Irinotecan Monotherapy Versus Irinotecan-Based Combination as Second-Line Chemotherapy in Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Cancer Research and Treatment 2017³â 49±Ç 1È£ p.255 ~ p.262

Á¶¿äÇÑ(Cho Yo-Han) - Konkuk University School of Medicine Department of Internal Medicine
À±¼Ò¿µ(Yoon So-Young) - Konkuk University School of Medicine Department of Internal Medicine
±è¼ö³ç(Kim Soo-Nyung) - Konkuk University School of Medicine Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract

Purpose: A meta-analysis was conducted to examine the question of whether combination regimens are more effective than monotherapy as a second-line chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer.

Materials and Methods: The MEDLINE and the EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials were searched using appropriate keywords. Only randomized controlled trials were eligible.

Results: Taxane-based study is rare; thus, four irinotecan-based studies were finally included in the meta-analysis. Out of 661 patients, 331 patients were assigned to combination therapy and 330 to monotherapy. Cisplatin or fluoropyrimidine (S-1 or 5-fluorouracil) was used as a combination partner to irinotecan. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) and for progression-free survival (PFS) was 0.938 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.796 to 1.104; p=0.442) and 0.815 (95% CI, 0.693 to 0.958; p=0.013). In subgroup analysis according to previous exposure to a partner agent, the PFS benefit of combination was observed only in the partially exposed group (HR, 0.784; 95% CI, 0.628 to 0.980; p=0.032).

Conclusion: Second-line irinotecan-based combination was not associated with increased OS, but with PFS benefit, which seemed particularly significant for patients receiving combination with a new agent.

Å°¿öµå

Stomach neoplasms, Chemotherapy, Second-line, Irinotecan, Monotherapy, Combination drug therapy, Meta-analysis, Survival
¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸
µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸
SCI(E) MEDLINE ÇмúÁøÈïÀç´Ü(KCI) KoreaMed ´ëÇÑÀÇÇÐȸ ȸ¿ø 
ÁÖÁ¦ÄÚµå
ÁÖÁ¦¸í(Target field)
¿¬±¸´ë»ó(Population)
¿¬±¸Âü¿©(Sample size)
´ë»ó¼ºº°(Gender)
Áúº´Æ¯¼º(Condition Category)
¿¬±¸È¯°æ(Setting)
¿¬±¸¼³°è(Study Design)
¿¬±¸±â°£(Period)
ÁßÀç¹æ¹ý(Intervention Type)
ÁßÀç¸íĪ(Intervention Name)
Å°¿öµå(Keyword)
À¯È¿¼º°á°ú(Recomendation)
Second-line irinotecan-based combination chemotherapy was not associated with OS benefit compared to irinotecan monotherapy for AGC, but associated with increase PFS.
¿¬±¸ºñÁö¿ø(Fund Source)
±Ù°Å¼öÁØÆò°¡(Evidence Hierarchy)
ÃâÆdz⵵(Year)
Âü¿©ÀúÀÚ¼ö(Authors)
´ëÇ¥ÀúÀÚ
KCDÄÚµå
ICD 03
°Ç°­º¸ÇèÄÚµå