Treatment of stage I-III squamous cell anal cancer: a comparative effectiveness systematic review.

IF 9.9 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1093/jnci/djae195
Alexander Troester, Romil Parikh, Bronwyn Southwell, Elizabeth Ester, Shahnaz Sultan, Edward Greeno, Elliot Arsoniadis, Timothy R Church, Timothy Wilt, Mary Butler, Paolo Goffredo
{"title":"Treatment of stage I-III squamous cell anal cancer: a comparative effectiveness systematic review.","authors":"Alexander Troester, Romil Parikh, Bronwyn Southwell, Elizabeth Ester, Shahnaz Sultan, Edward Greeno, Elliot Arsoniadis, Timothy R Church, Timothy Wilt, Mary Butler, Paolo Goffredo","doi":"10.1093/jnci/djae195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We sought to assess the effectiveness and harms of initial treatment strategies for stage I through III anal squamous cell anal cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials between January 1, 2000, and March 2024, for randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies of interventions comparing initial treatment strategies. Individual study risk of bias and overall strength of evidence were evaluated for a prespecified outcome list using standardized methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 33 eligible studies and extracted data. Six were deemed low to moderate risk of bias. Compared with radiation therapy alone, chemoradiation therapy (CRT) with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and mitomycin C probably shows a benefit in locoregional failure, disease-specific survival, and colostomy-free survival (moderate strength of evidence) yet may result in greater overall and acute hematological toxicity, with no difference in late harms (low strength of evidence). CRT with 5-FU plus mitomycin C may show a benefit in locoregional failure, disease-specific survival, and colostomy-free survival rates compared with 5-FU alone (low strength of evidence). CRT with 5-FU plus cisplatin vs 5-FU plus mitomycin C probably results in no differences in several effectiveness outcomes or overall acute or late harms and probably increases hematological toxicity with mitomycin C (moderate strength of evidence). Compared with CRT using capecitabine plus mitomycin C, CRT with capecitabine plus mitomycin C and paclitaxel may improve overall survival, disease-specific survival, and colostomy-free survival yet cause more acute harms (low strength of evidence). Evidence was insufficient for remaining comparisons.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CRT with 5-FU plus mitomycin C or 5-FU plus cisplatin is likely more effective yet incurs greater acute hematological toxicity than radiation therapy alone or single-agent CRT. Adding paclitaxel to capecitabine plus mitomycin C may increase treatment efficacy and toxicity. Evidence is insufficient comparing posttreatment surveillance strategies and patient-reported outcomes, highlighting research opportunities.</p>","PeriodicalId":14809,"journal":{"name":"JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute","volume":" ","pages":"240-252"},"PeriodicalIF":9.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11807441/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae195","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: We sought to assess the effectiveness and harms of initial treatment strategies for stage I through III anal squamous cell anal cancer.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials between January 1, 2000, and March 2024, for randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies of interventions comparing initial treatment strategies. Individual study risk of bias and overall strength of evidence were evaluated for a prespecified outcome list using standardized methods.

Results: We identified 33 eligible studies and extracted data. Six were deemed low to moderate risk of bias. Compared with radiation therapy alone, chemoradiation therapy (CRT) with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and mitomycin C probably shows a benefit in locoregional failure, disease-specific survival, and colostomy-free survival (moderate strength of evidence) yet may result in greater overall and acute hematological toxicity, with no difference in late harms (low strength of evidence). CRT with 5-FU plus mitomycin C may show a benefit in locoregional failure, disease-specific survival, and colostomy-free survival rates compared with 5-FU alone (low strength of evidence). CRT with 5-FU plus cisplatin vs 5-FU plus mitomycin C probably results in no differences in several effectiveness outcomes or overall acute or late harms and probably increases hematological toxicity with mitomycin C (moderate strength of evidence). Compared with CRT using capecitabine plus mitomycin C, CRT with capecitabine plus mitomycin C and paclitaxel may improve overall survival, disease-specific survival, and colostomy-free survival yet cause more acute harms (low strength of evidence). Evidence was insufficient for remaining comparisons.

Conclusions: CRT with 5-FU plus mitomycin C or 5-FU plus cisplatin is likely more effective yet incurs greater acute hematological toxicity than radiation therapy alone or single-agent CRT. Adding paclitaxel to capecitabine plus mitomycin C may increase treatment efficacy and toxicity. Evidence is insufficient comparing posttreatment surveillance strategies and patient-reported outcomes, highlighting research opportunities.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
鳞状细胞肛门癌 I-III 期的治疗:疗效比较系统综述》。
目的:评估肛门鳞状细胞癌(SCC)I-III期初期治疗策略的有效性和危害性:我们检索了 2000 年 1 月 1 日至 2024 年 3 月期间的 Medline®、Embase® 和 CENTRAL®,以了解比较初始治疗策略的随机对照试验和非随机干预研究。采用标准化方法,针对预设结果列表对单项研究的偏倚风险(RoB)和总体证据强度(SOE)进行了评估:我们确定了 33 项符合条件的研究并提取了数据。六项研究被认为存在低度/中度RoB。与单纯放疗(RT)相比,使用5-氟尿嘧啶(FU)和丝裂霉素C(MMC)的化放疗(CRT)可能在局部衰竭(LRF)、疾病特异性(DSS)和无结肠造口生存期(CFS)方面获益(中度SOE),但可能导致更大的总体毒性和急性血液毒性,后期危害方面无差异(低SOE)。与单独使用 5FU 相比,使用 5FU+MMC 的 CRT 可在 LRF、DSS 和 CFS 率方面获益(低 SOE)。使用 5FU+cisplatin 与使用 5FU+MMC 进行 CRT 相比,可能在多个疗效结果或急性期或晚期总体危害方面没有差异,但可能会增加 MMC 的血液学毒性(中度 SOE)。与使用卡培他滨+MMC的CRT相比,使用卡培他滨+MMC+紫杉醇的CRT可能会改善OS、DSS和CFS,但会造成更多急性危害(低SOE)。其余比较的证据不足:结论:与单纯 RT 或单药 CRT 相比,5FU+MMC 或 5FU+cisplatin 的 CRT 可能更有效,但产生的急性血液学毒性更大。在卡培他滨+MMC中加入紫杉醇可能会提高疗效和毒性。比较治疗后监测策略和患者报告结果的证据不足,这凸显了研究机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
17.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
203
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the National Cancer Institute is a reputable publication that undergoes a peer-review process. It is available in both print (ISSN: 0027-8874) and online (ISSN: 1460-2105) formats, with 12 issues released annually. The journal's primary aim is to disseminate innovative and important discoveries in the field of cancer research, with specific emphasis on clinical, epidemiologic, behavioral, and health outcomes studies. Authors are encouraged to submit reviews, minireviews, and commentaries. The journal ensures that submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous and expedited review to publish scientifically and medically significant findings in a timely manner.
期刊最新文献
On the road to new drugs in clinical oncology: benefit of phase 2 trials. Noninferiority trials in oncology: need for improvement, or a paradigm shift? Body composition and checkpoint inhibitor treatment outcomes in advanced melanoma: a multicenter cohort study. Colon, colorectal and all cancer incidence increase in the Young due to appendix reclassification. Early identification of weight loss trajectories in advanced cancer and associations with survival.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1