Objective To compare and evaluate the effectiveness and safety of irinotecan (IRI) versus oxaplatin (OXA), in combination with 5-FU/LV for patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Methods The literature search, study selection and assessment, data collection and analysis were undertaken by two reviewers according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing IRI versus OXA, in combination with 5-FU/LV in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer were collected. Results Seven studies involving 2107 patients were included. The OXA/5-FU/LV regimen was superior or at least equal to the IRI/5-FU/LV regimen in prolonging overall survival and time to progression. The OXA/5-FU/LV regimen showed a higher response rate and was associated with lower toxicities. Conclusion Compared with IRI, OXA is more appropriate for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer when combined with 5-FU/LV.
ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness and safety of capacitance combined with irinotecan (CAPIRI) versus fluorouracil combined with irinotecan (FOLFIRI) for patients with advanced metastatic colorectal cancer. MethodsDatabases such as Pubmed, Embase, Wanfang data, CNKI, Cochran Library were searched from January 2000 to October 2015. We evaluated the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and then extracted data from them. RevMan 5.2 software was used to perform the meta-analysis. ResultsEight RCTs studies with 1 634 advanced metastatic colorectal cancer patients were included based on our standard. CAPIRI regimen was equal to FOLFIRI regimen in complete response rate [RR=1.17, 95%CI (0.70, 1.96), P=0.56], overall respond rate [RR=0.90, 95%CI (0.79, 1.03), P=0.12], disease control rate [RR=0.93, 95%CI (0.87, 1.00), P=0.06], median progression-free survival [HR=1.00, 95%CI (0.72, 1.37), P=0.99], and median overall survival [HR=0.94, 95%CI (0.63, 1.40), P=0.77]. For safety, higher incidence rate of grade 3/4 vomiting [RR=1.91, 95%CI (1.13, 3.22), P=0.02], diarrhea [RR=2.84, 95%CI (2.22, 3.63), P<0.000 01], hand-foot syndrome [RR=4.55, 95%CI (2.15, 9.61), P<0.000 1] were confirmed for CAPIRI. The two methods had similar toxicities: nausea [RR=0.77, 95%CI (0.64, 0.93), P=0.005], fatigue [RR=1.19, 95%CI (0.73, 1.94), P=0.47], febrile neutropenia [RR=1.59, 95%CI (0.89, 2.87), P=0.12], anemia [RR=1.74, 95%CI (0.59, 5.18), P=0.32], and leukopenia [RR=0.77, 95%CI (0.64, 0.93), P=0.005]. ConclusionCapecitabine combined with irinotecan treatment for advanced colorectal cancer is effective and its toxicity is acceptable.
ObjectiveTo investigate the distribution of uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 (UGT1A1) gene polymorphisms in esophageal carcinoma (EC) patients, and their relationship with adverse effects (delayed diarrhea and neutropenia) of Irinotecan. MethodsForty-eight patients with esophageal squamous carcinoma who were admitted to Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital between January and October 2012 were recruited in the study. There were 37 male and 11 female patients with their age of 56 (25-38) years. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples were collected from those EC patients and genomic DNA was extracted. UGT1A1 polymorphisms were detected by PCR and DNA sequencing. Three genetic loci were investigated including UGT1A1* 28 (TA6 > TA7), UGT1A1* 6 (211G > A) and UGT1A1* 93 (-3156G > A). Adverse effects (delayed diarrhea and neutropenia) of patients with different UGT1A1 polymorphisms after Irinotecan treatment were recorded. The relationship between UGT1A1 polymorphisms and Irinotecan-induced adverse effects was analyzed. ResultsUGT1A1 polymorphisms were detected in 10 out of 48 (20.8%) EC patients. UGT1A1* 93 (-3156G > A)polymorphisms were most common with the polymorphism rate of 16.7% (8/48), followed by GT1A1* 6 (211G > A) polymorphisms with the polymorphism rate of 4.2% (2/48). The incidences of grade 3~4 diarrhea and grade 3~4 neutropenia after Irinotecan treatment in the patients with UGT1A1 polymorphisms were 60.0% and 40.0% respectively, which were significantly higher than those of the patients with wild type UGT1A1 (21.1% and 15.8% respectively, P < 0.05). UGT1A1 polymorphism rates were 45.5% (5/11) in female patients and 13.5% (5/37) in male patients, which were significantly different (P < 0.05). ConclusionsIn EC patients, 2 polymorphism loci including UGT1A1* 93 (-3156G > A) and GT1A1* 6 (211G > A) can effectively predict adverse effects caused by Irinotecan treatment. UGT1A1 polymorphism rate of male patients is significantly lower than that of female patients.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of irinotecan as neoadjuvant chemotherapy (INAC) plus radical surgery (RS) for cervical cancer. MethodsWe searched databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 10, 2014), CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data to collect clinical studies on INAC plus RS versus RS alone or other neoadjuvant chemotherapy drugs plus RS in the treatment of cervical cancer. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsA total of 6 studies (4 RCTs and 2 CCTs) involving 596 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with the RS alone group, the INAC group was superior in reducing operation time (MD=-16.17, 95%CI -21.88 to -10.46, P<0.000 01), intraoperative blood loss (MD=-39.56, 95%CI -51.96 to -27.17, P<0.000 01), increasing 3-years OS (OR=0.29, 95%CI 0.15 to 0.57, P<0.000 3), reducing incidence of positive parametrical involvement (OR=0.27, 95%CI 0.12 to 0.60, P=0.001) and incidence of lymphovascular space invasion (OR=0.24, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.61, P=0.003). However, there were no significant differences in the incidence of lymph node metastasis (OR=0.55, 95%CI 0.29 to 1.03, P=0.06) and positive surgical margin (OR=0.33, 95%CI 0.03 to 3.86, P=0.38) between the two groups. Compared with the paclitaxel plus RS group, there were no significant differences for the INAC group in the effective rate (OR=1.58, 95%CI 0.20 to 12.32, P=0.66) and the incidence of more than grade Ⅲ adverse events (OR=2.27, 95%CI 0.62 to 8.27, P=0.21). ConclusionINAC is effective and tolerable in the treatment of cervical cancer. Due to the limitation of quantity and quality of the included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of capecitabine combined with irinotecan (CAPIRI) versus capecitabine combined with oxaliplatin (CAPOX) for patients with advanced/metastatic colorectal cancer.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, VIP, WanFang Data and CNKI databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on CAPIRI versus CAPOX for patients with advanced/metastatic colorectal cancer from inception to August 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 12 RCTs involving 1 049 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: there were no significant differences in complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), progression disease (PD), overall respond rate (ORR), median progression-free survival (mPFS), and median overall survival (mOS) between two groups (P>0.05). However, CARIRI group was lower on the disease control rate (RR=0.93, 95%CI 0.86 to 1.00, P=0.04) than CAPOX group. Incidence of diarrhea was higher in CAPIRI group (RR=1.83, 95%CI 1.37 to 2.45, P<0.000 1). However, the incidence rate of peripheral neurotoxicity in CAPOX group was higher (RR=0.13, 95%CI 0.05 to 0.35, P<0.000 1). There were no significant differences between two groups in the incidence rates of nausea and vomiting, hand-foot syndrome, anemia, thrombocytopenia, leukocytopenia and alopecia (P>0.05).ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that two groups are equivalent in terms of curative effects. CAPIRI has a higher incidence rate of diarrhea, while CAPOX has a higher risk of peripheral neurotoxicity. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify above conclusions.