Potentially Overestimated Efficacy of Nanoparticle Albumin-bound Paclitaxel compared with Solvent-based Paclitaxel in Breast Cancer: A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis
Journal of Cancer. 2021;12(17):5164-5172
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 (sb-PTX) in breast cancer patients of all stages. Method: Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for head-to-head randomized controlled trials of nab-PTX and sb-PTX in breast cancer. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval was used for dichotomous variables while Hazard ratio (HR) was used for time-to-event outcomes. Results: Our review finally included 9 studies with 3508 patients. Nab-PTX showed a benefit on objective response rate (ORR) (RR=1.22 [1.04-1.43], P=0.01) as well as non-inferiority compared with sb-PTX in disease control rate (DCR) (RR=1.01 [0.98-1.04], P=0.44), overall survival (OS) (HR=0.99 [0.93-1.05], P=0.81) and disease free survival/progression free survival (DFS/PFS) (HR=0.92 [0.81-1.05], P=0.21). However, when it comes to toxicities (fatigue, nausea or vomiting, peripheral sensory neuropathy and adverse event related discontinuation), results favored sb-PTX (RR=2.89 [1.07-7.8], 3.15 [1.78-5.59], 2.11 [1.32-3.37], 2.02 [1.61-2.53]; P<0.05). Patients with metastatic tumors or undergoing conventional schedule responses better to nab-PTX than the compared groups (RR of ORR in metastatic vs early or locally advanced patients: 1.46 [1.09-1.96] vs 1.01 [0.94-1.08]; conventional vs dose dense group: 1.59 [1.23-2.06] vs 1.01 [0.91-1.12]). Conclusions: Nab-PTX can improve ORR compared with paclitaxel and should be given priority to when aiming to reduce tumor load in breast cancer. Sb-PTX of dose dense schedule is recommended when toxicity of nab-PTX is hard to bear for breast cancer patients.
Evaluation of platelet-rich plasma and fibrin matrix to assist in healing and repair of rotator cuff injuries: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Clinical Rehabilitation. 2016;31((2):):158-172
OBJECTIVE To perform a meta-analysis examining the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma and platelet-rich fibrin matrix for improving healing of rotator cuff injuries. DATA SOURCES/DESIGN A meta-analysis of eligible studies was performed after searching Medline, Cochrane, and EMBASE on 14 December 2015. SETTING University hospital. PARTICIPANTS Patients with rotator cuff injuries. REVIEW METHODS/INTERVENTION Databases were searched using the keywords "PRP or platelet-rich plasma," "PRFM or platelet-rich fibrin matrix," "rotator cuff," and "platelet-rich" for studies comparing outcomes of patients with rotator cuff injuries that did and did not receive a platelet-rich product. MAIN MEASURES The primary outcome was a functional score change from pre- to post-treatment (Scorepost-Scorepre). The secondary outcome was a visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score change from pre- to post-treatment (VASpost-VASpre). RESULTS A total of 11 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The total number of patients that received platelet-rich plasma or platelet-rich fibrin matrix was 320 and the number of control patients was 318. The standard difference in means of the functional scores was similar between patients administered platelet-rich plasma/fibrin matrix and patients in the control group (standard difference in means for functional scores = 0.029; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.132 to 0.190; p = 0.725). The standard difference in means was similar between patients administered platelet-rich plasma and the controls (standard difference in means = 0.142; 95% CI: -0.080 to 0.364; p = 0.209). CONCLUSION The results of this meta-analysis do not support the use of platelet-rich plasma/platelet-rich fibrin matrix in patients with rotator cuff injuries.
Effectiveness of hemostasis with Foley catheter after vacuum-assisted breast biopsy
Journal of Thoracic Disease. 2015;7((7)):1213-20.
BACKGROUND Interventional bleeding and post-interventional hematoma are the most common complications following vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB). The aim of the current study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Foley catheter-induced hemostasis in VABB. METHODS A randomized prospective controlled trial was conducted using a total of 437 consecutive 8-gauge ultrasound-guided VABB procedures that were performed in 282 patients from June 2012 to October 2013. In each procedure, hemostasis was induced with either a Foley catheter or with external compression. Bleeding during intervention, hematoma post-intervention and the time of procedure were recorded. Statistical analysis included a Chi-Square test and an independent-samples t-test, and P value <0.05 was considered to be significant. RESULTS Significantly less bleeding and post-interventional hematoma resulted when hemostasis was induced using a Foley catheter vs. compression (7.6% vs. 17.4%, P=0.002; 8.9% vs. 27.9%, P<0.001). The mean time of breast biopsy was significantly less when using a Foley catheter vs. compression (33.6 vs. 45.5 min, P<0.001). No post-procedural infectious was encountered. In stratification analysis, there were no significantly different bleeding rates between the Foley catheter and compression methods in cases of single lesions (6.7% vs. 14.1%, P=0.346). In cases of multiple lesions, the Foley catheter method produced less bleeding/hematoma than compression (10.4% vs. 47.4%, P=0.018; 16.7% vs. 52.6%, P=0.020). Whether using a Foley catheter or compression to induce hemostasis, no significant difference was found in the rate of bleeding or hematoma when lesions <15 mm were removed (3.8% vs. 6.1%, P=0.531; 6.1% vs. 11.4%, P=0.340). When lesions >15 mm were excised, the rates of interventional bleeding and post-interventional hematoma were significantly lower in the Foley catheter study group than the compression control group (12.5% vs. 32.2%, P=0.034; 12.5% vs. 49.4%, P<0.001). There was significantly less bleeding (P=0.004) and hematoma (P<0.001) in the upper external quadrant when using a Foley catheter compared with compression (4.5% vs. 15.7%, P=0.004; 9.8% vs. 40.2%, P<0.001), but no significant differences for other quadrants. CONCLUSIONS Inducing hemostasis with a Foley catheter after VABB is a very effective and safe alternative to hemostasis with compression.