BACKGROUND: Nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-PTX) has exhibited clinical efficacy in breast cancer treatment, but toxicities can be yielded more at the same time. We did this meta-analysis aiming to unambiguously compare nab-PTX with conventional solvent-based paclitaxel in breast cancer patients of all stages. METHOD: Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Science and Technology Periodical database, and WangFang database were searched for head-to-head randomized controlled trials of nab-PTX and solvent-based paclitaxel in breast cancer. Other sources will also be searched like Google Scholar and gray literatures. Two researchers will independently search the database and extract data from the articles. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Objective tumor response rate, chemotherapy completion rate after 4 or 6 cycles, and toxicity will be primary outcomes. Disease control rate, overall survival, and progression-free survival/disease-free survival will be included in secondary outcomes. Risk ratio with 95% confidence interval was used for dichotomous variables while hazard ratio was used for time-to-event outcomes. The following 3 data sets will all be considered when synthesizing the data: intention-to-treat population, those who actually received taxanes treatment, and those who were actually assessed. All the analyses were done using Review Manager Software 5.3. Any disagreements in study selection, data collection, and analysis will be resolved by a third investigator. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: This study is aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nab-PTX compared with PTX in breast cancer treatment as well as to find the best dose or schedule and identify the benefit population. This meta-analysis could provide evidence for clinicians to make a better choice between nab-PTX and PTX in different specific contexts. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019117912.
BACKGROUND: Nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-PTX) has exhibited clinical efficacy in breast cancer treatment, but toxicities can be yielded more at the same time. We did this meta-analysis aiming to unambiguously compare nab-PTX with conventional solvent-based paclitaxel in breast cancer patients of all stages. METHOD: Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Science and Technology Periodical database, and WangFang database were searched for head-to-head randomized controlled trials of nab-PTX and solvent-based paclitaxel in breast cancer. Other sources will also be searched like Google Scholar and gray literatures. Two researchers will independently search the database and extract data from the articles. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Objective tumor response rate, chemotherapy completion rate after 4 or 6 cycles, and toxicity will be primary outcomes. Disease control rate, overall survival, and progression-free survival/disease-free survival will be included in secondary outcomes. Risk ratio with 95% confidence interval was used for dichotomous variables while hazard ratio was used for time-to-event outcomes. The following 3 data sets will all be considered when synthesizing the data: intention-to-treat population, those who actually received taxanes treatment, and those who were actually assessed. All the analyses were done using Review Manager Software 5.3. Any disagreements in study selection, data collection, and analysis will be resolved by a third investigator. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: This study is aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nab-PTX compared with PTX in breast cancer treatment as well as to find the best dose or schedule and identify the benefit population. This meta-analysis could provide evidence for clinicians to make a better choice between nab-PTX and PTX in different specific contexts. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019117912.
Authors: Miguel Martín; José I Chacón; Antonio Antón; Arrate Plazaola; Elena García-Martínez; Miguel A Seguí; Pedro Sánchez-Rovira; José Palacios; Lourdes Calvo; Carmen Esteban; Enrique Espinosa; Agusti Barnadas; Norberto Batista; Angel Guerrero; Montserrat Muñoz; Estefania Romio; César Rodríguez-Martín; Rosalía Caballero; María I Casas; Federico Rojo; Eva Carrasco; Silvia Antolín Journal: Oncologist Date: 2017-07-12
Authors: Davina Ghersi; Melina L Willson; Matthew Ming Ki Chan; John Simes; Emma Donoghue; Nicholas Wilcken Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-06-10
Authors: H J Burstein; G Curigliano; S Loibl; P Dubsky; M Gnant; P Poortmans; M Colleoni; C Denkert; M Piccart-Gebhart; M Regan; H-J Senn; E P Winer; B Thurlimann Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Lindsey A Torre; Rebecca L Siegel; Elizabeth M Ward; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Caitlin Murphy; Andrea Muscat; David Ashley; Violet Mukaro; Linda West; Yang Liao; David Chisanga; Wei Shi; Ian Collins; Sally Baron-Hay; Sujata Patil; Geoffrey Lindeman; Mustafa Khasraw Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 3.240