Successful treatment of pyoderma gangrenosum with intravenous immunoglobulins during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Pyoderma gangrenosum is a rare ulcerative skin disease usually starting with a pustular lesion that rapidly progresses to painful ulcers with undermined violaceous borders. Numerous associated disorders have been described, including inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatologic or hematologic disorders, chronic active hepatitis, and malignancies. The occurrence of pyoderma gangrenosum during pregnancy is uncommon. OBJECTIVE: We report a case of a patient with an aggravation of preknown pyoderma gangrenosum during pregnancy who was successfully treated with intravenous immunoglobulins. CONCLUSION: Administration of immunoglobulins represents a safe and effective treatment option for this subset of patients, as demonstrated in the present case.

Chemotherapy alone versus chemotherapy plus radiotherapy for early stage Hodgkin lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Combined modality treatment (CMT) consisting of chemotherapy followed by localised radiotherapy is standard treatment for patients with early stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). However, due to long term adverse effects such as secondary malignancies, the role of radiotherapy has been questioned recently and some clinical study groups advocate chemotherapy only for this indication. OBJECTIVES: We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chemotherapy alone with CMT in patients with early stage Hodgkin lymphoma with respect to response rate, progression-free survival (alternatively tumour control) and overall survival (OS). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL as well as conference proceedings from January 1980 to November 2010 for randomised controlled trials comparing chemotherapy alone to the same chemotherapy regimen plus radiotherapy.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing chemotherapy alone with CMT in patients with early stage HL. Trials in which the chemotherapy differed between treatment arms were excluded. Trials with more than 20% of patients in advanced stage were also excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Effect measures used were hazard ratios (HR) for tumour control and OS as well as relative risks for response rates. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality of trials. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information. Since none of the trials reported progression-free survival according to our definitions, all similar outcomes were evaluated as tumour control. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs involving 1245 patients were included. The HR was 0.41 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.66) for tumour control and 0.40 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.61) for OS for patients receiving CMT compared to chemotherapy alone. Complete response rates were similar between treatment groups. In sensitivity analyses another six trials were included that did not fulfil the inclusion criteria of our protocol but were considered relevant to the topic. These trials underlined the results of the main analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Adding radiotherapy to chemotherapy improves tumour control and overall survival in patients with early stage Hodgkin lymphoma.

Meta-analyses of early-stage hodgkin lymphoma.

Meta-analyses have followed some of the most important advances in the treatment of early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). In this review, details on all meta-analyses of patients with early-stage HL are discussed. In 1990, the first meta-analysis addressing patients with early-stage HL compared radiotherapy alone to combined-modality treatment (CMT). It was followed in 1998 by an individual-patient meta-analysis examining the role of radiotherapy with and without chemotherapy. In 2006, a comprehensive meta-analysis focusing on the risk of secondary malignancies, including most of the treatment regimens analyzed in clinical trials, was issued. The final analysis was published 2010 and provides important information for the ongoing discussion concerning the role of CMT compared to chemotherapy alone and is therefore discussed in more detail. In addition, the methodology and reporting of meta-analyses have improved over time.

Eleventh biannual report of the Cochrane Haematological Malignancies Group: Focus on Hodgkin lymphoma.

The 11th biannual report of the Cochrane Haematological Malignancies Group highlights recently published randomized controlled trials in the field of hemato-oncology that were identified through the continuous systematic search of MEDLINE. For this electronic search, a broad search filter covering all topics in hemato-oncology was combined with a highly sensitive search filter for randomized studies. This report covers publications from February 1, 2009, through August 31, 2009 (including electronic publications). For this 7-month period, 6344 potentially interesting articles were screened to identify 121 controlled clinical trials (randomized controlled trials or quasi-randomized clinical trials) of therapeutic interventions in hematologic malignancies.

Combined modality treatment improves tumor control and overall survival in patients with early stage Hodgkin's lymphoma: a systematic review.

Combined modality treatment (CMT) of chemotherapy followed by localized radiotherapy is standard treatment for patients with early stage Hodgkin's lymphoma. However, the role of radiotherapy has been questioned recently and some clinical study groups advocate chemotherapy only for this indication. We thus performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing chemotherapy alone with CMT in patients with early stage Hodgkin's lymphoma with respect to response rate, tumor control and overall survival (OS). We searched Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library as well as conference proceedings from January 1980 to February 2009 for randomized controlled trials comparing chemotherapy alone versus the same chemotherapy regimen plus radiotherapy. Progression free survival and similar outcomes were analyzed together as tumor control. Effect measures used were hazard ratios for OS and tumor control as well as relative risks for complete response (CR). Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan5. Five randomized controlled trials involving 1,245 patients were included. The hazard ratio (HR) was 0.41 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.66) for tumor control and 0.40 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.59) for OS for patients receiving CMT compared to chemotherapy alone. CR rates were similar between treatment groups. In sensitivity analyses another 6 trials were included that did not fulfill the inclusion criteria of our protocol but were considered relevant to the topic. These trials underlined the results of the main analysis. In conclusion, adding radiotherapy to chemotherapy improves tumor control and OS in patients with early stage Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Prophylactic antibiotics or G-CSF for the prevention of infections and improvement of survival in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia (FN) and other infectious complications are some of the most serious treatment-related toxicities of chemotherapy for cancer, with a mortality rate of 2% to 21%. The two main types of prophylactic regimens are granulocyte (G-CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factors (GM-CSF); and antibiotics, frequently quinolones or cotrimoxazole. Important current guidelines recommend the use of colony stimulating factors when the risk of febrile neutropenia is above 20% but they do not mention the use of antibiotics. However, both regimens have been shown to reduce the incidence of infections. Since no systematic review has compared the two regimens, a systematic review was undertaken. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of G-CSF or GM-CSF with antibiotics in cancer patients receiving myeloablative chemotherapy with respect to preventing fever, febrile neutropenia, infection, infection-related mortality, early mortality and improving quality of life. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, databases of ongoing trials, and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 to 2007). We planned to include both full-text and abstract publications. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with G-CSF or GM-CSF versus antibiotics in cancer patients of all ages receiving chemotherapy or bone marrow or stem cell transplantation were included for review. Both study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy regimes and other supportive care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial eligibility and quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were done in duplicate. Authors were contacted to obtain missing data. MAIN RESULTS: We included two eligible randomised controlled trials with 195 patients. Due to differences in the outcomes reported, the trials could not be pooled for meta-analysis. Both trials showed non-significant results favouring antibiotics for the prevention of fever or hospitalisation for febrile neutropenia. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence for or against antibiotics compared to G(M)-CSFs for the prevention of infections in cancer patients.

Granulopoiesis-stimulating factors to prevent adverse effects in the treatment of malignant lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Granulopoiesis-stimulating factors, such as granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) and granulocyte-macrophage-colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), are being used to prevent febrile neutropenia and infection in patients undergoing treatment for malignant lymphoma. The question of whether G-CSF and GM-CSF improve dose intensity, tumour response, and overall survival in this patient population has not been answered yet. Since the results from single studies are inconclusive, a systematic review was undertaken. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of G-CSF and GM-CSF in patients with malignant lymphoma with respect to preventing neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infection; improving quality of life, adherence to treatment protocol, tumour response, freedom from treatment failure (FFTF) and overall survival (OS); and adverse effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CancerLit, and other relevant literature databases; Internet databases of ongoing trials; and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 - 2007). We included full-text and abstract publications as well as unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing prophylaxis with G-CSF or GM-CSF versus placebo/no prophylaxis in adult patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing chemotherapy were included for review. Both study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy and supportive care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial eligibility and quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were done by two reviewers independently. Authors were contacted to obtain missing data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 eligible randomised controlled trials with 2607 randomised patients. Compared with no prophylaxis, both G-CSF and GM-CSF did not improve overall survival (hazard ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.09) or FFTF (hazard ratio 1.11; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.35). Prophylaxis significantly reduced the relative risk (RR) for severe neutropenia (RR 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.73), febrile neutropenia (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.89) and infection (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.85). There was no evidence that either G-CSF or GM-CSF reduced the number of patients requiring intravenous antibiotics (RR 0.82; 95%CI 0.57 to 1.18); lowered infection related mortality (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.71); or improved complete tumour response (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10).One study evaluated quality of life parameters and found no differences between the treatment groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: G-CSF and GM-CSF, when used as a prophylaxis in patients with malignant lymphoma undergoing conventional chemotherapy, reduce the risk of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and infection. However, based on the randomised trials currently available, there is no evidence that either G-CSF or GM-CSF provide a significant advantage in terms of complete tumour response, FFTF or OS.