Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18425923›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2008

Topotecan for ovarian cancer.

P Lihua, X Y Chen, T X Wu

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

P Lihua
X Y Chen
T X Wu
Sichuan University · CNHeilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine · CNXinjiang Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChemotherapeutic agents such as topotecan can be used to treat ovarian cancer. The effects of using topotecan as a therapeutic agent have not been previously been systematically reviewed.

objectivesTo systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of topotecan for the treatment of ovarian cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (Issue 4, 2006); Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Review Group (CGCRG) Specialised Register (Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2006); MEDLINE (January 1990 to 27 July 2006); EMBASE (January 1990 to 27 July 2006); The European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) database (to 1 August 2006); CBM (Chinese Biomedical Database) (January 1990 to 27 July 2006). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which randomized patients with ovarian cancer to single or combined use of topotecan versus interventions without topotecan, or different remedies of topotecan. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and analysed data. MAIN

resultsSix studies including 1323 participants were eligible for this review (Gordon 2004a; Gore 2001a; Gore 2002; Hoskins 1998; Huinink 2004; Placido 2004) All studies, as reported, were identified as being of poor methodological quality. Topotecan had comparable effectiveness to prolong progression-free survival (PFS) compared with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), (16.1 weeks versus 17.0 weeks; p = 0.095). Overall survival (OS) time was similar in participants using PLD compared with topotecan (56.7 weeks versus 60 weeks; p = 0.341). Topotecan was more hematologically toxic compared with paclitaxel or PLD, relative risks (RRs) of hematological events: ranged from 1.03 to 14.46 and 1.73 to 27.12 respectively. A 21-day cycle of topotecan was more toxic than a 42-day cycle (RRs of hematological and non-hematological events ranged from 1.03 to 8). Intravenous and oral topotecan had comparable toxicity. Topotecan delayed progression more effectively compared with paclitaxel (23.1 weeks versus 14 weeks, p = 0.0021). Participants were more likely to respond to topotecan on a 21-day cycle as opposed to a 42-day cycle (RR 7.23, 95% CI 0.94 to 55.36). Small tumor diameter, sensitivity to platinum-based chemotherapy was associated with better prognosis. Small sample size, methodological flaws and poor reporting of the included trials made measurement bias of the trials difficult to assess. AUTHORS'

conclusionsTopotecan appears to have a similar level of effectiveness as paclitaxel and PLD, though with different patterns of side effects. Larger, well-designed RCTs are required in order to define an optimal regime.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsDoxorubicinFemaleHumansOvarian NeoplasmsPaclitaxelPolyethylene GlycolsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTopotecanAntineoplastic AgentsDoxorubicinliposomal doxorubicinPaclitaxelPolyethylene GlycolsTopotecan

Identifiers

PMID18425923
PMCPMC6905487
OpenAlexW2098038647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.