• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
First-line chemotherapy in low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.低危妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤的一线化疗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jul 11;7(7):CD007102. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007102.pub3.
2
First-line chemotherapy in low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.低危妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤的一线化疗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jun 9;2016(6):CD007102. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007102.pub4.
3
First line chemotherapy in low risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.低危妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤的一线化疗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jan 21(1):CD007102. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007102.pub2.
4
Prophylactic chemotherapy for hydatidiform mole to prevent gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.预防性化疗用于葡萄胎以预防妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Sep 11;9(9):CD007289. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007289.pub3.
5
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.慢性斑块状银屑病的全身药理学治疗:一项网状荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 22;12(12):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub2.
6
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.慢性斑块状银屑病的全身药理学治疗:一项网状Meta分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jan 9;1(1):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub3.
7
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.系统性药理学治疗慢性斑块状银屑病:网络荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 19;4(4):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub4.
8
Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis.成人全身麻醉后预防术后恶心呕吐的药物:网状Meta分析
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 19;10(10):CD012859. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012859.pub2.
9
Prophylactic chemotherapy for hydatidiform mole to prevent gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.预防性化疗用于葡萄胎以预防妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Oct 17;10(10):CD007289. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007289.pub2.
10
Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.转移性皮肤黑色素瘤的全身治疗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 6;2(2):CD011123. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011123.pub2.

引用本文的文献

1
Invasive Mole with Rare Ovarian Metastasis: Successful Treatment with Hysterectomy and Chemotherapy-A Case Report.侵袭性葡萄胎伴罕见卵巢转移:子宫切除及化疗成功治疗——病例报告
Indian J Surg Oncol. 2024 Dec;15(Suppl 4):622-626. doi: 10.1007/s13193-024-02086-7. Epub 2024 Sep 9.
2
Factors influencing serum hCG negativization timing in gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.影响妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤血清人绒毛膜促性腺激素转阴时间的因素。
Am J Cancer Res. 2025 Jan 15;15(1):331-347. doi: 10.62347/HFRL7722. eCollection 2025.
3
Evolution of Treatment Strategies for Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia: Chemotherapy, Immunotherapy, and Molecular Targeted Therapy.妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤治疗策略的演变:化疗、免疫治疗和分子靶向治疗。
Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2024 Aug;25(8):1055-1062. doi: 10.1007/s11864-024-01235-y. Epub 2024 Jul 25.
4
Successful Management of Persistent Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia: A Comprehensive Review and Case Analysis.持续性妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤的成功管理:全面综述与病例分析
Cureus. 2023 Dec 26;15(12):e51112. doi: 10.7759/cureus.51112. eCollection 2023 Dec.
5
Diagnosis and management of gestational trophoblastic disease: 2021 update.妊娠滋养细胞疾病的诊断与管理:2021年更新
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2021 Oct;155 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):86-93. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.13877.
6
A review on management of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤管理综述。
J Family Med Prim Care. 2020 Mar 26;9(3):1287-1295. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_876_19. eCollection 2020 Mar.
7
Pure nongestational uterine choriocarcinoma in postmenopausal women: a case report with literature review.绝经后妇女的单纯性非妊娠性子宫绒毛膜癌:病例报告并文献复习。
Cancer Biol Ther. 2019;20(9):1176-1182. doi: 10.1080/15384047.2019.1617564. Epub 2019 May 27.
8
Effect of Combination Therapy of Methotrexate with Vitamin A in Patients with Low Risk GTN (Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia).甲氨蝶呤与维生素A联合治疗低危妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤(GTN)患者的疗效
Iran J Pharm Res. 2018 Winter;17(Suppl):38-42.
9
Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia Treatment at the Butaro Cancer Center of Excellence in Rwanda.卢旺达布塔罗卓越癌症中心的妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤治疗
J Glob Oncol. 2016 Apr 13;2(6):365-374. doi: 10.1200/JGO.2015.002568. eCollection 2016 Dec.
10
First-line chemotherapy in low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.低危妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤的一线化疗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jun 9;2016(6):CD007102. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007102.pub4.

本文引用的文献

1
Comparison of pulsed actinomycin D versus 5-day methotrexate for the treatment of low-risk gestational trophoblastic disease.比较脉冲放线菌素 D 与 5 天甲氨蝶呤治疗低危型妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤。
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012 Jan;116(1):39-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.08.003. Epub 2011 Oct 11.
2
Predicting gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN): is urine hCG the answer?预测妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤(GTN):尿 hCG 是答案吗?
Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Sep;122(3):595-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.05.035.
3
Phase III trial of weekly methotrexate or pulsed dactinomycin for low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: a gynecologic oncology group study.低危型妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤每周甲氨蝶呤或多柔比星脉冲化疗的 III 期临床试验:一项妇科肿瘤学组研究。
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Mar 1;29(7):825-31. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.30.4386. Epub 2011 Jan 24.
4
Treatment of low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.低危妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤的治疗
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Mar 1;29(7):786-8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.0151. Epub 2011 Jan 24.
5
Prevention of post-mole malignant trophoblastic disease with vitamin A.维生素A预防葡萄胎后恶性滋养细胞疾病
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2010;11(2):567-70.
6
Gestational trophoblastic disease II: classification and management of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.妊娠滋养细胞疾病 II:妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤的分类和管理。
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jan;204(1):11-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.06.072. Epub 2010 Aug 24.
7
Gestational trophoblastic disease I: epidemiology, pathology, clinical presentation and diagnosis of gestational trophoblastic disease, and management of hydatidiform mole.妊娠滋养细胞疾病 I:流行病学、病理学、临床表现和诊断、葡萄胎的处理。
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Dec;203(6):531-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.06.073. Epub 2010 Aug 21.
8
Gestational trophoblastic disease.妊娠滋养细胞疾病。
Lancet. 2010 Aug 28;376(9742):717-29. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60280-2. Epub 2010 Jul 29.
9
The management and outcome of women with post-hydatidiform mole 'low-risk' gestational trophoblastic neoplasia, but hCG levels in excess of 100 000 IU l(-1).有妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤病史“低危”但血 hCG 水平超过 100 000IU/L 的女性患者的管理和结局。
Br J Cancer. 2010 Mar 2;102(5):810-4. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605529. Epub 2010 Feb 16.
10
Actinomycin d versus methotrexate-folinic acid as the treatment of stage I, low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial.放线菌素D与甲氨蝶呤-亚叶酸作为I期低危妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤的治疗:一项随机对照试验
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009 Jul;19(5):985-8. doi: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181a8333d.

低危妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤的一线化疗

First-line chemotherapy in low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.

作者信息

Alazzam Mo'iad, Tidy John, Hancock Barry W, Osborne Raymond, Lawrie Theresa A

机构信息

Department of Gynaecology, The Galway Clinic, Doughiska, Galway, Ireland.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jul 11;7(7):CD007102. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007102.pub3.

DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD007102.pub3
PMID:22786502
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4164471/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in Issue 1, 2009. Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) is a rare but curable disease arising in the fetal chorion during pregnancy. Most women with low-risk GTN will be cured by evacuation of the uterus with or without single-agent chemotherapy. However, chemotherapy regimens vary between treatment centres worldwide and the comparable benefits and risks of these different regimens are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of first-line chemotherapy in the treatment of low-risk GTN.

SEARCH METHODS

In September 2008, we electronically searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL Issue 3, 2008), MEDLINE and EMBASE. In addition, we searched online trial registers, conference proceedings and reference lists of identified studies. We re-ran these searches in February 2012 for this updated review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

For the original review, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and non-RCTs that compared first-line chemotherapy for the treatment of low-risk GTN. For this updated version of the review, we included only RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data to a pre-designed data extraction form. Meta-analysis was performed by pooling the risk ratio (RR) of individual trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five moderate to high quality RCTs (517 women) in the updated review. These studies all compared methotrexate with dactinomycin. Three studies compared weekly intramuscular (IM) methotrexate with bi-weekly pulsed intravenous (IV) dactinomycin (393 women), one study compared five-day IM methotrexate with bi-weekly pulsed IV dactinomycin (75 women) and one study compared eight-day IM methotrexate-folinic acid (MTX-FA) with five-day IV dactinomycin (49 women).Overall, dactinomycin was associated with significantly higher rates of primary cure than methotrexate (five studies, 513 women; RR 0.64, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.76). Methotrexate was associated with significantly more treatment failure than dactinomycin (five studies, 513 women; RR 3.81, 95% CI 1.64 to 8.86). We consider this evidence to be of a moderate quality.There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to nausea (four studies, 466 women; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.26) or any of the other individual side-effects reported, although data for all of these outcomes were insufficient and too heterogeneous to be conclusive. No severe adverse effects (SAEs) occurred in either group in three out of the five included studies and there was no significant difference in SAEs between the groups overall (five studies, 515 women; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.66; I² = 60%), however, there was a trend towards fewer SAEs in the methotrexate group. We considered this evidence to be of a low quality due to substantial heterogeneity and low consistency in the occurrence/reporting of SAEs between trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Dactinomycin is more likely to achieve a primary cure in women with low-risk GTN, and less likely to result in treatment failure, compared with methotrexate. There is limited evidence relating to side-effects, however, the pulsed dactinomycin regimen does not appear to be associated with significantly more side-effects than the low-dose methotrexate regimen and therefore should compare favourably to the five- and eight-day methotrexate regimens in this regard.We consider pulsed dactinomycin to have a better cure rate than, and a side-effect profile at least equivalent to, methotrexate when used for first-line treatment of low-risk GTN. Data from a large ongoing trial of pulsed dactinomycin compared with five- and eight-day methotrexate regimens is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in these findings.

摘要

背景

这是对一篇Cochrane系统评价的更新,该评价首次发表于2009年第1期。妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤(GTN)是一种在孕期胎儿绒毛膜发生的罕见但可治愈的疾病。大多数低风险GTN女性通过子宫排空联合或不联合单药化疗即可治愈。然而,全球各治疗中心的化疗方案各不相同,这些不同方案的相对获益和风险尚不清楚。

目的

确定一线化疗治疗低风险GTN的疗效和安全性。

检索方法

2008年9月,我们通过电子方式检索了Cochrane妇科癌症小组专业注册库、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(2008年第3期)、MEDLINE和EMBASE。此外,我们还检索了在线试验注册库、会议论文集以及已识别研究的参考文献列表。为进行本次更新评价,我们于2012年2月重新进行了这些检索。

入选标准

对于原始评价,我们纳入了比较一线化疗治疗低风险GTN的随机对照试验(RCT)、半随机对照试验和非随机对照试验。对于本次评价的更新版本,我们仅纳入了RCT。

数据收集与分析

两位评价作者独立评估研究是否纳入,并将数据提取至预先设计的数据提取表中。通过汇总各独立试验的风险比(RR)进行Meta分析。

主要结果

在本次更新评价中,我们纳入了5项中高质量RCT(517名女性)。这些研究均比较了甲氨蝶呤与放线菌素D。3项研究比较了每周肌肉注射(IM)甲氨蝶呤与每两周脉冲静脉注射(IV)放线菌素D(393名女性),1项研究比较了连续5天IM甲氨蝶呤与每两周脉冲IV放线菌素D(75名女性),1项研究比较了连续8天IM甲氨蝶呤-亚叶酸(MTX-FA)与连续5天IV放线菌素D(49名女性)。总体而言,放线菌素D的初次治愈率显著高于甲氨蝶呤(5项研究,513名女性;RR 0.64,95%置信区间(CI)0.54至0.76)。甲氨蝶呤导致的治疗失败显著多于放线菌素D(5项研究,513名女性;RR 3.81,95%CI 1.64至8.86)。我们认为该证据质量中等。两组在恶心方面无显著差异(4项研究,466名女性;RR 0.61,95%CI 0.29至1.26),或所报告的任何其他个体副作用方面也无显著差异,尽管所有这些结局的数据均不足且异质性过大,无法得出结论。在纳入的5项研究中有3项中两组均未发生严重不良反应(SAEs),总体上两组在SAEs方面无显著差异(5项研究,515名女性;RR 0.35,95%CI 0.08至1.66;I² = 60%),然而,甲氨蝶呤组的SAEs有减少趋势。由于试验间SAEs发生/报告的实质性异质性和低一致性,我们认为该证据质量较低。

作者结论

与甲氨蝶呤相比,放线菌素D更有可能使低风险GTN女性获得初次治愈,且导致治疗失败的可能性更小。关于副作用的证据有限,然而,脉冲放线菌素D方案似乎与低剂量甲氨蝶呤方案相比,副作用并无显著增加,因此在这方面应优于连续5天和8天的甲氨蝶呤方案。我们认为,当用于低风险GTN的一线治疗时,脉冲放线菌素D的治愈率高于甲氨蝶呤,且副作用至少相当。一项正在进行的比较脉冲放线菌素D与连续5天和8天甲氨蝶呤方案的大型试验的数据,可能会对我们对这些结果的信心产生重要影响。