ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Adjuvant sorafenib may further enhance the efficacy of transarterial radioembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of radioembolization plus sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma patients. METHODS: With a literature search through October 2020, we identified 9 studies (632 patients). Primary outcome was overall survival. Results were expressed as pooled median, odds ratio, or hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Pooled overall survival after radioembolization plus sorafenib was 10.79 months (95% confidence interval 9.19-12.39) and it was longer in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) B (14.47 months, 9.07-19.86) as compared to BCLC C patients (10.22 months, 7.53-12.9). No difference between combined therapy versus radioembolization alone was observed in terms of overall survival (hazard ratio 1.07, 0.89-1.30). Pooled median progression-free survival was 6.32 months (5.68-6.98), with 1-year progression-free survival pooled rate of 38.5% (12.7%-44.2%). No difference in progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.94, 0.79-1.12) between the two treatments was observed. Pooled rate of severe adverse events was 48.9% (26.7%-71.2%), again with no difference between the two treatment regimens (odds ratio 1.52, 0.15-15.02). CONCLUSIONS: The association of sorafenib does not seem to prolong survival nor delay disease progression in patients treated with radioembolization.
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents/administration & dosage , Carcinoma, Hepatocellular/therapy , Chemoembolization, Therapeutic/methods , Liver Neoplasms/therapy , Sorafenib/administration & dosage , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Carcinoma, Hepatocellular/mortality , Chemoembolization, Therapeutic/mortality , Combined Modality Therapy , Disease Progression , Female , Humans , Liver Neoplasms/mortality , Male , Middle Aged , Proportional Hazards Models , Survival Analysis , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Several routes of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) administration are available for treating recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI), the most recent of which are capsules. AIM: To assess the efficacy of colonoscopy, capsule, enema, and nasogastric tube (NGT) FMT for the treatment of recurrent CDI. METHODS: We reported clinical outcomes of colonoscopy, capsule, enema, and NGT FMT for the treatment of recurrent CDI according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. During January 2000 to January 2018, three databases were searched: PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Primary outcome was overall cure rate which was assessed using a random effects model; secondary outcomes included adverse effects as well as subgroup analyses comparing donor relationship, sample preparation, and study design. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies (1309 patients) were included in the study. FMT was administered using colonoscopy in 16 studies (483 patients), NGT in five studies (149 patients), enema in four studies (360 patients), and capsules in four studies (301 patients). The random effects of pooled FMT cure rates were colonoscopy 94.8% (CI 92.4-96.8%; I2 15.6%), capsule 92.1% (CI 88.6-95.0%; I2 7.1%), enema 87.2% (CI 83.4-90.5%; I2 0%), and NGT/NDT 78.1% (CI 71.6-84.1%; I2 0%). On subgroup analysis of colonoscopy FMT, sample preparation methods had comparable cure rates: fresh 94.9% compared to 94.5%. Similarly, cure rates were unaffected by donor relationship: mixed 94.5% compared to unrelated donor 95.7%. CONCLUSION: CDI cure rates with FMT performed with colonoscopy are superior to enema and NGT FMT, while those with FMT with colonoscopy and capsule are comparable.
Subject(s)
Clostridioides difficile/isolation & purification , Clostridium Infections/therapy , Colonoscopy/methods , Enema/methods , Fecal Microbiota Transplantation/methods , Intubation, Gastrointestinal/methods , Capsules , Clostridium Infections/diagnosis , Colonoscopy/standards , Enema/standards , Fecal Microbiota Transplantation/standards , Humans , Intubation, Gastrointestinal/standards , Recurrence , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has evolved into a robust and efficient means for treating recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Our narrative review looks at the donor selection, preparation, delivery techniques and cost-effectiveness of FMT. We searched electronic databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Databases, for studies that compared the biological effects of donor selection, fresh or frozen fecal preparation, and various delivery techniques. We also evaluated the cost-effectiveness and manually searched references to identify additional relevant studies. Overall, there is a paucity of studies that directly compare outcomes associated with related and non-related stool donors. However, inferences from prior studies indicate that the success of FMT does not depend on the donor-patient relationship. Over time, the use of unrelated donors has increased because of the formation of stool banks and the need to save processing time and capital. However, longitudinal studies are needed to clarify the optimal freezing time before microbial function declines. Several FMT techniques have been developed, such as colonoscopy, enema, nasogastric or nasojejunal tubes, and capsules. The comparable and high efficacy of FMT capsules, combined with their convenience, safety and aesthetically tolerable mode of delivery, makes it an attractive option for many patients. Cost-effective models comparing these various approaches support the use of FMT via colonoscopy as being the best strategy for the treatment of recurrent CDI.