Suppr超能文献

蒽环类抗癌药物的心脏毒性:随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。

Cardiotoxicity of anthracycline agents for the treatment of cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

机构信息

Medical Research Matters, 77 Witney Road, Eynsham, OX29 4PN, UK.

出版信息

BMC Cancer. 2010 Jun 29;10:337. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-10-337.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the risk of early and late cardiotoxicity of anthracycline agents in patients treated for breast or ovarian cancer, lymphoma, myeloma or sarcoma.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials were sought using comprehensive searches of electronic databases in June 2008. Reference lists of retrieved articles were also scanned for additional articles. Outcomes investigated were early or late clinical and sub-clinical cardiotoxicity. Trial quality was assessed, and data were pooled through meta-analysis where appropriate.

RESULTS

Fifty-five published RCTs were included; the majority were on women with advanced breast cancer. A significantly greater risk of clinical cardiotoxicity was found with anthracycline compared with non-anthracycline regimens (OR 5.43 95% confidence interval: 2.34, 12.62), anthracycline versus mitoxantrone (OR 2.88 95% confidence interval: 1.29, 6.44), and bolus versus continuous anthracycline infusions (OR 4.13 95% confidence interval: 1.75, 9.72). Risk of clinical cardiotoxicity was significantly lower with epirubicin versus doxorubicin (OR 0.39 95% confidence interval: 0.20, 0.78), liposomal versus non-liposomal doxorubicin (OR 0.18 95% confidence interval: 0.08, 0.38) and with a concomitant cardioprotective agent (OR 0.21 95% confidence interval: 0.13, 0.33). No statistical heterogeneity was found for these pooled analyses. A similar pattern of results were found for subclinical cardiotoxicity; with risk significantly greater with anthracycline containing regimens and bolus administration; and significantly lower risk with epirubicin, liposomal doxorubicin versus doxorubicin but not epirubicin, and with concomitant use of a cardioprotective agent. Low to moderate statistical heterogeneity was found for two of the five pooled analyses, perhaps due to the different criteria used for reduction in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction. Meta-analyses of any cardiotoxicity (clinical and subclinical) showed moderate to high statistical heterogeneity for four of five pooled analyses; criteria for any cardiotoxic event differed between studies. Nonetheless the pattern of results was similar to those for clinical or subclinical cardiotoxicity described above.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is not sufficiently robust to support clear evidence-based recommendations on different anthracycline treatment regimens, or for routine use of cardiac protective agents or liposomal formulations. There is a need to improve cardiac monitoring in oncology trials.

摘要

背景

我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以明确蒽环类药物治疗乳腺癌、卵巢癌、淋巴瘤、骨髓瘤或肉瘤患者的早期和晚期心脏毒性风险。

方法

我们于 2008 年 6 月通过全面检索电子数据库来寻找随机对照试验。还对检索到的文章的参考文献列表进行了扫描,以寻找其他文章。研究的结局为早期或晚期临床和亚临床心脏毒性。评估了试验质量,并在适当的情况下通过荟萃分析进行了数据合并。

结果

纳入了 55 项已发表的 RCTs,其中大多数为晚期乳腺癌女性患者。与非蒽环类药物方案相比,蒽环类药物(OR 5.43,95%置信区间:2.34,12.62)、蒽环类药物与米托蒽醌(OR 2.88,95%置信区间:1.29,6.44)以及蒽环类药物推注与连续输注(OR 4.13,95%置信区间:1.75,9.72)更易发生临床心脏毒性。与表柔比星相比,阿霉素(OR 0.39,95%置信区间:0.20,0.78)、脂质体与非脂质体阿霉素(OR 0.18,95%置信区间:0.08,0.38)以及使用心脏保护剂(OR 0.21,95%置信区间:0.13,0.33)时,临床心脏毒性的风险显著降低。这些汇总分析没有发现统计学异质性。亚临床心脏毒性也呈现出类似的结果,即蒽环类药物方案和推注治疗的风险显著增加,而表柔比星、脂质体阿霉素与阿霉素相比风险显著降低,且使用心脏保护剂时风险也显著降低。五项汇总分析中的两项存在低至中度统计学异质性,这可能是由于左心室射血分数降低的标准不同。对任何心脏毒性(临床和亚临床)的荟萃分析显示,五项汇总分析中有四项存在中至高度统计学异质性;不同研究之间的任何心脏毒性事件的标准不同。尽管如此,结果模式与上述临床或亚临床心脏毒性相似。

结论

目前的证据还不够有力,无法支持关于不同蒽环类药物治疗方案、常规使用心脏保护剂或脂质体制剂的明确循证建议。有必要在肿瘤学试验中加强心脏监测。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f70a/2907344/2dce961ca4d4/1471-2407-10-337-1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验