Search

Background: Gemcitabine and pemetrexed have been used as maintenance therapy. However, few systematic reviews and meta-analyses have assessed their effects in the newest studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the role of gemcitabine and pemetrexed in the maintenance treatment of non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Methods: We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases from their inceptions to September 16, 2015. We also searched the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) databases from 2008 to 2015. Two authors independently extracted the data. The Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias graph was used to assess the risk of bias. The GRADE system was used to assess the grading of evidence, and a meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 11.0 software. Results: Eleven randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies were collected. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis and divided into the following 4 groups: gemcitabine vs. best supportive care (BSC)/observation, pemetrexed vs. BSC/placebo, pemetrexed + bevacizumab vs. bevacizumab and pemetrexed vs. bevacizumab. Gemcitabine exhibited significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with BSC (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.62, p = 0.000). Pemetrexed exhibited significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.54, p = 0.000) and OS (HR = 0.75, p = 0.000) compared with BSC. Pemetrexed + bevacizumab almost exhibited significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.71, p = 0.051) compared with bevacizumab. Pemetrexed exhibited no improvement in PFS or overall survival (OS) compared with bevacizumab. Regarding the grade, the GRADE system indicated that the gemcitabine group was "MODERATE", the pemetrexed group was "HIGH", and both the pemetrexed + bevacizumab vs. bevacizumab groups and pemetrexed vs. B groups were "LOW". Conclusions: Gemcitabine or pemetrexed compared with BSC/observation/placebo significantly improved PFS or OS. Whether pemetrexed + bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab alone significantly improves PFS requires further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of the present meta-analysis is to evaluate the response rate, median survival time (MST) and toxicity in patients with brain metastases (BM) originating from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and who were treated using either whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) plus concurrent chemotherapy or WBRT alone. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, clinical trials and current controlled trials were searched to identify any relevant publications. After screening the literature and undertaking quality assessment and data extraction, the meta-analysis was performed using Stata11.0 software. Results: In total, six randomized controlled trials (RCT) involving 910 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The results of the analysis indicate that WBRT plus concurrent chemotherapy was more effective at improving response rate (RR = 2.06, 95% CI [1.13, 3.77]; P = 0.019) than WBRT alone. However, WBRT plus concurrent chemotherapy did not improve median survival time (MST) (HR = 1.09, 95%CI [0.94, 1.26]; P = 0.233) or time of neurological progression (CNS-TTP) (HR = 0.93, 95%CI [0.75, 1.16]; P = 0.543), and increased adverse events (Grade≥3) (RR = 2.59, 95% CI [1.88, 3.58]; P = 0.000). There were no significant differences in Grade 3–5 neurological or hematological toxicity between two patient groups (RR = 1.08, 95%CI [0.23, 5.1]; P = 0.92). Conclusion: The combination of chemotherapy plus WBRT in patients with BM originating from NSCLC may increase treatment response rates of brain metastases with limited toxicity. Although the therapy schedule did not prolong MST or CNS-TTP, further assessment is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In the developed countries, the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is increasing over recent decades. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to arrive at quantitative conclusions about the contribution of alcohol intakes and the progression of Barrett's esophagus. Methods: A comprehensive, systematic bibliographic search of medical literature published up to Oct 2013 was conducted to identify relevant studies. A meta-analysis was conducted for alcohol consumption on the Barrett's esophagus progression. Results: A total of 882 cases in 6,867 individuals from 14 observational studies were indemnified in this meta-analysis. The result of this current meta-analysis, including 10 case-control and 4 cohort studies, indicated that alcohol consumption was not associated with the neoplastic progression in Barrett's esophagus (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.93–1.48). When stratified by the study designs, no significant association was detected in either high vs low group or ever vs never group. Conclusions: Alcohol drinking is not associated with risk of neoplastic progression in Barrett's esophagus. Further well designed studies are needed in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]