == 0.97, 95% CI == 0.88--1.07, p == 0.57, respectively). Gefitinib significantly improved overall response rate (RR == 1.58, 95% CI == 1.02--2.45, p == 0.04) and QOL (RR == 1.55, 95% CI == 1.27--1.88, p == 0.00 by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung and RR == 1.86, 95% CI == 1.43--2.42, p == 0.00 by Trial Outcome Index, respectively). Gefitinib had fewer grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and fatigue (OR == 0.02, 95% CI == 0.01--0.03, p == 0.00; and OR == 0.47, 95% CI == 0.32--0.70, p == 0.00, respectively), but more grade 3 or 4 rash (OR == 2.87, 95% CI == 1.24--6.63, p == 0.01) than docetaxel. The grade 3 or 4 nausea, vomiting and diarrhea and symptom improvement were comparable between the two drugs. Conclusions. In conclusion, although similar OS and PFS, gefitinib showed an advantage over docetaxel in terms of objective response rate, QOL and tolerability. Therefore, gefitinib is an important and valid treatment option for previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Purpose: To compare the efficacy and toxicities of chemotherapy plus cetuximab (Erbitux, E; E-chemo) with chemotherapy alone (chemo alone) in patients with previously untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The primary endpoint was overall survival; the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, overall response rate, one-year survival and safety. Methods: The PubMed database, the Cochrane Library, conference proceedings, database of ongoing trials and references of published trials and reviews were screened. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the trials and extracted data. The hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival and progression-free survival, relative risks (RRs) for overall response rate and one-year survival, and odds ratios (ORs) for the different types of toxicity were pooled using STATA SE10.1 package. Results: Four trials involving 2018 patients with previously untreated NSCLC were ultimately analyzed. The pooled HR for overall survival (HR, 0.87; 95%CI, 0.79–0.96; p =0.004) was in favor of E-chemo, which also gave rise to a higher overall response rate (RR, 1.19; 95%CI, 1.04–1.37; p =0.013). The analysis failed to show benefit of E-chemo in progression-free survival (HR, 0.91; 95%CI, 0.83–1.00; p =0.06) and one-year survival (RR, 1.10; 95%CI, 0.98–1.26; p =0.172). E-chemo indeed caused more grade 3/4 rash and infusion reaction (OR, 43.86; 95%CI, 12.46–154.44; p =0.000; OR, 3.69; 95%CI, 1.89–7.25; p =0.000; respectively). Conclusion: Our data showed that the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy would improve overall survival and overall response rate. It may provide new option for clinical treatment for untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. The side effects of E-chemo are predictable and manageable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Although some randomized controlled trials had compared the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab plus chemotherapy (R-chemo) to chemotherapy alone for B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, the curative effects of R-chemo were still controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to examine the efficacy of using R-chemo compared with the identical chemotherapy alone in the patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Material and methods. Medical databases and conference proceedings were searched for randomized controlled trials which compared R-chemo with chemotherapy alone in patients with newly diagnosed or relapsed B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Endpoints were overall survival, overall response, disease control, and adverse events. Results. Twelve eligible trials were identified, reporting outcomes of 4 996 patients. Fixed-effects analysis showed overall survival to be superior for R-chemo-treated patients (relative risks [RR], 1.09; 95%confidence interval [CI], 1.06–1.12, p <0.00001). Superiority was also observed for the patients receiving R-chemo with respect to overall response (RR, 1.17; 95%CI, 1.10–1.25, p <0.00001), complete response (RR, 1.52; 95%CI, 1.27–1.82, p <0.00001), and disease control (RR, 1.36; 95%CI, 1.26–1.46, p <0.00001). R-chemo improved overall survival, overall response and disease control in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (RR, 1.11, 95%CI: 1.06–1.16, p <0.0001; RR, 1.09, 95%CI: 1.01–1.19, p = 0.03 and RR, 2.00, 95%CI: 1.59–2.53, p< 0.00001, respectively) and follicular lymphoma (RR, 1.08, 95%CI: 1.04–1.12, p <0.0001; RR, 1.19, 95%CI: 1.07–1.33, p =0.001 and RR, 2.58, 95%CI: 1.61–4.12, p <0.0001, respectively). Meanwhile, R-chemo improved overall response in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (RR, 1.22, 95%CI: 1.07–1.40, p =0.004). Conclusion. R-chemo is superior to chemotherapy alone in patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, especially for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: Whether platinum plus gemcitabine or vinorelbine are equally effective in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still controversial, a meta-analysis was performed to compare the gemcitabine plus platinum with vinorelbine plus platinum regimens in first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed database, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database, the Physician Data Query (PDQ) database, EMBASE and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting abstracts. The following keywords were used: “non small cell lung cancer,” or “Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung”. Reference lists of original articles and review articles were also examined. The published languages and years were not limited. The trials searched were evaluated for eligibility and quality, and then the data were abstracted and analyzed. Endpoints were overall survival, overall response, and toxicity. Statistical tests for heterogeneity were one-sided; statistical tests for effect estimates were two-sided. Results: Nine randomized controlled trials involving 2186 patients were identified from 453 reports. They were all published as full-text articles. The intention-to-treatment (ITT) analysis demonstrated that the patients with gemcitabine plus platinum regimens had an equal overall response rate in comparison with vinorelbine plus platinum regimens (RR, 0.91; 95%CI, 0.81–1.03; P =0.15). Furthermore, the 1-year survival rate for the two platinum-based regimens were comparable (RR, 1.06; 95%CI, 0.96–1.18; P =0.27). Subgroup analysis comparing the cisplatin plus gemcitabine or vinorelbine had achieved the same results. Vinorelbine plus platinum regimens led to more frequent grade 3 or 4 of neutropenia, nephrotoxicity, constipation and phlebitis (OR, 0.37; 95%CI, 0.26–0.52; P <0.00001; OR, 0.38; 95%CI, 0.25–0.57; P <0.00001; OR, 0.50; 95%CI, 0.27–0.92; P =0.03 and OR, 0.13; 95%CI, 0.05–0.32; P <0.00001, respectively), while gemcitabine plus platinum chemotherapy inclined to developing more grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia (OR, 11.37; 95%CI, 4.56–28.38; P <0.00001). The incidence of grade 3 or 4 anemia, nausea and vomiting were almost comparable between the two arms (OR, 1.12; 95%CI, 0.62–2.02; P =0.71 and OR, 0.72; 95%CI, 0.41–1.28; P =0.27, respectively). Similar results were also achieved in subgroup analyses between the gemcitabine and vinorelbine in combination with the cisplatin. Conclusion: It could be concluded that the efficacy were similar between the platinum plus gemcitabine or vinorelbine regimens. The choice of platinum plus gemcitabine or vinorelbine depends on the toxicity of the drugs and patients’ tolerance. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Summary: Objective: Since the debate still exists whether cisplatin-based and carboplatin-based chemotherapy are equally effective for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a meta-analysis of trials was performed to compare the cisplatin-based with carboplatin-based regimens in first line chemotherapy of advanced NSCLC. Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed database, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database, the Physician Data Query (PDQ) database and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting abstracts in January 2007. The following keywords were used: “non small cell lung cancer,” or “Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung”. Reference lists of original articles and review articles were also examined. The published languages and years were not limited. The trials searched were evaluated for eligibility and quality, and then the data were abstracted and analyzed. Results: Eighteen randomized controlled trials (6906 patients) were identified from 4240 reports. The intention to treatment (ITT) analysis demonstrated that the cisplatin-based regimens had a higher overall response rate in comparison with carboplatin-based regimens (RR, 0.91; 95%CI, 0.84–0.99; P =0.02). However, the 1-year survival rate for the two platinum-based regimens were comparable (RR, 1.00, 95%CI, 0.94–1.07; P =0.93), Both subgroup analysis comparing the doublet or triplet regimens of cisplatin or carboplatin in combination with new agents and the same agents had achieved the same results. Cisplatin-based chemotherapy led to more frequent grade 3 or 4 of nausea and vomiting, and nephrotoxicity (OR, 0.39; 95%CI, 0.30–0.52; P <0.00001 and OR, 0.31; 95%CI, 0.17–0.56; P =0.0001), while carboplatin-based chemotherapy inclined to developing more grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia, however, there were no statistical significance (OR, 1.63; 95%CI, 0.94–2.82; P =0.08). The risk of grade 3 or 4 anemia, neutropenia and neurotoxicity was almost comparable between the two arms (OR, 0.78; 95%CI, 0.59–1.02; P =0.07; OR, 1.08; 95%CI, 0.80–1.45; P =0.61 and OR, 1.59; 95%CI, 0.81–3.14; P =0.18, respectively). The subgroup analyses of the comparison between the doublet or triplet regimens of cisplatin and carboplatin in combination with the same agents, respectively, also achieved similar results, with the exception of thrombocytopenia between the two groups (OR, 1.94; 95%CI, 1.47–2.68; P <0.00001), which showed statistically significant. Cisplatin arm inclined to causing more treatment-related deaths compared as carboplatin arm, but there was no statistical significance (OR, 0.70; 95%CI, 0.48–1.02; P =0.06). Conclusion: Given cisplatin-based regimens had a higher overall response rate as compared with carboplatin-based regimens, there was not a survival advantage in the cisplatin group. Therefore, the toxicity profile might play an important role in decision to choose cisplatin-based or carboplatin-based regimens. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]