SynthesisThe oncologist2010
Tolerability, efficacy, and safety of pegylated liposomal Doxorubicin in combination with Carboplatin versus gemcitabine-Carboplatin for the treatment of platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis in The oncologist, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A phase II randomized controlled study of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and carboplatin vs. gemcitabine and carboplatin for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (GOTIC003/intergroup study).International journal of clinical oncology · 2019Trial
- Review
- Major clinical research advances in gynecologic cancer in 2010.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the tolerability, efficacy, and safety profiles of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in combination with carboplatin (PLD-Carbo) with those of gemcitabine-carboplatin (Gem-Carbo) for the treatment of patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) by reviewing the published literature.
methodsUsing the PubMed database, a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published between January 2000 and September 2009 was undertaken to identify studies related to the treatment of patients with PSROC with PLD-Carbo or Gem-Carbo. Studies reporting either response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and/or overall survival (OS) were included. Treatment regimens, efficacy endpoints, and safety profiles were compared between the two combination therapies.
resultsTen studies evaluating 608 patients (PLD-Carbo: 5 studies, 278 patients; Gem-Carbo: 5 studies, 330 patients) were identified. The mean planned doses were: PLD, 34.8 mg/m(2) and Gem, 993 mg/m(2). The dose intensity reported in Gem trials was lower (75% of the planned dose) than the dose intensity reported in PLD trials (93.7% of the planned dose), suggesting better tolerability for the PLD-Carbo regimen. Among patients receiving PLD-Carbo, 60.2% achieved a response (complete, 27.0%; partial, 33.2%), versus 51.4% of patients treated with Gem-Carbo (complete, 19.2%; partial, 32.2%). The median PFS times were 10.6 months and 8.9 months in the PLD-Carbo and the Gem-Carbo populations, respectively. The median OS was longer for the PLD-Carbo regimen (27.1 months) than for the Gem-Carbo regimen (19.7 months). The hematological safety profiles were comparable in the two groups, although grade III or IV anemia (PLD-Carbo, 13.6%; Gem-Carbo, 24.5%) and neutropenia (PLD-Carbo, 45.5%; Gem-Carbo, 62.9%) were more common in patients receiving Gem-Carbo.
conclusionResults from this systematic analysis of peer-reviewed literature suggest that PLD-Carbo therapy is a rational alternative to Gem-Carbo for the treatment of patients with PSROC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.