These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Efficacy and safety of cisplatin-based versus nedaplatin-based regimens for the treatment of metastatic/recurrent and advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Author: Zhang F, Wang Y, Wang ZQ, Sun P, Wang DS, Jiang YX, Zhang DS, Wang FH, Xu RH, Li YH.
    Journal: Dis Esophagus; 2017 Feb 01; 30(2):1-8. PubMed ID: 27868295.
    Abstract:
    Cisplatin and nedaplatin show significant antitumor activity and have been widely used for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, it is still unclear whether the efficacy and safety of nedaplatin-based regimens are comparable to those of cisplatin-based regimens in patients with metastatic/recurrent or advanced ESCC. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of these two regimens for the treatment of metastatic/recurrent and advanced ESCC. We systematically searched Pubmed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database, as well as abstracts presented at conferences (all up to January 2015), for randomized-controlled and nonrandomized clinical trials that compared cisplatin-based and nedaplatin-based regimens in patients with metastatic/recurrent or advanced ESCC. Data were extracted from the original studies by two independent reviewers. This meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan) Version 5.3 (Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014) software. Ten eligible trials, including 598 patients diagnosed with metastatic/recurrent or advanced ESCC, were included in our analysis. Our results demonstrated that the nedaplatin-based regimens were comparable to the cisplatin-based regimens in terms of overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio, HR: 1.22, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.86-1.74, p = 0.26) and overall response rate (ORR) (risk ratio, RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.77-1.10, p = 0.37) and generated fewer grade 3 and 4 side effects including nausea (RR: 3.41, 95% CI: 1.67-6.96, p < 0.001) and vomiting (RR: 3.62, 95% CI: 1.77-7.40, p < 0.001) and fewer grade 1 and 2 adverse events including nausea (RR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.23-1.93, p < 0.001), vomiting (RR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.76-2.30, p < 0.001), peripheral neuropathy (RR: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.08-2.84, p = 0.02) and renal dysfunction (creatinine) (RR: 3.28, 95% CI: 1.37-7.84, p = 0.008). This systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that the efficacy of nedaplatin-based regimens was comparable to that of cisplatin-based regimens for patients with metastatic/recurrent or advanced ESCC, and that nedaplatin-based regimens were associated with less toxicity and better tolerability. However, this study was a meta-analysis of previously released data; therefore, there is a potential publication bias and heterogeneity among the included trials. Future, well-designed RCTs with large cohorts are warranted.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]