Yao Nan, Jiang Lei, Yang Kehu, Ye Yancheng, Mi Denghai, Min Guangtao
Evidence Based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China; The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China.
Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi. 2009 Aug 20;12(8):884-8. doi: 10.3779/j.issn.1009-3419.2009.08.10.
It is unclear whether etoposide/cisplatin (EP) regimen is the optimal chemotherapy regimen in the treatment patients with extensive small cell lung cancer (SCLC), this study was aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of patients with extensive SCLC treated with irinotecan/cisplatin (IP) versus EP.
We searched EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, China journal full-text database (CJFD), Chinese scientific journal full-text database (CSJD), Chinese biomedicine literature database (CBM) for randomized controlled trials comparing IP with EP regimens. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of included studies and extracted data. We analyzed the data using Review Manager (version 5.0).
Four randomized controlled trials totaling 1 180 patients were included. The results of meta analysis were as follows: there was no significant difference between IP regimen and EP regimens in one year survive rate (RR=1.22, 95%CI: 0.97-1.54), two year survive rate (RR=2.26, 95%CI: 0.46-11.21). There was significant difference between IP regimen and EP regimens in overall response rate (RR=1.13, 95%CI: 1.03-1.25), grade 3/4 neutropenia (RR=0.48, 95%CI: 0.34-0.69), thrombopenia (RR=0.23, 95%CI: 0.15-0.36), grade 3 anemia (RR=0.55, 95%CI: 0.40-0.77), grade 3/4 diarrhea (RR=9.56, 95%CI: 4.91-18.59), grade 3 nausea/vomiting (RR=1.70, 95%CI: 1.19-2.43).
There is no significant difference between IP group and EP group with regard to one year survive rate, two year survive rate, but IP regimen improves reponse rate. IP regimen has less hematologic & greater gastrointestinal toxicity compared with EP, EP regimen remain the main standard chemotherapy in the treatment extensive small cell lung cancer due to cheapness, they still need to be confirmed by randomized controlled trials.
依托泊苷/顺铂(EP)方案是否为广泛期小细胞肺癌(SCLC)治疗的最佳化疗方案尚不清楚,本研究旨在评估伊立替康/顺铂(IP)与EP方案治疗广泛期SCLC患者的疗效和安全性。
我们检索了EMBASE、PubMed、Cochrane图书馆、中国期刊全文数据库(CJFD)、中国科学期刊全文数据库(CSJD)、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM),以查找比较IP与EP方案的随机对照试验。两名研究者独立评估纳入研究的质量并提取数据。我们使用Review Manager(5.0版)分析数据。
纳入4项随机对照试验,共1180例患者。荟萃分析结果如下:IP方案与EP方案在1年生存率(RR = 1.22,95%CI:0.97 - 1.54)、2年生存率(RR = 2.26,95%CI:0.46 - 11.21)方面无显著差异。IP方案与EP方案在总缓解率(RR = 1.13,95%CI:1.03 - 1.25)、3/4级中性粒细胞减少(RR = 0.48,95%CI:0.34 - 0.69)、血小板减少(RR = 0.23,95%CI:0.15 - 0.36)、3级贫血(RR = 0.55,95%CI:0.40 - 0.77)、3/4级腹泻(RR = 9.56,95%CI:4.91 - 18.59)、3级恶心/呕吐(RR = 1.70,95%CI:1.19 - 2.43)方面存在显著差异。
IP组与EP组在1年生存率、2年生存率方面无显著差异,但IP方案提高了缓解率。与EP相比,IP方案血液学毒性较小但胃肠道毒性较大,EP方案因价格便宜仍是广泛期小细胞肺癌治疗的主要标准化疗方案,它们仍需随机对照试验予以证实。