不能手术的胰腺癌荟萃分析:吉西他滨联合顺铂与单独吉西他滨。

De Rong Xie, Han Lin Liang, Yu Wang, Shuang Shuang Guo
{"title":"不能手术的胰腺癌荟萃分析:吉西他滨联合顺铂与单独吉西他滨。","authors":"De Rong Xie,&nbsp;Han Lin Liang,&nbsp;Yu Wang,&nbsp;Shuang Shuang Guo","doi":"10.1111/j.1443-9573.2006.00244.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the therapeutic effects of gemcitabine (GEM) monotherapy with GEM-cisplatin (DDP) combination chemotherapy in patients with advanced stage pancreatic cancer (APCa) through meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE and EMBASE searches were supplemented by information from trial registers of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for GEM-DDP combination chemotherapy and GEM alone in APCa. A quantitative meta-analysis using updated information based on inclusion criteria from all available RCTs was carried out by two reviewers. The primary meta-analysis involved the overall survival (OS), objective remission rate (ORR) and toxicity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis included six RCTs. There was no significant advantage for the GEM-DDP combination group in 6-month survival rate (P = 0.24) or clinical benefit rate (P = 0.58). There was a marginal significant improvement for the GEM-DDP combination group in ORR (RD = 6%, P = 0.05; RD, risk difference = risk in the GEM-DDP combination group - risk in the GEM alone group). Moreover, there was a significant improvement for the combination group in 6-month TTP/TTF (RD = 9%, P = 0.02). WHO grade 3-4 toxicity was higher for the GEM-DDP combination group in terms of neutropenia (RD = 6%, P = 0.08), thrombocytopenia (RD = 8%, P = 0.17) and vomiting/nausea (RD = 11%, P = 0.07); none reached significant difference.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GEM-DDP combination should not be recommended and GEM monotherapy remains the standard treatment for patients with APCa.</p>","PeriodicalId":10082,"journal":{"name":"Chinese journal of digestive diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/j.1443-9573.2006.00244.x","citationCount":"21","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meta-analysis of inoperable pancreatic cancer: gemcitabine combined with cisplatin versus gemcitabine alone.\",\"authors\":\"De Rong Xie,&nbsp;Han Lin Liang,&nbsp;Yu Wang,&nbsp;Shuang Shuang Guo\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/j.1443-9573.2006.00244.x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the therapeutic effects of gemcitabine (GEM) monotherapy with GEM-cisplatin (DDP) combination chemotherapy in patients with advanced stage pancreatic cancer (APCa) through meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE and EMBASE searches were supplemented by information from trial registers of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for GEM-DDP combination chemotherapy and GEM alone in APCa. A quantitative meta-analysis using updated information based on inclusion criteria from all available RCTs was carried out by two reviewers. The primary meta-analysis involved the overall survival (OS), objective remission rate (ORR) and toxicity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis included six RCTs. There was no significant advantage for the GEM-DDP combination group in 6-month survival rate (P = 0.24) or clinical benefit rate (P = 0.58). There was a marginal significant improvement for the GEM-DDP combination group in ORR (RD = 6%, P = 0.05; RD, risk difference = risk in the GEM-DDP combination group - risk in the GEM alone group). Moreover, there was a significant improvement for the combination group in 6-month TTP/TTF (RD = 9%, P = 0.02). WHO grade 3-4 toxicity was higher for the GEM-DDP combination group in terms of neutropenia (RD = 6%, P = 0.08), thrombocytopenia (RD = 8%, P = 0.17) and vomiting/nausea (RD = 11%, P = 0.07); none reached significant difference.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GEM-DDP combination should not be recommended and GEM monotherapy remains the standard treatment for patients with APCa.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10082,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chinese journal of digestive diseases\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/j.1443-9573.2006.00244.x\",\"citationCount\":\"21\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chinese journal of digestive diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1443-9573.2006.00244.x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese journal of digestive diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1443-9573.2006.00244.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

摘要

目的:通过meta分析比较吉西他滨(GEM)单药治疗与GEM-顺铂(DDP)联合化疗治疗晚期胰腺癌(APCa)的疗效。方法:MEDLINE和EMBASE检索补充了GEM- ddp联合化疗和GEM单独治疗APCa的随机对照试验(rct)的试验注册信息。使用基于所有可用rct纳入标准的最新信息进行定量荟萃分析,由两名评论者进行。主要荟萃分析包括总生存期(OS)、客观缓解率(ORR)和毒性。结果:meta分析包括6项随机对照试验。GEM-DDP联合治疗组在6个月生存率(P = 0.24)和临床获益率(P = 0.58)方面无显著优势。GEM-DDP联合用药组的ORR有显著改善(RD = 6%, P = 0.05;RD,风险差异= GEM- ddp联合组风险- GEM单独组风险)。此外,联合治疗组在6个月TTP/TTF方面有显著改善(RD = 9%, P = 0.02)。GEM-DDP联合组在中性粒细胞减少(RD = 6%, P = 0.08)、血小板减少(RD = 8%, P = 0.17)和呕吐/恶心(RD = 11%, P = 0.07)方面的WHO 3-4级毒性更高;没有达到显著差异。结论:不推荐GEM- ddp联合治疗,GEM单药治疗仍是APCa患者的标准治疗方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Meta-analysis of inoperable pancreatic cancer: gemcitabine combined with cisplatin versus gemcitabine alone.

Objectives: To compare the therapeutic effects of gemcitabine (GEM) monotherapy with GEM-cisplatin (DDP) combination chemotherapy in patients with advanced stage pancreatic cancer (APCa) through meta-analysis.

Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE searches were supplemented by information from trial registers of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for GEM-DDP combination chemotherapy and GEM alone in APCa. A quantitative meta-analysis using updated information based on inclusion criteria from all available RCTs was carried out by two reviewers. The primary meta-analysis involved the overall survival (OS), objective remission rate (ORR) and toxicity.

Results: The meta-analysis included six RCTs. There was no significant advantage for the GEM-DDP combination group in 6-month survival rate (P = 0.24) or clinical benefit rate (P = 0.58). There was a marginal significant improvement for the GEM-DDP combination group in ORR (RD = 6%, P = 0.05; RD, risk difference = risk in the GEM-DDP combination group - risk in the GEM alone group). Moreover, there was a significant improvement for the combination group in 6-month TTP/TTF (RD = 9%, P = 0.02). WHO grade 3-4 toxicity was higher for the GEM-DDP combination group in terms of neutropenia (RD = 6%, P = 0.08), thrombocytopenia (RD = 8%, P = 0.17) and vomiting/nausea (RD = 11%, P = 0.07); none reached significant difference.

Conclusion: GEM-DDP combination should not be recommended and GEM monotherapy remains the standard treatment for patients with APCa.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Prospective randomized clinical trial of two drug delivery pathway in the treatment of inoperable advanced pancreatic carcinoma. Meta-analysis of inoperable pancreatic cancer: gemcitabine combined with cisplatin versus gemcitabine alone. Prevalence and risk factors of Helicobacter pylori infection in healthy schoolchildren. Association of peptic ulcer with increased expression of Lewis antigens, but not vacuolating cytotoxin activity or babA2 gene status, in Helicobacter pylori strains from China. Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound staging of gastric cancer in routine clinical practice in Singapore.
×
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