Dataset Information

Role of Gemcitabine and Pemetrexed as Maintenance Therapy in Advanced NSCLC: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Gemcitabine and pemetrexed have been used as maintenance therapy. However, few systematic reviews and meta-analyses have assessed their effects in the newest studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the role of gemcitabine and pemetrexed in the maintenance treatment of non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). METHODS:We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases from their inceptions to September 16, 2015. We also searched the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) databases from 2008 to 2015. Two authors independently extracted the data. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias graph was used to assess the risk of bias. The GRADE system was used to assess the grading of evidence, and a meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 11.0 software. RESULTS:Eleven randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies were collected. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis and divided into the following 4 groups: gemcitabine vs. best supportive care (BSC)/observation, pemetrexed vs. BSC/placebo, pemetrexed + bevacizumab vs. bevacizumab and pemetrexed vs. bevacizumab. Gemcitabine exhibited significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with BSC (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.62, p = 0.000). Pemetrexed exhibited significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.54, p = 0.000) and OS (HR = 0.75, p = 0.000) compared with BSC. Pemetrexed + bevacizumab almost exhibited significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.71, p = 0.051) compared with bevacizumab. Pemetrexed exhibited no improvement in PFS or overall survival (OS) compared with bevacizumab. Regarding the grade, the GRADE system indicated that the gemcitabine group was "MODERATE", the pemetrexed group was "HIGH", and both the pemetrexed + bevacizumab vs. bevacizumab groups and pemetrexed vs. B groups were "LOW". CONCLUSIONS:Gemcitabine or pemetrexed compared with BSC/observation/placebo significantly improved PFS or OS. Whether pemetrexed + bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab alone significantly improves PFS requires further investigation.

SUBMITTER: Hu X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4783083 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Role of Gemcitabine and Pemetrexed as Maintenance Therapy in Advanced NSCLC: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Hu Xingsheng X Pu Ke K Feng Xuqin X Wen Shimin S Fu Xi X Guo Cuihua C He Wenwu W

PloS one 20160308 3

<h4>Background</h4>Gemcitabine and pemetrexed have been used as maintenance therapy. However, few systematic reviews and meta-analyses have assessed their effects in the newest studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the role of gemcitabine and pemetrexed in the maintenance treatment of non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC).<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases from their inceptions to September 16, ...[more]

PMID: 26954503

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesFluoropyrimidine-based regimens have been investigated as the second line chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer refractory to gemcitabine. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of fluoropyrimidine combination therapy versus fluoropyrimidine monotherapy in such patients.MethodsThe databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ASCO Abstracts and ESMO Abstracts were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared fluoropyrimidine combination therapy versus fluoropyrimidine monotherapy in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer were included. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and serious toxicities. Statistical analyses were performed by using Review Manager 5.3. Egger's test was performed to assess the statistical evidence of publication bias by using stata 12.0.ResultsA total of 1183 patients from six randomized controlled trials were included for this analysis. Fluoropyrimidine combination therapy increased ORR [RR 2.82 (1.83-4.33), p<0.00001] and PFS [HR 0.71 (0.62-0.82), p<0.00001], without significant heterogeneity. Fluoropyrimidine combination therapy improved OS [HR 0.82 (0.71-0.94), p = 0.006], with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 76%, p = 0.0009). The significant heterogeneity might have been caused by the different administration regimens and baseline characteristics. Peripheral neuropathy and diarrhea were more common in the regimens containing oxaliplatin and irinotecan, respectively. No publication bias was detected by Egger's tests.ConclusionsCompared with fluoropyrimidine monotherapy, fluoropyrimidine combination therapy had a higher response rate and longer PFS in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer. Fluoropyrimidine combination therapy could be recommended in the second line setting. However, due to concerns about toxicities, the dose intensities of chemotherapy drugs should be carefully considered in patients with weakness.

Project description:BackgroundStudies of cardiac resynchronization therapy in addition to an implantable cardioverter defibrillator in patients with mild to moderate congestive heart failure had not been shown to reduce mortality until the recent RAFT trial (Resynchronization/Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial). We performed a meta-analysis including the RAFT trial to determine the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator on mortality.MethodsWe searched electronic databases and other sources for reports of randomized trials using a parallel or crossover design. We included studies involving patients with heart failure receiving optimal medical therapy that compared cardiac resynchronization therapy with optimal medical therapy alone, or cardiac resynchronization therapy plus an implantable defibrillator with a standard implantable defibrillator. The primary outcome was mortality. The optimum information size was considered to assess the minimum amount of information required in the literature to reach reliable conclusions about cardiac resynchronization therapy.ResultsOf 3071 reports identified, 12 studies (n = 7538) were included in our meta-analysis. Compared with optimal medical therapy alone, cardiac resynchronization therapy plus optimal medical therapy significantly reduced mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.85). Compared with an implantable defibrillator alone, cardiac resynchronization therapy plus an implantable defibrillator significantly reduced mortality (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72-0.96). This last finding remained significant among patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I or II disease (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67-0.96) but not among those with class III or IV disease (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69-1.07). Analysis of the optimum information size showed that the sequential monitoring boundary was crossed, which suggests no need for further clinical trials.InterpretationThe cumulative evidence is now conclusive that the addition of cardiac resynchronization to optimal medical therapy or defibrillator therapy significantly reduces mortality among patients with heart failure.

Dataset Information

Role of Gemcitabine and Pemetrexed as Maintenance Therapy in Advanced NSCLC: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Publications

Role of Gemcitabine and Pemetrexed as Maintenance Therapy in Advanced NSCLC: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets