Dataset Information

Comparison Efficacy and Safety of Gemcitabine plus Cisplatin and 5-Fluorouracil plus Cisplatin for Metastatic Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) and 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin (PF) for metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Methods

The clinical trials of GP and PF in the treatment of metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The literature search met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The software Revman 5.4 was used for data analysis, and STATA 15.0 was used for publication bias.

Results

10 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that the GP group had a higher clinical remission rate than the PF group (RR = 1.22, 95% CI (1.03-1.44), P=0.02, P=0.02). GP and PF groups in OS, PFS, and DMFS had the same effect at 1, 2, and 3 years (OS at 1 year: RR = 1.04, 95% CI (0.95-1.15), P=0.37, P=0.37; 2 years: RR = 1.08, 95% CI (0.94 1.23), P=0.28, P=0.28; 3 years: RR = 1.07, 95% CI (0.89 1.29), P=0.46; PFS at 1 year: RR = 1.98, 95% CI (0.29 13.44), P=0.49; 2 years: RR = 3.09, 95% CI (0.10 97.55), P=0.52; 3 years: RR = 0.95, 95% CI (0.73 1.24), P=0.71; DMFS at 1 year: RR = 1.01, 95% CI (0.90-1.14), P=0.83; 3 years: RR = 1.10, 95% CI (0.85-1.41), P=0.47. The number of hematological adverse reactions occurred in GP group was higher than the PF group.

Conclusion

The GP and PF groups had similar OS, PFS, and DMFS, but the GP group had a higher clinical remission rate. Therefore, GP may be the first choice for metastatic NPC.

SUBMITTER: Yan L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9308559 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe treatment of metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (mNPC) is a major challenge because of drug resistance and the toxic effects of chemotherapy.ObjectiveTo evaluate the survival and toxicity outcomes and safety associated with the use of a modified low-dose fluorouracil protocol compared with standard regimens recommended in current guidelines for treatment of mNPC.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study was based on data retrieved from electronic medical records from Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in China for 1397 patients with mNPC diagnosed from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2017. Data analyses were conducted from October 1, 2020, to May 1, 2021.ExposuresPatients received chemotherapy, including platinum plus low-dose, long-term fluorouracil (PFLL); cisplatin plus standard dose, short-term fluorouracil (PFSS); cisplatin plus gemcitabine (GP); cisplatin plus taxane (TP); and cisplatin plus taxane plus fluorouracil (TPF).Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes included overall survival (OS); subsequent-line, treatment-free survival (sTFS), defined as the period from metastasis to the date requiring subsequent-line treatment or death; and the survival to toxicity ratio (STR), defined as person-year rate of OS divided by person-year rate of severe hematologic toxic effects. Cox regression models were used to compare the outcomes of patients receiving PFLL vs other regimens, adjusting for baseline characteristics.ResultsOf 1397 patients with mNPC included in this study (1152 men; median age, 46 years [range, 18-70 years]) 134 received PFLL, 203 received GP, 330 received PFSS, 366 received TP, and 364 received TPF. A total of 764 patients died (75 in treatment group PFLL; 107 in group GP; 204 in group PFSS; 207 in group TP; and 171 in group TPF), and 979 patients had subsequent-line treatment or died, whichever occurred first (PFLL, 77; GP, 144; PFSS, 262; TP, 269; and TPF, 227). The median follow-up was 46.9 months (IQR, 25.4-82.4 months), and the 5-year OS rate among patients who received PFLL was 25.4% (95% CI, 16.7%-38.8%), which was not significantly different from that among patients who did not receive PFLL (30.2%; 95% CI, 27.1%-33.5%; P = .13) or who received GP (25.1%; 95% CI, 18.1%-35.0%; P = .81), PFSS (23.6%; 95% CI, 18.5%-30.0%; P = .80), or TP (28.1%; 95% CI, 22.8%-34.7%; P = .99) but was lower than that for patients who received TPF (40.4%; 95% CI, 34.7%-47.1%; P = .001). The 5-year sTFS among patients who received PFLL (24.1%; 95% CI, 15.4%-37.6%) was significantly higher than that among patients who did not receive PFLL (18.5%; 95% CI, 16.1%-21.3%; P = .005) or who received GP (14.3%; 95% CI, 9.1%-22.5%; P = .001) but similar to that for patients who received TPF (28.0%; 95% CI, 23.0%-34.0%; P = .74). The STR of PFLL was 0.81, substantially better than that of GP (0.41) and TPF (0.65).Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this cohort study suggest that, compared with the use of standard treatment regimens, administration of PFLL was associated with similar OS but prolonged sTFS. PFLL also had better STR than other regimens, which could indicate less severe toxic effects. Thus, PFLL may be an option for first-line treatment of mNPC.