Lawrie Theresa A, Alazzam Mo'iad, Tidy John, Hancock Barry W, Osborne Raymond
Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancer Group, Royal United Hospital, Education Centre, Bath, UK, BA1 3NG.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jun 9;2016(6):CD007102. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007102.pub4.
This is the second update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2009, Issue 1, . 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.
To determine the efficacy and safety of first-line chemotherapy in the treatment of low-risk GTN.
We electronically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase in September 2008, February 2012, and January 2016. In addition, we searched online trial registers for protocols and ongoing trials.
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 versions of the review, we included only RCTs.
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data to a pre-designed data extraction form. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model.
We included seven RCTs (667 women) in this updated review. Most studies were at a low or moderate risk of bias and all compared methotrexate with actinomycin D. Three studies compared weekly intramuscular (IM) methotrexate with bi-weekly pulsed intravenous (IV) actinomycin D (393 women), one study compared five-day IM methotrexate with bi-weekly pulsed IV actinomycin D (75 women), one study compared eight-day IM methotrexate-folinic acid (MTX-FA) with five-day IV actinomycin D (49 women), and one study compared eight-day IM MTX-FA with bi-weekly pulsed IV actinomycin D. One study contributed no data. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that actinomycin D is probably more likely to lead to primary cure than methotrexate (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.75; six trials, 577 participants; I(2) = 26%), and first-line methotrexate treatment is probably more likely to fail than actinomycin D treatment (RR 3.55, 95% CI 1.81 to 6.95; six trials, 577 participants; I(2) = 61%; moderate-certainty evidence) Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be little or no difference between methotrexate and actinomycin D treatment 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 inconsistent to be conclusive. Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be little or no difference in the risk of severe adverse events (SAEs) between the groups overall (five studies, 515 women; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.66; I² = 60%); however, the direction of effect favours methotrexate and more evidence is needed. Furthermore, evidence from subgroup analyses suggests that actinomycin D may be associated with a greater risk of SAEs than methotrexate (low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence on the effect of these treatments on future fertility.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Actinomycin D is probably more likely to achieve a primary cure in women with low-risk GTN, and less likely to result in treatment failure, than a methotrexate regimen. There may be little or no difference between the pulsed actinomycin D regimen and the methotrexate regimen with regard to side-effects. However, actinomycin D may be associated with a greater risk of severe adverse events (SAEs) than a methotrexate regimen. Higher-certainty evidence is still needed on treating low-risk GTN and the four ongoing trials are likely to make a significant contribution to this field. Given the variety of treatment regimens, findings from these trials could facilitate a network meta-analysis in the next version of this review to help women and clinicians determine the best treatment options for low-risk GTN.
这是一篇Cochrane系统评价的第二次更新,该评价首次发表于2009年第1期。妊娠滋养细胞肿瘤(GTN)是一种罕见但可治愈的疾病,发生于孕期胎儿绒毛膜。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。
确定一线化疗治疗低风险GTN的疗效和安全性。
我们于2008年9月、2012年2月和2016年1月对Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE和Embase进行了电子检索。此外,我们检索了在线试验注册库以查找方案和正在进行的试验。
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。对于本次更新版本的评价,我们仅纳入RCT。
两位评价作者独立评估纳入研究,并将数据提取到预先设计的数据提取表中。采用随机效应模型进行Meta分析。
本次更新评价纳入了7项RCT(667名女性)。大多数研究的偏倚风险为低或中度,所有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),1项研究比较了连续8天IM MTX-FA与每两周脉冲IV放线菌素D。1项研究未提供数据。中等质量证据表明,放线菌素D比甲氨蝶呤更有可能实现初次治愈(风险比(RR)0.65,95%置信区间(CI)0.57至0.75;6项试验,577名参与者;I² = 26%),一线甲氨蝶呤治疗比放线菌素D治疗更有可能失败(RR 3.55,95% CI 1.81至6.95;6项试验,577名参与者;I² = 61%;中等质量证据)。低质量证据表明,甲氨蝶呤和放线菌素D治疗在恶心方面(4项研究,466名女性;RR 0.61,95% CI 0.29至1.26)或报告的任何其他个体副作用方面可能几乎没有差异,尽管所有这些结局的数据都不足且过于不一致,无法得出结论。低质量证据表明,两组总体严重不良事件(SAEs)风险可能几乎没有差异(5项研究,515名女性;RR 0.35,95% CI 0.08至1.66;I² = 60%);然而,效应方向有利于甲氨蝶呤,需要更多证据。此外,亚组分析的证据表明放线菌素D可能比甲氨蝶呤有更高的SAEs风险(低质量证据)。我们未发现这些治疗对未来生育能力影响的证据。
与甲氨蝶呤方案相比,放线菌素D在低风险GTN女性中更有可能实现初次治愈,且治疗失败的可能性更小。脉冲放线菌素D方案和甲氨蝶呤方案在副作用方面可能几乎没有差异。然而,放线菌素D可能比甲氨蝶呤方案有更高的严重不良事件(SAEs)风险。治疗低风险GTN仍需要更高质量的证据,正在进行中的4项试验可能会对该领域做出重大贡献。鉴于治疗方案的多样性,这些试验的结果可能有助于在本评价的下一版本中进行网状Meta分析,以帮助女性和临床医生确定低风险GTN的最佳治疗选择。