Dataset Information

Palliative chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Cancer Collaborative Group.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To determine the benefits and harms of palliative chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer and to compare the outcomes for elderly and younger patients. DESIGN:Meta-analysis of individual patient data and published summary statistics from trials for which individual patient data could not be obtained from the investigators. STUDIES:All randomised controlled trials comparing palliative chemotherapy with supportive care in patients with advanced colorectal cancer that were identified by computerised and hand searches of the literature, scanning references, and contacting investigators. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Survival, disease progression, quality of life, and toxicity. RESULTS:13 randomised controlled trials including a total of 1365 patients met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of seven trials that provided individual patient data (866 patients) showed that palliative chemotherapy was associated with a 35% reduction in the risk of death (95% confidence interval 24% to 44%). This translates into an absolute improvement in survival of 16% at both six and 12 months and an improvement in median survival of 3.7 months. No age related differences were found in the effectiveness of chemotherapy, but elderly patients were under represented in trials. The overall quality of evidence relating to treatment toxicity, symptom control, and quality of life was poor. CONCLUSIONS:Chemotherapy is effective in prolonging time to disease progression and survival in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. The survival benefit may be underestimated in this analysis as some patients in the control arms received chemotherapy.

SUBMITTER: Simmonds PC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC27466 | biostudies-literature | 2000 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Palliative chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Cancer Collaborative Group.

Simmonds P C PC

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20000901 7260

<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine the benefits and harms of palliative chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer and to compare the outcomes for elderly and younger patients.<h4>Design</h4>Meta-analysis of individual patient data and published summary statistics from trials for which individual patient data could not be obtained from the investigators.<h4>Studies</h4>All randomised controlled trials comparing palliative chemotherapy with supportive care in pati ...[more]

PMID: 10968812

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Advanced gastric cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Patients with metastatic advanced gastric cancer commonly develop a gastric outlet obstruction that considerably worsens their quality of life. Surgical interventions such as gastrojejunostomy and palliative gastrectomy are commonly administered to alleviate this obstruction. However, whether one intervention is better than another at improving morbidity- and mortality-related outcomes is unclear. Thus, in this meta-analysis, we compare outcomes of palliative gastrectomy and gastrojejunostomy (overall hospital stay length, time to oral intake, survival, and complication rates) in patients with metastatic advanced gastric cancer to identify the best procedure. Objective: To compare morbidity and mortality outcomes of palliative gastrectomy and gastrojejunostomy in patients with metastatic advanced gastric cancer. Methods: We followed the PRISMA guidelines to systematically search Web of Science, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Scopus, and MEDLINE for relevant studies. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to find differential outcomes between palliative gastrectomy and gastrojejunostomy among variables such as time to oral intake, overall hospital stay length, complication rates, and survival in patients with metastatic advanced gastric cancer. Results: From 963 studies, we found 7 eligible studies with 642 patients (70.3 ± 4.7 years) who had undergone palliative gastrectomy or gastrojejunostomy. Our meta-analysis revealed an insignificant (p > 0.05) differences in terms of overall survival duration (Hedge's g, 1.22), complication risks (odds ratio, 1.35), and time to oral intake (g, 0.62) and hospital stay length (g, 0.12) between patients undergoing gastrojejunostomy and palliative gastrectomy. Conclusion: In this present study we observed no statistically significant differences in terms of morbidity and mortality outcomes after palliative gastrectomy and gastrojejunostomy in patients with metastatic advanced gastric cancer. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn for the variables evaluated. This study provides a preliminary overview of the risks associated with gastrojejunostomy and palliative gastrectomy to help gastroenterologists manage patients with metastatic advanced-stage gastric cancer.

Project description:BackgroundAdvanced pancreatic cancer confers poor prognosis and treatment advancement has been slow. Recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated survival benefits for combination therapy compared to gemcitabine alone. However, the comparative benefits and harms of available combination chemotherapy treatments are not clear. We therefore conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis to assess the comparative safety and efficacy of chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.MethodsMEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Registry of Clinical trials and abstracts from major scientific meetings were searched for RCTs published from 2002 to 2013. Key outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and safety including grade 3-4 febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue and sensory neuropathy. Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted to calculate survival and safety outcomes using gemcitabine (GEM) as the reference comparator. Effect estimates and 95% credible intervals were calculated for each comparison. Mean ranks and the probability of being best were obtained for each treatment analyzed in the network meta-analysis.ResultsThe search identified 23 studies involving 19 different treatment regimens and 9,989 patients. FOLFIRINOX, GEM/cisplatin/epirubicin/5FU (PEFG), GEM/NAB-paclitaxel (NAB-P), GEM/erlotinib+/-bevacizumab, GEM/capecitabine, and GEM/oxaliplatin were associated with statistically significant improvements in OS and PFS relative to gemcitabine alone and several other treatments. They were amongst the top ranked for survival outcomes amongst other treatments included. No significant differences were found for other combination chemotherapy treatments. Effect estimates from indirect comparisons matched closely to estimates derived from pairwise comparisons. Overall, combination therapies had greater risk for evaluated grade 3-4 toxicities over gemcitabine alone.ConclusionsIn the absence of head-to-head comparisons, we performed a mixed-treatment analysis to achieve high-quality information on the effectiveness and safety of each treatment. This study suggests that some combination therapies may offer greater benefits in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer than others. To more fully elucidate the comparative benefits and harms of different combination chemotherapy regimens, rigorously conducted comparative studies, or network meta-analysis of patient-level data are required.

Project description:ObjectiveWhile primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS) is considered the standard of care for women who present with stage IV endometrial cancer, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by interval cytoreductive surgery (ICS) has emerged as an alternative treatment strategy. We summarized the literature and compared outcomes of PCS compared to NACT and ICS.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus for articles published from January 1, 1990 to December 31, 2020. Key search terms included multiple descriptors of advanced disease status in combination with "endometrial cancer" and "neoadjuvant chemotherapy". Our review included studies that examined survival and surgical outcomes of patients with stage III or IV endometrial cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery versus those who received primary cytoreductive surgery. We excluded studies examining only patients with leiomyosarcomas, carcinosarcomas, and stromal sarcomas due to the biologic heterogeneity of these malignancies.ResultsThe nine included studies encompassed 5,844 patients, of which 1,317 (22.5%) received NACT and 4,527 received PCS (77.5%). With the exception of a single study, all were retrospective observational studies or case series. Use of NACT in patients with stage IV EC increased from 16.0% in 2010 to 23.9% in 2015. Five studies analyzed median overall survival and all but one reported no significant difference between NACT + ICS vs. PCS. Optimal cytoreduction (<1 cm of residual disease) rates were similar across both treatment groups in three separate analyses, however pooled data suggest improved rates of optimal cytoreduction for NACT + ICS vs. PCS patients (81.9% vs. 51.5% respectively). Patients receiving NACT experienced significantly shorter hospital admissions and lower operative times compared to PCS counterparts.ConclusionsNACT followed by ICS reduces perioperative morbidity while offering similar overall survival.

Dataset Information

Palliative chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Cancer Collaborative Group.

Publications

Palliative chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Cancer Collaborative Group.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets