BACKGROUND: Chemotherapeutic 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. OBJECTIVES: To 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 RESULTS: Six 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' CONCLUSIONS: Topotecan 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.
BACKGROUND: Chemotherapeutic 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. OBJECTIVES: To 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 RESULTS: Six 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' CONCLUSIONS:Topotecan 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.
Authors: David Moher; Sally Hopewell; Kenneth F Schulz; Victor Montori; Peter C Gøtzsche; P J Devereaux; Diana Elbourne; Matthias Egger; Douglas G Altman Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-03-23
Authors: Howard S Hochster; Elizabeth R Plimack; John Mandeli; Scott Wadler; Carolyn Runowicz; Gary Goldberg; James Speyer; Robert Wallach; Franco Muggia Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2005-10-25 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: S Gwyther; G Bolis; M Gore; W ten Bokkel Huinink; J Verweij; I R Hudson; R Despax; A Jiménez-Lacave Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 1997-05 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: P Hoskins; E Eisenhauer; I Vergote; J Dubuc-Lissoir; B Fisher; R Grimshaw; A Oza; M Plante; G Stuart; J Vermorken Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-12-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: G J Creemers; G Bolis; M Gore; G Scarfone; A J Lacave; J P Guastalla; R Despax; G Favalli; R Kreinberg; S Van Belle; I Hudson; J Verweij; W W Ten Bokkel Huinink Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1996-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alan N Gordon; Lina Asmar; Mark J Messing; Daron G Street; Charles H Pippitt; Cheryl L Bailey; John Savage; James A Young Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Michael A Bookman; Mark F Brady; William P McGuire; Peter G Harper; David S Alberts; Michael Friedlander; Nicoletta Colombo; Jeffrey M Fowler; Peter A Argenta; Koen De Geest; David G Mutch; Robert A Burger; Ann Marie Swart; Edward L Trimble; Chrisann Accario-Winslow; Lawrence M Roth Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-02-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: George P Stathopoulos; Sotiris K Rigatos; Christos Christodoulou; Nikos A Malamos; Filippos Deliyiannis; John G Stathopoulos; Dimosthenis V Skarlos Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2004-05-04 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: U Wagner; P Harter; F Hilpert; S Mahner; A Reuß; A du Bois; E Petru; W Meier; P Ortner; K König; K Lindel; D Grab; P Piso; O Ortmann; I Runnebaum; J Pfisterer; D Lüftner; N Frickhofen; F Grünwald; B O Maier; J Diebold; S Hauptmann; F Kommoss; G Emons; B Radeleff; M Gebhardt; N Arnold; G Calaminus; I Weisse; J Weis; J Sehouli; D Fink; A Burges; A Hasenburg; C Eggert Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Piotr Stasiak; Dominika Kaźmierczak; Karol Jopek; Michał Nowicki; Marcin Rucinski; Radosław Januchowski Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-05-23 Impact factor: 6.208
Authors: Jerec W Ricci; Debbie M Lovato; Virginia Severns; Larry A Sklar; Richard S Larson Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2016-09-26 Impact factor: 6.261