Dataset Information

The role of antiangiogenic agents in the treatment of gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: The survival of advanced gastric cancer (GC) is dismal, and effects of antiangiogenic agents remain inconclusive. The purpose of this study is to assess combination of chemotherapy with antiangiogenic therapy versus traditional chemotherapy.To achieve the goal of scientific rigor, statistics from both referenced works and experiments were analyzed. We carefully searched for the referenced works by retrieving, as well as analyzing, literature databases for information on antiangiogenic therapy compared to other therapeutic approaches used to treat GC patients. Two groups were defined in the experiment: experimental and control groups. The experimental group was treated with antiangiogenic drug, and the control group was treated with standard chemotherapy or placebo.The study included a total of 3240 participants. Overall, there was significant improvement in overall survival (hazard ratio [HR]?=?0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.91, P?=?0.002), progression-free survival (HR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.52-0.81, P?=?0.0002), objective response rate (risk ratio [RR]?=?1.58, 95% CI: 1.33-1.88, P?

SUBMITTER: Lei X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5348206 | biostudies-other | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The role of antiangiogenic agents in the treatment of gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lei Xuefen X Wang Feng F Ke Yang Y Wei Dong D Gu Hou H Zhang Zhixian Z Jiang Lifeng L Lv Li L Lin Jie J Wang Lin L

Medicine 20170301 10

<h4>Background</h4>The survival of advanced gastric cancer (GC) is dismal, and effects of antiangiogenic agents remain inconclusive. The purpose of this study is to assess combination of chemotherapy with antiangiogenic therapy versus traditional chemotherapy.<h4>Methods</h4>To achieve the goal of scientific rigor, statistics from both referenced works and experiments were analyzed. We carefully searched for the referenced works by retrieving, as well as analyzing, literature databases for infor ...[more]

PMID: 28272258

Similar Datasets

Project description:Context:The role of antiangiogenic agents in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is well established. However, it is still not clear whether this benefit can be extrapolated to the adjuvant setting. Objective:To determine the efficacy and safety of antiangiogenic agents in patients with RCC and a high risk of relapse after nephrectomy. Evidence acquisition:We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of any oral antiangiogenic agent compared to placebo in post-nephrectomy RCC patients. Prespecified data elements were extracted from each trial. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The overall effect was pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. Evidence synthesis:Three RCTs comparing antiangiogenics to placebo among 3693 patients met our inclusion criteria and were used in meta-analyses. Overall, antiangiogenics did not improve DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-1.07) or OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79-1.25). These results persisted when restricting the analysis to patients with clear cell carcinoma and patients with highest risk of relapse. Similarly, sunitinib did not show any improvement in the entire cohort for either DFS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67-1.19) or OS (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.90-1.37). Conclusions:In this meta-analysis, antiangiogenics did not improve OS and DFS over placebo in high-risk RCC after nephrectomy. Further studies are needed to identify the patient population that might derive a benefit from antiangiogenics in the adjuvant setting. Patient summary:In this article, we found that there is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of oral antiangiogenics in nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy. In addition, the use of oral antiangiogenics was associated with a 2.7-fold higher rate of significant side effects compared to placebo.

Project description:BackgroundSurgery is the main treatment option for patients with local gastric cancer. However, surgery alone is usually not sufficient for stomach cancer patients, and combined therapies are recommended for these patients. In recent studies, some preoperative treatments have shown benefits. However, the treatment selection is still uncertain because previous studies failed to obtain a statistically significant difference between preoperative chemotherapy and preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Therefore, we plan to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the benefits among these preoperative treatments.Methods/designThis review includes randomized controlled trials with or without blinding as well as published studies, high-quality unpublished studies, full articles and meeting abstracts with an English context if sufficient results were provided for analysis. Data sources include the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, MEDLINE, major relevant international conferences and manual screening of references. Patients with a diagnosis of resectable primary gastric or EGJ adenocarcinoma (stage II or higher) who underwent surgery alone or preoperative treatment followed by surgery and who were pathologically confirmed as proposed by the AJCC 2017 guidelines without age, sex, race, subtypes of adenocarcinoma and molecular pathology limitations will be included. The following three interventions will be included: surgery alone, neoadjuvant chemistry followed by surgery and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. All-cause mortality, overall survival (OS, the time interval from diagnosis to death) and/or progression-free survival (PFS, the time interval from diagnosis to disease progression or death from any cause) will be defined as major results of concern. The clinical and pathological response rate (according to RECIST and tumour regression score), R0 resection rate, quality of life and grade 3 or above adverse events (according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, NCI-CTCAE) will be defined as the secondary outcomes.DiscussionThe aim of this systematic review is to compare the benefits of different preoperative treatments for patients with locoregional stomach cancer. This systematic review will improve the understanding of the relative efficacy of these treatment options by providing the latest evidence on the efficacy of various treatment options in the management of gastric cancer patients and may guide clinical practice.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD4202123718.

Project description:Background: Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor and antiangiogenic agent monotherapy have shown to be effective as maintenance treatment in patients with ovarian cancer (OC). However, there is currently a lack of evidence-based study to directly compare the effects of combination therapy with these two drugs. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with PARP inhibitors and antiangiogenic agents in women with OC using a meta-analysis. Methods: An exhaustive search of literature was undertaken using multiple databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify pertinent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up until 17 December 2023. The data on progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs) were pooled. We computed the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS and OS, along with the relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs for AEs. Trial sequential analysis, heterogeneity test, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias assessment were performed. Stata 12.0 and Software R 4.3.1 were utilized for all analyses. Results: This meta-analysis included 7 RCTs with a total of 3,388 participants. The overall analysis revealed that combination therapy of PARP inhibitors and antiangiogenic agents significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.615, 95% CI = 0.517-0.731; 95% PI = 0.379-0.999), but also increased the risk of AEs, including urinary tract infection (RR = 1.500, 95% CI = 1.114-2.021; 95% PI = 0.218-10.346), fatigue (RR = 1.264, 95% CI = 1.141-1.400; 95% PI = 1.012-1.552), headache (RR = 1.868, 95% CI = 1.036-3.369; 95% PI = 0.154-22.642), anorexia (RR = 1.718, 95% CI = 1.320-2.235; 95% PI = 0.050-65.480), and hypertension (RR = 5.009, 95% CI = 1.103-22.744; 95% PI = 0.016-1580.021) compared with PARP inhibitor or antiangiogenic agent monotherapy. Our study has not yet confirmed the benefit of combination therapy on OS in OC patients (HR = 0.885, 95% CI = 0.737-1.063). Additionally, subgroup analyses further showed that combination therapy resulted in an increased risk of AEs, encompassing thrombocytopenia, vomiting, abdominal pain, proteinuria, fatigue, headache, anorexia, and hypertension (all p < 0.05). Conclusion: Our study demonstrated the PFS benefit of combination therapy with PARP inhibitors and antiangiogenic agents in patients with OC. The OS result need to be updated after the original trial data is mature. Clinicians should be vigilant of AEs when administering the combination therapy in clinical practice. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42023494482.

Dataset Information

The role of antiangiogenic agents in the treatment of gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

The role of antiangiogenic agents in the treatment of gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets