Comparison of Platinum/S-1 and Platinum/5-Fluorouracil as First-Line Chemotherapy for Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: A Meta-Analysis Based on Randomized Controlled Trials

Chemotherapy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 11-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dongyi Luo ◽  
Li Wang ◽  
Xinling Chen ◽  
Yiting Xiong ◽  
Fengming Yi ◽  
...  

Background: Platinum/S-1 (PS) and platinum/5-fluorouracil (PF) as first-line chemotherapies are extensively used for the treatment of advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer (AGC); however, there is no definite consensus on which regimen is best. In our meta-analysis, we compared PS with PF in terms of their efficacy and safety in AGC patients. Methods: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and CNKI were systematically searched for pertinent literature. We analyzed overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse effects (AEs) as major end points. Results: A total of 3,225 studies were identified, among which 6 randomized controlled trials, including 1,736 participants, were ultimately included in our analysis. Our results showed that PS and PF were comparable in terms of OS (p = 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.84–1.06), PFS (p = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.87–1.09), ORR (p = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.91–1.28), DCR (p = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.86–1.43), total AEs (p = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.98–1.01), and grade ≥3 AEs (p = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.82–1.41). However, those who received PF had a shorter time to failure (TTF) (p = 0.01, 95% CI: 0.77–0.97), and a significantly higher rate and more severe cases of stomatitis, nausea, and hypokalemia were reported in the PF group. Conclusions: PF and PS show similar antitumor efficacy (OS, PFS, ORR, and DCR), but patients receiving PS exhibit longer TTF and fewer AEs (stomatitis, nausea, and hypokalemia) than those receiving PF.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guixiang Liao ◽  
Zhihong Zhao ◽  
Tao Zheng ◽  
Muhammad Khan ◽  
Maosheng Yan ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Clinical studies have suggested that PD-1 inhibitor is useful in the management of advanced Esophageal Cancer. However, the efficacy and safety of Anti-PD-1 inhibitor for the treatment of advanced Esophageal Cancer is inconclusive. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis aiming to comprehensively explore the effectiveness and safety of the therapeutic effects of PD-1 inhibitors on patients with advanced esophageal cancer. Methods & Materials: The PubMed (since its inception), Cochrane library (since its inception), EMBASE (since its inception),and ClinicalTrials.gov (since its inception) were searched till 1st December 2020 for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness and safety of PD-1 inhibitors for patients with esophageal cancer. Two investigators independently performed study selection, data extraction and assessment of the methodological quality. RevMan 5.3 was applied statistical analysis. Results Three RCTs were included for this meta-analysis ,with a total of 1477 patients. Compared with chemotherapy, PD-1 inhibitors had superior objective response rates(Odds ratio(OR) = 14.96, 95% confidence interval (CI):0.47,476.97; P = 0.13). PD-1 inhibitors group had better overall survival compared to chemotherapy group(Hazard ratio(HR):0.80,95% CI:0.70,0.91,P = 0.0007) .The progression-free survival (HR:0.94,95% CI:0.71,1.26,P = 0.69) were similar between the two groups. The grade 3 or more adverse events rate were lower in the PD-1 inhibitors group as compared to those of chemotherapy group(OR:0.25,95% CI:0.13,0.46,P < 0.0001). Conclusions Our study indicated that PD-1 inhibitors are efficacious and safe for the management of EC refractory or intolerant to previous chemotherapy.


Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. 2984
Author(s):  
Stepan M. Esagian ◽  
Christos D. Kakos ◽  
Emmanouil Giorgakis ◽  
Lyle Burdine ◽  
J. Camilo Barreto ◽  
...  

The role of adjuvant transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing hepatectomy is currently unclear. We performed a systematic review of the literature using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Random-effects meta-analysis was carried out to compare the overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of patients with resectable HCC undergoing hepatectomy followed by adjuvant TACE vs. hepatectomy alone in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Meta-regression analyses were performed to explore the effect of hepatitis B viral status, microvascular invasion, type of resection (anatomic vs. parenchymal-sparing), and tumor size on the outcomes. Ten eligible RCTs, reporting on 1216 patients in total, were identified. The combination of hepatectomy and adjuvant TACE was associated with superior OS (hazard ratio (HR): 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52 to 0.85; p < 0.001) and RFS (HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.88; p < 0.001) compared to hepatectomy alone. There were significant concerns regarding the risk of bias in most of the included studies. Overall, adjuvant TACE may be associated with an oncologic benefit in select HCC patients. However, the applicability of these findings may be limited to Eastern Asian populations, due to the geographically restricted sample. High-quality multinational RCTs, as well as predictive tools to optimize patient selection, are necessary before adjuvant TACE can be routinely implemented into standard practice. PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42021245758.


Author(s):  
Rahele Tavakoly ◽  
Amir Hadi ◽  
Nahid Rafie ◽  
Behrouz Talaei ◽  
Wolfgang Marx ◽  
...  

AbstractThe possible effect of probiotic interventions on immunological markers in athletes is inconclusive. Therefore, to synthesize and quantitatively analyze the existing evidence on this topic, systematic literature searches of online databases PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Sciences was carried out up to February 2021 to find all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning the immunological effects of probiotics in athletes. In the random-effects model, weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) explained the net effect. The authors assessed the likelihood of publication bias via Egger’s and Begg’s statistics. A total of 13 RCTs (836 participants) were retrieved. Probiotic consumption reduced lymphocyte T cytotoxic count significantly (WMD=−0.08 cells×109/L; 95% CI: −0.15 to −0.01; p=0.022) with evidence of moderate heterogeneity (I 2=59.1%, p=0.044) and monocyte count when intervention duration was ≤ 4 weeks (WMD=−0.08 cells×109/L; 95% CI: −0.16 to −0.001; I 2=0.0%). Furthermore, leukocyte count was significantly elevated (WMD=0.48 cells×109/L; 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.93; I 2=0.0%) when multi-strain probiotics were used. Probiotic supplements may improve immunological markers, including lymphocyte T cytotoxic, monocyte, and leukocyte in athletes. Further randomized controlled trials using diverse strains of probiotics and consistent outcome measures are necessary to allow for evidence-based recommendations.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-298
Author(s):  
Yinyin Guo ◽  
Yanxin Luo ◽  
Hui Zhao ◽  
Liangliang Bai ◽  
Juan Li ◽  
...  

Background. A substantial proportion of patients undergoing colorectal surgery receive a temporary stoma, and the timing for stoma closure remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of early stoma closure (ESC) compared with routine stoma closure (RSC) after colorectal surgery. Methods. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that compared ESC and RSC after colorectal surgery. Results. A total of 7 randomized controlled trials with 814 enrolled patients were identified for this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the ESC and RSC groups regarding the complications of stoma closure (26.8% and 16.6%, respectively; odds ratio [OR]: 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-1.90; P = .17). A subgroup analysis was conducted by Clavien-Dindo grade of complication, and no significant difference was observed in any subgroup ( P > .05). However, the ESC group had a significantly higher risk of wound complications than the RSC group (17.6% and 7.8%, respectively; OR: 2.61; 95% CI: 1.43-4.76; P = .002), and the RSC group had more cases of small bowel obstruction than the ESC group (3.1% and 8.4%, respectively; OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.15-0.87; P = .02). Conclusions. ESC is a safe and effective therapeutic approach in patients who have undergone colorectal surgery; it is associated with a reduced risk of bowel obstruction but a higher risk of wound complications.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seshadri Reddy Varikasuvu ◽  
Balachandar Thangappazham ◽  
Hemanth Raj

Background: Vitamin D levels have been reported to be associated with COVID-19 susceptibility, severity and mortality events.. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the use of vitamin D intervention on COVID-19 outcomes. Methods: Literature search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases (latest search on August 5, 2021). We included RCTs reporting the use of vitamin D intervention to control/placebo group in COVID-19. Two independent researchers did literature search, abstracted data, and the risk of bias assessment. Results: A total of 6 RCTs with 551 COVID-19 patients were included. The overall collective evidence pooling all the outcomes across all RCTs indicated the beneficial use of vitamin D intervention in COVID-19 (relative risk, RR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.92, Z=2.33, p=0.02, I2 = 48%). However, no statistical significance was observed for individual outcomes of ICU care (RR = 0.11, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.30, Z=1.48, p=0.14, I2 = 66%) and mortality (RR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.40, Z=0.66, p=0.02, I2 = 33%), though decreased rates were noted. The rates of RT-CR positivity was significantly decreased in the intervention group as compared to the non-vitamin D groups (RR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.89, Z=2.31, p=0.02, I2 = 0%). Conclusion: COVID-19 patients supplemented with vitamin D are more likely to demonstrate fewer rates of ICU admission, mortality events and RT-PCR positivity. However, no statistical significance has been achieved for individual outcomes of ICU and deaths. More RCTs and completion of ongoing trials largely needed to precisely establish the association between vitamin D use and COVID-19.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
YongCheng Su ◽  
XiaoGang Zheng

Abstract BACKGROUND: Poly(ADP–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are new class of drugs that are currently being studied in several malignancies. However, datas about the efficacy and safety of the PARP inhibitors are limited. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) in patients with breast cancer.METHODS: Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) were searched for articles published from 2000 to June 2018.Summary incidences and the RR, HR with 95% confidence intervals, were calculated by using a random-effects or fixed-effects model.RESULTS: The summary HR indicated PARPi was not associated with OS (HR=0.83, 95%CI 0.66–1.06, Z=1.49, P=0.14), while it could significantly improve PFS ande time to deterioration (TTD) of global health status/quality of life(GHS/QoL) as compared with traditional standard therapy, the HR was 0.60(95%CI 0.50-0.72; Z=5.52, P<0.00001) and 0.4 (95%CI 0.29–0.54,z=5.80 ,p=0.000),respectively.The RR of grade 3 or more anemia ,fatigue and headache was 3.02 (95% CI, 0.69–13.17;p = 0.14,,I2=90%),0.77 (95%CI, 0.34–1.73;p=0.52,I2=7%) and 1.13 (95% CI,0.30–4.18;p=0.86,I2=0%),respectively.CONCLUSION: The findings of this meta-analysis showed that PARPi has no significant effect on OS, while it could significantly improve in PFS and TTD of GHS/QoL for patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer.Furthermore,our findings also demonstrated that the PARPi treatment is connected with an increased risk of grade 3 or more anemia adverse events.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2;23 (4;2) ◽  
pp. 135-148
Author(s):  
Zifeng Xu

Background: The pain control effect of ketamine versus control in women during cesarean operation is not well determined. Objectives: The present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of ketamine versus control in cesarean section anesthesia for reducing the postoperative pain and analgesia. Study Design: We used meta-analysis to address this concern. Setting: Meta-analysis-based study. Methods: The databases PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to identify the relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ketamine versus control in controlling pain after cesarean section from inception to August 2018. Based on the Cochrane Handbook, the combined analysis was performed using Revman 5.3 software. Results: A total of 20 RCTs with 1,737 patients who underwent cesarean section were included. Meta-analysis showed that the pain score in the ketamine group was less than that of the control group (mean difference [MD], –1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], –1.61, –0.59; P < 0.0001). Application of ketamine during cesarean section also resulted in decreased consumption of morphine when compared with the control group (MD, –6.11 mg; 95% CI, –9.93, –2.29; P = 0.002). In addition, the first time required for analgesia was significantly longer in the ketamine group than that of the control group (MD, 72.48 minutes; 95% CI, 50.85, 94.11; P < 0.00001). Limitations: Limited patients were included with moderate strength. Conclusions: Ketamine supplementation during cesarean section reduces pain and morphine consumption and prolongs the postoperative analgesia. Key words: Ketamine, cesarean section, randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document