Search

// Ling Cao 1, * , Yong-Jing Yang 1, * , Jian-Dong Diao 2 , Xu-He Zhang 1 , Yan-Ling Liu 1 , Bo-Yu Wang 1 , Zhi-Wen Li 3 and Shi-Xin Liu 1 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Hospital of Jilin Province, Changchun 130012, People’s Republic of China 2 Department of Oncology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital Affiliated Jilin University, Changchun 130012, People’s Republic of China 3 Department of Anesthesiology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, 130021, People’s Republic of China * These authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence to: Shi-Xin Liu, email: liushixin1964@sina.com Zhi-Wen Li, email: prince00111@hotmail.com Keywords: zoledronic acid, bone metastasis, dose interval, skeletal-related events, meta-analysis Received: April 21, 2017 Accepted: July 18, 2017 Published: August 03, 2017 ABSTRACT Zoledronic acid is used to treat patients with bone metastasis, but the optimal dosing interval remains controversial. We therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of a 12-week interval of zoledronic acid with the standard 4-week interval. Three randomized controlled trials comprising 2650 patients were analyzed. Using a random-effects model, pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. No differences in the occurrence of skeletal-related events (SREs: RR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.86–1.12; P = 0.80) or grade 3/4 adverse events (RR = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.69–1.20; P = 0.52) were observed between the 12-week and 4-week groups. The 12-week group tended to have lower incidences of osteonecrosis of the jaw [13 (0.98%) vs. 23 (1.73%)] and kidney dysfunction [21 (1.68%) vs. 31 (2.45%)] than the 4-week group, though the difference did not reach statistical significance (RR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.30–1.12; P = 0.11); (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.39–1.15, P = 0.15). These data show that zoledronic acid administered at 12-week intervals instead of 4-week intervals does not increase the risk of SREs, and may reduce the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw and kidney dysfunction. This suggests the 12-week interval with zoledronic acid may be an acceptable treatment option.

// Ling Cao 1 , Yong-Jing Yang 1 , Zhi-Wen Li 2 , Hong-Fen Wu 1 , Zhu-Chun Yang 1 , Shi-Xin Liu 1 , Ping Wang 3 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Hospital of Jilin Province, Changchun 130012, People’s Republic of China 2 Department of Anesthesiology, The First Hospital Affiliated to Jilin University, Changchun 130012, People’s Republic of China 3 Department of Radiotherapy, Cancer Institute and Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin 300060, People’s Republic of China Correspondence to: Shi-Xin Liu, email: liushixin1964@sina.com Ping Wang, email: wangping.99999@yahoo.com.cn Keywords: prostatic neoplasms, hypofractionation, radiotherapy, meta-analysis Received: August 08, 2016 Accepted: November 24, 2016 Published: December 01, 2016 ABSTRACT To compare the efficacy and safety of moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy (H-RT) with those of conventional radiotherapy (C-RT) in patients with localized prostate cancer, we conducted extensive literature searches of The Web of Science, Embase, Pubmed and Cochrane Library databases. We identified nine studies with 5969 patients for a meta-analysis. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for multiple parameters and performed statistical analysis using RevMan 5.3 software. Our analysis showed that the H-RT group obtained greater improvements in the 5-year biochemical or clinical failure-free survival (RR = 1.04, 95% CI:1.01–1.08; P = 0.01) and 5-year disease-free survival(RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01–1.07, P = 0.02) than the C-RT group. However, the 5-year overall survival rates were comparable in the two groups (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.99–1.04; P = 0.18). Comparison of multiple secondary parameters, including grade 2-4 acute/late gastrointestinal toxicity, grade 2–4 acute/late genitourinary toxicity, biochemical failure, local failure, distant failure and prostate cancer-specific mortality between the H-RT and the C-RT groups showed no statistical differences. This meta-analysis thus indicates that in patients with localized prostate cancer, moderate H-RT exerts a great beneficial effect on the primary parameters than C-RT without enhancing adverse events.

// Yong-Jing Yang 1, * , Ling Cao 1, * , Zhi-Wen Li 2 , Ling Zhao 1 , Hong-Fen Wu 1 , Dan Yue 1 , Jin-Lei Yang 1 , Zhi-Rui Zhou 3 , Shi-Xin Liu 1 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Hospital of Jilin Province, Changchun, 130012, People’s Republic of China 2 Department of Anesthesiology, The First Hospital Affiliated to Jilin University, Changchun, 130012, People’s Republic of China 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, 200032, People’s Republic of China * These authors contribute equally to this work Correspondence to: Shi-Xin Liu, email: liushixin1964@126.com Zhi-Rui Zhou, email: zzr3711@163.com Keywords: rectal neoplasms, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, oxaliplatin, meta-analysis Received: March 06, 2016 Accepted: June 03, 2016 Published: June 14, 2016 ABSTRACT To measure the safety and efficacy of oxaliplatin (OX) application in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were used for a literature search. Cochrane’s risk of bias tool of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was used for quality evaluation. The statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3. In addition, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and pooled risk ratios (RRs) were calculated. Seven RCTs were included in our meta-analysis. After adding OX to fluoropyrimidine (FU), a marginal significant improvement in disease-free survival was noted compared with FU alone (RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.78–1.00; P = 0.05). Neoadjuvant CRT with OX significantly decreased the distant metastasis rate (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.67–0.94, P = 0.007). However, no improvement in the local recurrence rate (RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.68–1.08; P = 0.19) was noted. In addition, neoadjuvant CRT with OX also significantly increased the pathologic complete response (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.02–1.51; P = 0.03). Grade 3–4 acute toxicity and grade 3–4 diarrhea was considerably higher for OX/FU compared with FU alone. In conclusion, the use of OX on the basis of FU/capecitabine in preoperative CRT is feasible. LARC patients are likely to benefit from CRT regimens with OX.