Folfirinox与吉西他滨+Nab-帕西他赛作为癌症第一线治疗:系统评价和Meta-Analysis。

IF 2.1 Q3 ONCOLOGY World Journal of Oncology Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-20 DOI:10.14740/wjon1604
Nooraldin Merza, Sabeeh Khawar Farooqui, Sophia Haroon Dar, Tony Varughese, Rehmat Ullah Awan, Lamaan Qureshi, Saad Ali Ansari, Hadi Qureshi, Jamie Mcilvaine, Ishaan Vohra, Yusuf Nawras, Abdallah Kobeissy, Mona Hassan
{"title":"Folfirinox与吉西他滨+Nab-帕西他赛作为癌症第一线治疗:系统评价和Meta-Analysis。","authors":"Nooraldin Merza,&nbsp;Sabeeh Khawar Farooqui,&nbsp;Sophia Haroon Dar,&nbsp;Tony Varughese,&nbsp;Rehmat Ullah Awan,&nbsp;Lamaan Qureshi,&nbsp;Saad Ali Ansari,&nbsp;Hadi Qureshi,&nbsp;Jamie Mcilvaine,&nbsp;Ishaan Vohra,&nbsp;Yusuf Nawras,&nbsp;Abdallah Kobeissy,&nbsp;Mona Hassan","doi":"10.14740/wjon1604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The efficacy and safety of Folfirinox (FFX) or gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (GnP) to be used as the first-line drugs for pancreatic cancer (PC) is yet to be established. We conducted an analysis of retrospective studies to assess the efficacy and safety of these two regimens by comparing their survival and safety outcomes in patients with PC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an extensive review of two electronic databases from inception till February 2023 to include all the relevant studies that compared FFX with GnP published and unpublished work. Retrospective studies were only included. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were pooled using hazard ratios (HRs), while objective response rate (ORR) and safety outcomes were pooled using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 7,030 patients were identified in a total of 21 articles that were shortlisted. Pooled results concluded that neither FFX nor GnP was associated to increase the OS time (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.83 - 1.04; P = 0.0001); however, FFX was more likely associated with increased PFS when compared to GnP (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81 - 0.97; P < 0.0001). ORR proved to be non-significant between the two regimens (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.64 - 1.27; P = 0.15). Safety outcomes included neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia and diarrhea. GnP was more associated with diarrhea (OR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.22 - 3.15; P = 0.001), while FFX was seen to cause anemia (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51 - 0.98; P = 0.10) in PC patients. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were in-significant in the two drug regimens (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.92 - 1.31; P = 0.33 and OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60 - 1.13; P = 0.23, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FFX and GnP showed a significant difference in increasing the PFS, while no difference was observed while measuring OS. Safety outcomes showed that FFX and GnP shared similar safety profiles as FFX was associated with hematological outcomes, while GnP was more associated with non-hematological outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":46797,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/86/62/wjon-14-325.PMC10588495.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Folfirinox vs. Gemcitabine + Nab-Paclitaxel as the First-Line Treatment for Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Nooraldin Merza,&nbsp;Sabeeh Khawar Farooqui,&nbsp;Sophia Haroon Dar,&nbsp;Tony Varughese,&nbsp;Rehmat Ullah Awan,&nbsp;Lamaan Qureshi,&nbsp;Saad Ali Ansari,&nbsp;Hadi Qureshi,&nbsp;Jamie Mcilvaine,&nbsp;Ishaan Vohra,&nbsp;Yusuf Nawras,&nbsp;Abdallah Kobeissy,&nbsp;Mona Hassan\",\"doi\":\"10.14740/wjon1604\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The efficacy and safety of Folfirinox (FFX) or gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (GnP) to be used as the first-line drugs for pancreatic cancer (PC) is yet to be established. We conducted an analysis of retrospective studies to assess the efficacy and safety of these two regimens by comparing their survival and safety outcomes in patients with PC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an extensive review of two electronic databases from inception till February 2023 to include all the relevant studies that compared FFX with GnP published and unpublished work. Retrospective studies were only included. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were pooled using hazard ratios (HRs), while objective response rate (ORR) and safety outcomes were pooled using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 7,030 patients were identified in a total of 21 articles that were shortlisted. Pooled results concluded that neither FFX nor GnP was associated to increase the OS time (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.83 - 1.04; P = 0.0001); however, FFX was more likely associated with increased PFS when compared to GnP (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81 - 0.97; P < 0.0001). ORR proved to be non-significant between the two regimens (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.64 - 1.27; P = 0.15). Safety outcomes included neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia and diarrhea. GnP was more associated with diarrhea (OR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.22 - 3.15; P = 0.001), while FFX was seen to cause anemia (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51 - 0.98; P = 0.10) in PC patients. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were in-significant in the two drug regimens (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.92 - 1.31; P = 0.33 and OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60 - 1.13; P = 0.23, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FFX and GnP showed a significant difference in increasing the PFS, while no difference was observed while measuring OS. Safety outcomes showed that FFX and GnP shared similar safety profiles as FFX was associated with hematological outcomes, while GnP was more associated with non-hematological outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46797,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Oncology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/86/62/wjon-14-325.PMC10588495.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14740/wjon1604\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14740/wjon1604","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:福尔菲林诺(FFX)或吉西他滨+纳布紫杉醇(GnP)作为癌症(PC)一线药物的疗效和安全性尚待确定。我们对回顾性研究进行了分析,通过比较这两种方案在PC患者中的生存率和安全性结果来评估其疗效和安全性。仅包括回顾性研究。总生存率(OS)和无进展生存率(PFS)使用风险比(HR)合并,而客观有效率(ORR)和安全性结果使用优势比(OR)合并,95%置信区间(CI)使用随机效应模型。结果:在入围的21篇文章中,共发现7030名患者。汇总结果表明,FFX和GnP均与OS时间增加无关(HR:0.93,95%CI:0.83-1.04;P=0.0001);然而,与GnP相比,FFX更有可能与PFS增加相关(HR:0.88,95%CI:0.81-0.97;P<0.0001)。ORR在两种方案之间被证明是不显著的(OR:0.90,95%CI:0.64-1.27;P=0.15)。安全性结果包括中性粒细胞减少症、贫血、血小板减少症和腹泻。GnP与腹泻的相关性更大(OR:1.96,95%CI:1.22-3.15;P=0.001),而在PC患者中,FFX可导致贫血(OR:0.70,95%CI:0.51-0.98;P=0.010)。中性粒细胞减少症和血小板减少症在两种药物方案中均显著(OR:1.10,95%CI:0.92-1.31;P=0.33和OR:0.83,95%CI:0.60-1.13;P=0.23)。安全性结果显示,FFX和GnP具有相似的安全性,因为FFX与血液学结果相关,而GnP与非血液学结果更相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Folfirinox vs. Gemcitabine + Nab-Paclitaxel as the First-Line Treatment for Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: The efficacy and safety of Folfirinox (FFX) or gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (GnP) to be used as the first-line drugs for pancreatic cancer (PC) is yet to be established. We conducted an analysis of retrospective studies to assess the efficacy and safety of these two regimens by comparing their survival and safety outcomes in patients with PC.

Methods: We conducted an extensive review of two electronic databases from inception till February 2023 to include all the relevant studies that compared FFX with GnP published and unpublished work. Retrospective studies were only included. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were pooled using hazard ratios (HRs), while objective response rate (ORR) and safety outcomes were pooled using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random effects model.

Results: A total of 7,030 patients were identified in a total of 21 articles that were shortlisted. Pooled results concluded that neither FFX nor GnP was associated to increase the OS time (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.83 - 1.04; P = 0.0001); however, FFX was more likely associated with increased PFS when compared to GnP (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81 - 0.97; P < 0.0001). ORR proved to be non-significant between the two regimens (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.64 - 1.27; P = 0.15). Safety outcomes included neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia and diarrhea. GnP was more associated with diarrhea (OR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.22 - 3.15; P = 0.001), while FFX was seen to cause anemia (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51 - 0.98; P = 0.10) in PC patients. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were in-significant in the two drug regimens (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.92 - 1.31; P = 0.33 and OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60 - 1.13; P = 0.23, respectively).

Conclusion: FFX and GnP showed a significant difference in increasing the PFS, while no difference was observed while measuring OS. Safety outcomes showed that FFX and GnP shared similar safety profiles as FFX was associated with hematological outcomes, while GnP was more associated with non-hematological outcomes.

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
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
15.40%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: World Journal of Oncology, bimonthly, publishes original contributions describing basic research and clinical investigation of cancer, on the cellular, molecular, prevention, diagnosis, therapy and prognosis aspects. The submissions can be basic research or clinical investigation oriented. This journal welcomes those submissions focused on the clinical trials of new treatment modalities for cancer, and those submissions focused on molecular or cellular research of the oncology pathogenesis. Case reports submitted for consideration of publication should explore either a novel genomic event/description or a new safety signal from an oncolytic agent. The areas of interested manuscripts are these disciplines: tumor immunology and immunotherapy; cancer molecular pharmacology and chemotherapy; drug sensitivity and resistance; cancer epidemiology; clinical trials; cancer pathology; radiobiology and radiation oncology; solid tumor oncology; hematological malignancies; surgical oncology; pediatric oncology; molecular oncology and cancer genes; gene therapy; cancer endocrinology; cancer metastasis; prevention and diagnosis of cancer; other cancer related subjects. The types of manuscripts accepted are original article, review, editorial, short communication, case report, letter to the editor, book review.
期刊最新文献
Hereditary Gastric Cancer Is Linked With Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer. High Probability of Lynch Syndrome Among Colorectal Cancer Patients Is Associated With Higher Occurrence of KRAS and PIK3CA Mutations. Identification and Validation of a Novel Tertiary Lymphoid Structures-Related Prognostic Gene Signature in Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Impact of Lymph Node Dissection for Patients With Clinically Node-Negative Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Multicenter Cohort Study. Increased Vitamin C Intake Is Associated With Decreased Pancreatic Cancer Risk.
×
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