Department of Orthopedics, Xijing Hospital, Forth Military Medical University, No.15 West Changle Road, Xincheng District, Xi'an, Shaanxi, People's Republic of China.
Paediatr Drugs. 2014 Dec;16(6):503-12. doi: 10.1007/s40272-014-0095-z.
Despite a large number of publications on outcomes of second-line chemotherapy for osteosarcoma, there is little consensus on efficacy of the therapy.
Our objective was to systematically categorize published evidence for chemotherapy for metastatic, relapsed and refractory osteosarcoma in order to provide an updated and comprehensive analysis of the clinical outcomes.
We performed a search of PubMed and EMBASE to identify published articles reporting on validated clinical outcomes measures (the rate of complete response [CR] and partial response [PR], the rate of stable disease [SD] and progressive disease [PD] and the 5-year overall survival) after chemotherapy in patients with metastatic, relapsed and refractory osteosarcoma. A total of 20 articles were identified and stratified by different regimens. Finally, six regimens that have at least two drugs were reviewed. Weighted averages of each outcome were computed.
The weighted average overall response rate (CR + PR) for the combination of ifosfamide, etoposide and high-dose methotrexate therapy was 62 %, and the tumor control rate (CR + PR + SD) was 92.3 %; the highest of all six regimens. The weighted average overall response rate and tumor control rate of ifosfamide-etoposide therapy (41.7 and 77.9 %, respectively) were the highest of the two-drug regimens. Weighted average overall response rate and tumor control rate for the remaining regimens were 20.5 and 56.8 %, respectively, for cyclophosphamide-etoposide; 30.0 and 73.5 % for ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide; 12.0 and 40.0 % for cyclophosphamide-topotecan; and 14.5 and 36.4 % for gemcitabine-docetaxel.
A chemotherapy regimen comprising both a cell cycle-specific drug and a cell cycle-nonspecific drug could increase response rates. The combination of ifosfamide and etoposide therapy is our first choice in two-drug regimens. Regarding three-drug regimens, adding a cell cycle-specific drug to ifosfamide-etoposide therapy may result in a better response rate than adding a cell cycle-nonspecific drug, or any other two-drug regimens in current studies. Hence, we recommend the use of second-line chemotherapy based on the combination ifosfamide-etoposide regimen in patients with metastatic, relapsed and refractory osteosarcoma.
尽管有大量关于骨肉瘤二线化疗结果的出版物,但对于该治疗的疗效仍存在较少共识。
我们的目的是系统地对转移性、复发性和难治性骨肉瘤的化疗发表证据进行分类,以便对临床结果进行更新和全面的分析。
我们在 PubMed 和 EMBASE 上进行了检索,以确定发表的报告转移性、复发性和难治性骨肉瘤患者化疗后验证的临床结果测量(完全缓解[CR]和部分缓解[PR]率、稳定疾病[SD]和进展疾病[PD]率和 5 年总生存率)的文章。共确定了 20 篇文章,并按不同方案进行了分层。最后,对至少有两种药物的六种方案进行了回顾。计算了每种结果的加权平均值。
异环磷酰胺、依托泊苷和大剂量甲氨蝶呤联合治疗的总体反应率(CR+PR)加权平均值为 62%,肿瘤控制率(CR+PR+SD)加权平均值为 92.3%;这是所有六种方案中最高的。异环磷酰胺-依托泊苷治疗的加权平均总体反应率和肿瘤控制率(分别为 41.7%和 77.9%)分别是两种药物方案中最高的。其余方案的加权平均总体反应率和肿瘤控制率分别为环磷酰胺-依托泊苷 20.5%和 56.8%,异环磷酰胺、卡铂和依托泊苷 30.0%和 73.5%,环磷酰胺-拓扑替康 12.0%和 40.0%,吉西他滨-多西他赛 14.5%和 36.4%。
包含细胞周期特异性药物和细胞周期非特异性药物的化疗方案可以提高反应率。异环磷酰胺和依托泊苷联合治疗是我们在两种药物方案中的首选。关于三药方案,与添加细胞周期非特异性药物相比,向异环磷酰胺-依托泊苷治疗中添加细胞周期特异性药物可能会导致更好的反应率,或者比目前研究中的任何其他两种药物方案更好。因此,我们建议基于转移性、复发性和难治性骨肉瘤的异环磷酰胺-依托泊苷方案使用二线化疗。