Dataset Information

The Efficacy and Safety of Carbon Ion Radiotherapy for Meningiomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of carbon ion radiotherapy (CI-RT) in improving meningioma by comparing photon and protons radiotherapy.

Methods

A comprehensive search for relevant studies published until March 17, 2021, was conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and EMBASE. Statistical analyses were performed with R 4.0.3.

Results

We identified 396 studies, of which 18 studies involving 985 participants were included. Except for one low quality study, the quality of the included studies was found to be either moderate or high quality. The analyses conducted according random effects model indicated that the 1-year overall survival rate (OS) of benign and non-benign meningiomas after the CI-RT treatment was 99% (95%CL=.91-1.00, I ² = 0%). The overall average 5-year OS for meningiomas was 72% (95%CL=0.52-0.86, I ² = 35%), not as effective as proton radiotherapy (PR-RT) 85% (95%CL=.72-.93, I ² = 73, Q=4.17, df=2, p=.12). Additionally, 5-year OS of atypical meningiomas (81%) was found to be significantly higher than anaplastic meningiomas (52%). The 10-year OS after CI-RT of patients with mixed grade meningioma was 91% (95%CL=.75-.97, I ² = 73%). The 15-year OS after CI-RT 87% (95%CL=.11-1.00) or PR-RT 87% (95%CL=.23-.99, I ² = 79%) were the same (Q=0, df=1, p=.99). After undergoing CI-RT for 3 and 5 years, the LC for benign meningioma was 100% and 88%, respectively, while the 2-year LC of non-benign meningiomas (atypical/anaplastic) was 33%. Headache, sensory impairment, cognitive impairment, and hearing impairment were found to be the most common adverse reactions, with individual incidences of 19.4%, 23.7%, 9.1%, and 9.1%, respectively.

Conclusion

CI-RT is a rapidly developing technique that has been proven to be an effective treatment against meningioma. The efficacy and safety of CI-RT for meningiomas were similar to those of PR-RT, better than photon radiotherapy (PH-RT). However, there is a need for more prospective trials in the future that can help provide more supportive evidence.

SUBMITTER: Li JY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8185343 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCarbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) are promising methods for prostate cancer, however, the consensus of an increasing number of studies has not been reached. We aimed to provide systematic evidence for evaluating the efficacy and safety of CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer by comparing photon radiotherapy.Materials and methodsWe searched for studies focusing on CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer in four online databases until July 2021. Two independent reviewers assessed the quality of included studies and used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of evidence. R 4.0.2 software was used to conduct the meta-analysis. A meta-regression test was performed based on the study design and tumor stage of each study.ResultsA total of 33 studies including 13 CIRT- and 20 PBT-related publications, involving 54,101, participants were included. The quality of the included studies was found to be either low or moderate quality. Random model single-arm meta-analysis showed that both the CIRT and PBT have favorable efficacy and safety, with similar 5-year overall survival (OS) (94 vs 92%), the incidence of grade 2 or greater acute genitourinary (AGU) toxicity (5 vs 13%), late genitourinary (LGU) toxicity (4 vs 5%), acute gastrointestinal (AGI) toxicity (1 vs 1%), and late gastrointestinal (LGI) toxicity (2 vs 4%). However, compared with CIRT and PBT, photon radiotherapy was associated with lower 5-year OS (72-73%) and a higher incidence of grade 2 or greater AGU (28-29%), LGU (13-14%), AGI (14-19%), and LGI toxicity (8-10%). The meta-analysis showed the 3-, 4-, and 5-year local control rate (LCR) of CIRT for prostate cancer was 98, 97, and 99%; the 3-, 4-, 5-, and 8-year biochemical relapse-free rate (BRF) was 92, 91, 89, and 79%. GRADE assessment results indicated that the certainty of the evidence was very low. Meta-regression results did not show a significant relationship based on the variables studied (P<0.05).ConclusionsCurrently available evidence demonstrated that the efficacy and safety of CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer were similar, and they may significantly improve the OS, LCR, and reduce the incidence of GU and GI toxicity compared with photon radiotherapy. However, the quantity and quality of the available evidence are insufficient. More high-quality controlled studies are needed in the future.

Project description:Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model (RRs of >1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin (RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs (in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.

Project description:BackgroundThe optimal treatment for patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) remains a debate and selection of patients to receive proper therapy is still an unsettled question. This systematic review was conducted to compare the effectiveness of prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) in patients with high-risk PCa and to select candidates for optimal treatment.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for eligible studies. We extracted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of all included studies. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS); the secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS) and clinical recurrence-free survival (CRFS). The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to Gleason score (GS), T stage and RT types. Quality of life (QoL) was compared with these two treatments.ResultsA total of 25 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, RP showed more survival benefits than RT on CSS (P = 0.003) and OS (P = 0.002); while RT was associated with better BRFS (P = 0.002) and MFS (P = 0.004). Subgroup analyses showed RT was associated with similar or even better survival outcomes compared to RP in patients with high GS, high T stage or received external beam radiotherapy plus brachytherapy (EBRT + BT). As for QoL, RP was associated with poorer urinary and sexual function but better performance in the bowel domain.ConclusionRP could prolong the survival time of patients with high-risk PCa; however, RT could delay the disease progression, and combined RT (EBRT + BT) even brought preferable CSS and similar OS compared to RP. RT might be the prior choice for patients with high T stage or high GS. RP could lead to poorer urinary and sexual function, while bringing better performance in the bowel domain.

Project description:BackgroundCefepime is a fourth-generation cephalosporin antibiotic used to treat a variety of infections. The US Food and Drug Administration approved its use in certain types of infections among pediatric patients, and yet there have been mixed data about its efficacy and safety in this population.ObjectiveThe objective of this review is to compare efficacy and all-cause mortality of cefepime to other clinically indicated antibiotics among children.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS, and clinicaltrials.gov databases through February 8, 2016. We included randomized controlled trials comparing cefepime to other clinical antibiotics, placebo, or no treatment in children aged 0-19 years in the inpatient setting with clinical signs of infection. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were success rate, treatment failure, and incidence of adverse events. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.ResultsSeventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. There was a total of 1,285 participants included, 624 participants in the cefepime arm and 661 in the comparison arm. A random effects meta-analysis for all-cause mortality showed no difference in rates of mortality between cefepime and comparator antibiotics with a mortality risk ratio of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.71-1.08). For the secondary outcomes of success rate and treatment failure, a random effects model meta-analysis conducted of the studies showed no difference in rate between cefepime and comparator antibiotics with an overall risk ratio of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.92-1.05) and 1.04 (95% CI: 0.91-1.19), respectively. Adverse events were not statistically assessed given widespread heterogeneity. Overall, the studies had unclear risk of bias and were limited by high heterogeneity and methodological flaws.ConclusionThe efficacy and safety of cefepime in pediatric patients remain unclear despite the inclusion of newer trials since the last index systematic review conducted a decade ago.