Wei-Xiang Qi1, Zan Shen, Yang Yao. 1. Department of Oncology, The Sixth People Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200233, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and toxicity of the addition of estramustine to docetaxel-based chemotherapy for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: We systematically searched, without language restrictions, for randomized clinical trials that compared docetaxel-based chemotherapy with or without estramustine in patients with histologically proven prostate cancer. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate and grade 3 or 4 toxicity. Data was extracted from the studies by 2 independent reviewers. The meta-analysis was performed by Stata version 10.0 software (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA). RESULTS: Four randomized clinical trials (totally 400 patients) were eligible. Meta-analysis showed that there was significant improvement in PSA response rate in docetaxel-based therapy with estramustine group, compared with docetaxel-based therapy group (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.10-2.18, P = 0.012). With regard to OS (HR = 0.873, 95% CI = 0.55-1.40, P = 0.572), grade3 or 4 neutropenia (OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 0.61-2.7), anemia (OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.07-16.3), thrombocytopenia (OR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.13-5.7), diarrhea (OR = 2.3, 95% CI = 0.36-14.9), nausea (OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.16-8.35), mucositis (OR = 1.66, 95% CI = 0.50-5.52) , and vomiting (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 0.23-10.3), and there were no significant differences between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first meta-analysis of docetaxel-based therapy with estramustine versus docetaxel-based chemotherapy in the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer. Our meta-analysis did not support the addition of estramustine to docetaxel-based chemotherapy for the treatment of castration- resistant prostate cancer, based on no gain in survival.
PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and toxicity of the addition of estramustine to docetaxel-based chemotherapy for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: We systematically searched, without language restrictions, for randomized clinical trials that compared docetaxel-based chemotherapy with or without estramustine in patients with histologically proven prostate cancer. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate and grade 3 or 4 toxicity. Data was extracted from the studies by 2 independent reviewers. The meta-analysis was performed by Stata version 10.0 software (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA). RESULTS: Four randomized clinical trials (totally 400 patients) were eligible. Meta-analysis showed that there was significant improvement in PSA response rate in docetaxel-based therapy with estramustine group, compared with docetaxel-based therapy group (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.10-2.18, P = 0.012). With regard to OS (HR = 0.873, 95% CI = 0.55-1.40, P = 0.572), grade3 or 4 neutropenia (OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 0.61-2.7), anemia (OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.07-16.3), thrombocytopenia (OR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.13-5.7), diarrhea (OR = 2.3, 95% CI = 0.36-14.9), nausea (OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.16-8.35), mucositis (OR = 1.66, 95% CI = 0.50-5.52) , and vomiting (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 0.23-10.3), and there were no significant differences between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first meta-analysis of docetaxel-based therapy with estramustine versus docetaxel-based chemotherapy in the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer. Our meta-analysis did not support the addition of estramustine to docetaxel-based chemotherapy for the treatment of castration- resistant prostate cancer, based on no gain in survival.
Authors: J-C Eymard; F Priou; A Zannetti; A Ravaud; D Lepillé; P Kerbrat; P Gomez; B Paule; D Genet; P Hérait; E Ecstein-Fraïssé; F Joly Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2007-04-13 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Daniel P Petrylak; Catherine M Tangen; Maha H A Hussain; Primo N Lara; Jeffrey A Jones; Mary Ellen Taplin; Patrick A Burch; Donna Berry; Carol Moinpour; Manish Kohli; Mitchell C Benson; Eric J Small; Derek Raghavan; E David Crawford Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-10-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ian F Tannock; Ronald de Wit; William R Berry; Jozsef Horti; Anna Pluzanska; Kim N Chi; Stephane Oudard; Christine Théodore; Nicholas D James; Ingela Turesson; Mark A Rosenthal; Mario A Eisenberger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-10-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Karim Fizazi; Aurelie Le Maitre; Gary Hudes; William R Berry; W Kevin Kelly; Jean-Christophe Eymard; Christopher J Logothetis; Jean-Pierre Pignon; Stefan Michiels Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2007-10-17 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Francesco Fiz; Samine Sahbai; Cristina Campi; Matthias Weissinger; Helmut Dittmann; Cecilia Marini; Michele Piana; Gianmario Sambuceti; Christian la Fougère Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-12-25 Impact factor: 3.411