Song Huan, Zhu Jianwei, Lu DongHao
Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Box 281, Stockholm, Sweden, SE-17177.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jul 19;7(7):CD011461. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011461.pub2.
Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer and third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Complete resection of the whole tumor remains the only approach to treat this malignant disease. Since gastric cancer is usually asymptomatic in its early stages, many people are diagnosed at an advanced stage when the tumor is inoperable. In addition, because other conventional treatments (radiotherapy and chemotherapy) have only modest efficacy for those with advanced/metastatic gastric cancer, the prognosis in such cases is poor. Recently, trials have provided some promising results regarding molecular-targeted therapy, raising the possibility that the development of these agents could be a fruitful approach. However, the benefit of molecular-targeted therapy for advanced gastric cancer remains inconclusive.
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of molecular-targeted therapy , either alone or in combination with chemotherapy, in people with advanced gastric cancer.
We searched the following databases (from inception to December 2015): the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. In addition, we searched the reference lists of included trials and contacted experts in the field.
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults (aged 18 years or older) with histologically-confirmed advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach/gastro-esophageal junction. Trials of participants with esophageal adenocarcinoma were also considered to be eligible. The eligible trials should aim to evaluate the effects of molecular-targeted agents on participants' prognosis.
Two review authors independently performed selection of eligible trials, assessment of trial quality, and data extraction. We used methods of survival analysis and expressed the intervention effect as a hazard ratio (HR) when pooling time-to-event data, and calculated the odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
We included 11 studies randomizing 4014 participants to molecular-targeted therapy plus conventional chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Five were at low risk of bias, and we considered the risk of bias in the other six studies to be high, mainly due to their open-label design. All identified studies reported data regarding survival. We found low-quality evidence that molecular-targeted may have a small effect on mortality (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, 10 studies) compared with conventional chemotherapy alone. Similarly, it may have little effect on progression-free survival when compared with conventional chemotherapy alone (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.04, 11 studies; low-quality evidence). We did not find evidence from subgroup analysis that survival outcomes differed by type of molecular-targeted agent (EGFR- or VEGF-targeting agents) or tumor type, meaning that we were unable to explain the variation in effect across the studies by the presence or absence of prognostic biomarkers or type of molecular-targeted agent. From 11 eligible trials, we were able to use data from 3723 participants with measurable tumors. We found low-quality evidence that molecular-targeted therapy may increase tumor response (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.55, low-quality evidence). Data from one small trial were too limited to determine the effect of treatment on quality of life (very low-quality evidence). The addition of targeted therapy to chemotherapy probably increases the risk of adverse events (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.92, 5 trials, 2290 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and severe adverse event (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.37, 8 trials, 3800 participants), compared with receiving chemotherapy alone.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is uncertainty about the effect of adding targeted therapy to chemotherapy on survival outcomes in people with advanced gastric cancer, with very little information on its impact on quality of life. There is more certain evidence of increased risk of adverse events and serious adverse events. The main limitation of the evidence for survival outcomes was inconsistency of effects across the studies, which we could not explain by prespecified subgroups in terms of the type of therapy or tumor type. Ongoing studies in this area are small and unlikely to improve our understanding of the effects of targeted therapy, and larger studies are needed.
胃癌是全球第五大常见癌症,也是癌症相关死亡的第三大主要原因。完整切除整个肿瘤仍然是治疗这种恶性疾病的唯一方法。由于胃癌在早期通常没有症状,许多人在肿瘤无法手术切除的晚期才被诊断出来。此外,由于其他传统治疗方法(放疗和化疗)对晚期/转移性胃癌患者的疗效有限,此类病例的预后较差。最近,一些试验在分子靶向治疗方面取得了一些有前景的结果,这增加了开发这些药物可能是一种有效方法的可能性。然而,分子靶向治疗对晚期胃癌的益处仍不明确。
评估分子靶向治疗单独或联合化疗在晚期胃癌患者中的疗效和安全性。
我们检索了以下数据库(从创建到2015年12月):Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、EMBASE和CINAHL。此外,我们还检索了纳入试验的参考文献列表并联系了该领域的专家。
我们检索了组织学确诊为晚期胃腺癌/胃食管交界腺癌的成人(年龄18岁及以上)的随机对照试验(RCT)。食管腺癌参与者的试验也被认为符合条件。符合条件的试验应旨在评估分子靶向药物对参与者预后的影响。
两位综述作者独立进行了符合条件试验的选择、试验质量评估和数据提取。我们使用生存分析方法,在汇总事件发生时间数据时将干预效果表示为风险比(HR),并计算二分数据的比值比(OR)和连续数据的均值差(MD),并给出95%置信区间(CI)。
我们纳入了11项研究,将4014名参与者随机分为分子靶向治疗联合传统化疗组或单纯化疗组。5项研究的偏倚风险较低,我们认为其他6项研究偏倚风险较高,主要是因为它们采用开放标签设计。所有纳入研究均报告了生存数据。我们发现低质量证据表明,与单纯传统化疗相比,分子靶向治疗可能对死亡率有轻微影响(HR 0.92,95%CI 0.80至1.05,10项研究)。同样,与单纯传统化疗相比,分子靶向治疗对无进展生存期可能影响不大(HR 0.90,95%CI 0.78至1.04,11项研究;低质量证据)。亚组分析未发现证据表明生存结果因分子靶向药物类型(表皮生长因子受体或血管内皮生长因子靶向药物)或肿瘤类型而异,这意味着我们无法通过预后生物标志物的存在与否或分子靶向药物类型来解释各研究间效应的差异。从11项符合条件的试验中,我们能够使用3723名有可测量肿瘤参与者的数据。我们发现低质量证据表明分子靶向治疗可能增加肿瘤反应(OR 1.24,95%CI 1.00至1.55,低质量证据)。一项小型试验的数据过于有限,无法确定治疗对生活质量的影响(极低质量证据)。与单纯接受化疗相比,化疗联合靶向治疗可能增加不良事件风险(OR 2.23,95%CI 1.27至3.92,5项试验,2290名参与者,中等质量证据)和严重不良事件风险(OR 1.19,95%CI 1.03至1.37,8项试验,3800名参与者)。
在晚期胃癌患者中,化疗联合靶向治疗对生存结果的影响尚不确定,关于其对生活质量影响的信息很少。有更确切的证据表明不良事件和严重不良事件风险增加。生存结果证据的主要局限性在于各研究间效应不一致,我们无法通过预先设定的治疗类型或肿瘤类型亚组来解释。该领域正在进行的研究规模较小,不太可能增进我们对靶向治疗效果的理解,需要开展更大规模的研究。