Janmaat Vincent T, Steyerberg Ewout W, van der Gaast Ate, Mathijssen Ron Hj, Bruno Marco J, Peppelenbosch Maikel P, Kuipers Ernst J, Spaander Manon Cw
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Nov 28;11(11):CD004063. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004063.pub4.
Almost half of people with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer have metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis. Chemotherapy and targeted therapies are increasingly used with a palliative intent to control tumor growth, improve quality of life, and prolong survival. To date, and with the exception of ramucirumab, evidence for the efficacy of palliative treatments for esophageal and gastroesophageal cancer is lacking.
To assess the effects of cytostatic or targeted therapy for treating esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer with palliative intent.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Web of Science, PubMed Publisher, Google Scholar, and trial registries up to 13 May 2015, and we handsearched the reference lists of studies. We did not restrict the search to publications in English. Additional searches were run in September 2017 prior to publication, and they are listed in the 'Studies awaiting assessment' section.
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy versus best supportive care or control in people with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer.
Two authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and risk of bias of eligible studies according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We calculated pooled estimates of effect using an inverse variance random-effects model for meta-analysis.
We identified 41 RCTs with 11,853 participants for inclusion in the review as well as 49 ongoing studies. For the main comparison of adding a cytostatic and/or targeted agent to a control arm, we included 11 studies with 1347 participants. This analysis demonstrated an increase in overall survival in favor of the arm with an additional cytostatic or targeted therapeutic agent with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 0.84, high-quality evidence). The median increased survival time was one month. Five studies in 750 participants contributed data to the comparison of palliative therapy versus best supportive care. We found a benefit in overall survival in favor of the group receiving palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy compared to best supportive care (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.92, high-quality evidence). Subcomparisons including only people receiving second-line therapies, chemotherapies, targeted therapies, adenocarcinomas, and squamous cell carcinomas all showed a similar benefit. The only individual agent that more than one study found to improve both overall survival and progression-free survival was ramucirumab. Palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy increased the frequency of grade 3 or higher treatment-related toxicity. However, treatment-related deaths did not occur more frequently. Quality of life often improved in the arm with an additional agent.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: People who receive more chemotherapeutic or targeted therapeutic agents have an increased overall survival compared to people who receive less. These agents, administered as both first-line or second-line treatments, also led to better overall survival than best supportive care. With the exception of ramucirumab, it remains unclear which other individual agents cause the survival benefit. Although treatment-associated toxicities of grade 3 or more occurred more frequently in arms with an additional chemotherapy or targeted therapy agent, there is no evidence that palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy decrease quality of life. Based on this meta-analysis, palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy can be considered standard care for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma.
近一半的食管癌或胃食管交界癌患者在确诊时已发生转移性疾病。化疗和靶向治疗越来越多地用于姑息治疗,以控制肿瘤生长、改善生活质量并延长生存期。迄今为止,除雷莫西尤单抗外,缺乏姑息治疗对食管癌和胃食管癌疗效的证据。
评估细胞毒性或靶向治疗对食管癌或胃食管交界癌进行姑息治疗的效果。
我们检索了截至2015年5月13日的Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、Embase、科学引文索引、PubMed出版商、谷歌学术以及试验注册库,并对研究的参考文献列表进行了手工检索。我们没有将检索限制在英文出版物上。在2017年9月出版前进行了额外检索,相关结果列于“待评估研究”部分。
我们纳入了关于食管癌或胃食管交界癌患者接受姑息化疗和/或靶向治疗与最佳支持治疗或对照比较的随机对照试验(RCT)。
两位作者独立提取数据。我们根据Cochrane干预措施系统评价手册评估符合条件研究的质量和偏倚风险。我们使用逆方差随机效应模型进行荟萃分析计算合并效应估计值。
我们确定了41项RCT,共11853名参与者纳入本综述,还有49项正在进行的研究。对于在对照组中添加细胞毒性和/或靶向药物的主要比较,我们纳入了11项研究,共1347名参与者。该分析表明,添加细胞毒性或靶向治疗药物的组总生存期延长,风险比(HR)为0.75(95%置信区间(CI)0.68至0.84,高质量证据)。中位生存期延长了1个月。750名参与者的5项研究为姑息治疗与最佳支持治疗的比较提供了数据。我们发现,与最佳支持治疗相比,接受姑息化疗和/或靶向治疗的组总生存期有获益(HR 0.81,95% CI 0.71至0.92,高质量证据)。仅包括接受二线治疗、化疗、靶向治疗、腺癌和鳞状细胞癌患者的亚组比较均显示出类似的获益。多项研究发现唯一能同时改善总生存期和无进展生存期的单一药物是雷莫西尤单抗。姑息化疗和/或靶向治疗增加了3级或更高等级治疗相关毒性的发生率。然而,治疗相关死亡并未更频繁发生。使用额外药物治疗的组生活质量通常有所改善。
与接受较少化疗或靶向治疗药物的患者相比,接受更多此类药物治疗的患者总生存期延长。这些药物作为一线或二线治疗使用时,也比最佳支持治疗带来更好的总生存期。除雷莫西尤单抗外,尚不清楚其他哪些单一药物能带来生存获益。尽管在添加化疗或靶向治疗药物的组中3级或更高级别的治疗相关毒性更频繁发生,但没有证据表明姑息化疗和/或靶向治疗会降低生活质量。基于这项荟萃分析,姑息化疗和/或靶向治疗可被视为食管癌和胃食管交界癌的标准治疗。