Montero-Macías Rosa, Rigolet Pascal, Mikhael Elie, Krell Jonathan, Villefranque Vincent, Lecuru Fabrice, Fotopoulou Christina
Department of Obstetrics and gynecology, Centre hospitalier Simone-Veil, 95602 Eaubonne, France.
Curie Institute, Paris-Saclay University, CNRS UMR 9187, Inserm U1196, CEDEX F-91898, 91400 Orsay, France.
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Jul 28;14(15):3681. doi: 10.3390/cancers14153681.
We performed a systematic literature review and a subsequent meta-analysis to compare traditional treatment options, i.e., antihormonal and cytotoxic, in LGSOC.
We conducted a systematic literature review in MEDBASE and MEDLINE between September 2000 and June 2021 for women who received cytotoxic chemotherapy and/or antihormonal treatment after primary cytoreduction due to stage II-IV LGSOC and also at relapse. PFS and OS were calculated depending on the type of their adjuvant treatment. For each endpoint in the meta-analysis, pooled HR was calculated using the random effect model with the inverse variance weighted method. Only primary patients were included in the subsequent meta-analysis due to the small number of studies in the relapsed setting.
Five eligible first-line studies were included. Systemic chemotherapy failed to provide a significant OS benefit when compared to no systemic treatment (pooled HR = 1.01, 95% CI [0.79, 1.29]) after successful cytoreduction. Moreover, systemic chemotherapy followed by antihormonal treatment also did not result to a significant PFS or OS benefit when compared to systemic chemotherapy alone (for PSF: pooled HR = 0.59, 95% CI [0.33, 1.04]; for OS: pooled HR = 0.83, 95% CI [0.50, 1.39]). There were insufficient data from studies in the recurrent setting to allow their inclusion in the meta-analysis.
In this meta-analysis, we failed to identify a traditional cytotoxic or antihormonal systemic treatment option that was associated with a significant OS or PFS benefit when administered following successful cytoreduction for advanced LGSOC. Prospective randomized studies are urgently warranted to define optimal adjuvant options in this challenging disease.
我们进行了一项系统的文献综述及后续的荟萃分析,以比较低级别浆液性卵巢癌(LGSOC)的传统治疗方案,即抗激素治疗和细胞毒性治疗。
我们于2000年9月至2021年6月在MEDBASE和MEDLINE中进行了一项系统的文献综述,纳入因II-IV期LGSOC进行初次细胞减灭术后以及复发时接受细胞毒性化疗和/或抗激素治疗的女性。根据辅助治疗类型计算无进展生存期(PFS)和总生存期(OS)。对于荟萃分析中的每个终点,使用随机效应模型和逆方差加权法计算合并风险比(HR)。由于复发情况下的研究数量较少,后续的荟萃分析仅纳入初治患者。
纳入了五项符合条件的一线研究。成功进行细胞减灭术后,与未进行全身治疗相比,全身化疗未能提供显著的总生存期获益(合并HR = 1.01,95%置信区间[0.79, 1.29])。此外,与单纯全身化疗相比,全身化疗后进行抗激素治疗也未带来显著的无进展生存期或总生存期获益(对于无进展生存期:合并HR = 0.59,95%置信区间[0.33, 1.04];对于总生存期:合并HR = 0.83,95%置信区间[0.50, 1.39])。复发情况下的研究数据不足,无法纳入荟萃分析。
在这项荟萃分析中,我们未能确定一种传统的细胞毒性或抗激素全身治疗方案,在晚期LGSOC成功进行细胞减灭术后使用时能带来显著的总生存期或无进展生存期获益。迫切需要进行前瞻性随机研究,以确定这种具有挑战性疾病的最佳辅助治疗方案。