Adjuvant radiotherapy for stage I endometrial cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

The role of adjuvant radiotherapy in stage I endometrial cancer following surgery remains unclear. The management for these patients varies widely, particularly in stage I patients with different risk factors. Using the methodology of Cochrane Collaboration, we did a systematic and meta-analysis of all know randomised controlled trials which compared adjuvant radiotherapy versus no radiotherapy following surgery for patients with stage I endometrial cancer. The meta-analysis was carried out on four trials (three published and one unpublished) and a total of 1770 patients. The addition of pelvic external beam radiotherapy to surgery reduced locoregional recurrence, a relative risk (RR) of 0.28 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-0.44, P < 0.00001], which is a 72% reduction in the risk of pelvic relapse (95% CI 56% to 83%) and an absolute risk reduction of 6% (95% CI of 4% to 8%). The reduction in the risk of locoregional recurrence did not translate into a reduction in the risks of death from all causes, endometrial cancer death or distant recurrence. A subgroup analysis showed a trend towards the reduction in the risks of death from all causes and endometrial cancer in patients with multiple high risk factors (including stage 1c and grade 3). External beam pelvic radiotherapy should be considered in patients with multiple high-risk features including stage 1c and grade 3. However, it carries an inherent risk of damage and toxicity and should be avoided in stage 1 endometrial cancer patients with no high risk factors.

Adjuvant radiotherapy for stage I endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of adjuvant radiotherapy (both pelvic external beam radiotherapy and vaginal intracavity brachytherapy) in stage I endometrial cancer following total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TAH and BSO) remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of adjuvant radiotherapy following surgery for stage I endometrial cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CancerLit, Physician Data Query (PDQ) of National Cancer Institute. Handsearching was also carried out where appropriate. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared adjuvant radiotherapy versus no radiotherapy following surgery for patients with stage I endometrial cancer were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Quality of the studies was assessed and data collected using a predefined data collection form. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints were locoregional recurrence, distant recurrence and endometrial cancer death. Data on quality of life (QOL) and morbidity were also collected. A meta-analysis on included trials was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager Software 4.2. MAIN RESULTS: The meta-analysis was performed on four trials (1770 patients). The addition of pelvic external beam radiotherapy to surgery reduced locoregional recurrence, a relative risk (RR) of 0.28 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.44, p < 0.00001), which is a 72% reduction in the risk of pelvic relapse (95% CI 56% to 83%) and an absolute risk reduction of 6% (95% CI of 4 to 8%). The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one locoregional recurrence is 16.7 patients (95% CI 12.5 to 25). The reduction in the risk of locoregional recurrence did not translate into either a reduction in the risk of distant recurrence or death from all causes or endometrial cancer death. A subgroup analysis of women with multiple high risk factors (including stage 1c and grade 3) showed a trend toward the reduction in the risk of death from all causes and endometrial cancer death in patients who underwent adjuvant external beam radiotherapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Patients with stage I endometrial carcinoma have different risks of local and distant recurrence depending on the presence of risk factors including stage 1c, grade 3, lymphovascular space invasion and age. Though external beam pelvic radiotherapy reduced locoregional recurrence by 72%, there is no evidence to suggest that it reduced the risk of death. In patients with multiple high risk factors, including stage 1c and grade 3, there was a trend towards a survival benefit and adjuvant external beam radiotherapy may be justified. For patients with only one risk factor, grade 3 or stage 1c, no definite conclusion can be made and data from ongoing studies ( ASTEC; Lukka) are awaited. External beam radiotherapy carries a risk of toxicity and should be avoided in stage 1 endometrial cancer patients with no high risk factors.

Chemotherapy for advanced, recurrent or metastatic endometrial carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Endometrial adenocarcinoma is a common gynaecological cancer, but a comparatively small proportion of patients present with or develop recurrent or advanced disease. Progestogens are widely used, with little evidence of their efficacy. Co-morbidity including obesity and cardiac disease and concerns over toxicity have prevented more extensive studies of cytotoxic chemotherapy, although there are a number of active agents. OBJECTIVES: To assess any benefits or adverse effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy in women with advanced, recurrent or metastatic endometrial adenocarcinoma. SEARCH STRATEGY: The major medical literature databases were searched for all known randomised controlled trials (RCTs), as were trials registers and reference lists of relevant publications. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing chemotherapy versus another intervention (including different chemotherapy) in advanced disease were considered. Trials of adjuvant treatment or for sarcomatous tumours were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted from the papers by reviewers and authors of included studies contacted for further information. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven eligible trials were identified which entered 2288 patients between 1974 and 2000. A meta-analysis of the 6 trials comparing more with less chemotherapy with combination was possible and included 1135 patients. Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.80, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.71 to 0.90, p = 0.004), but there was only a trend toward improved survival (HR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.03). Toxicity was in general higher with the combination chemotherapy regimens. Only one trial showed a significant survival benefit from the addition of paclitaxel to combination chemotherapy, but this was at the expense of increased toxicity. There was insufficient evidence to assess whether there was any benefit from cytotoxic chemotherapy in terms of symptom control or QOL compared with best supportive care. There were no comparative trials of chemotherapy with endocrine therapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The optimum cytotoxic drug regimen for advanced endometrial adenocarcinoma has still to be defined although our review suggests that it may contain paclitaxel or platinum. These mainly North American and European trial populations represent a highly selected subgroup of the 10,000 women dying annually from this disease. Future trials should include measures of QOL and symptom control in addition to PFS and overall survival (OS). They should also consider comparison of endocrine therapy and cytotoxic chemotherapy in patients with no prior drug therapy. Stratification of patients should take into account other prognostic factors including co-morbidity and prior radiation treatment.

Concomitant chemotherapy and radiation therapy for cancer of the uterine cervix.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute (USA) alert in February 1999 stated that concomitant chemoradiotherapy should be considered for all patients with cervical cancer, based on evidence from five randomised controlled trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVES: To review all known RCTs comparing concomitant chemotherapy and radiation therapy with radiotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched electronic databases, trials registers and reference lists of published trial reports and review articles were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: This review includes RCTs in cervical cancer comparing concomitant chemoradiation with radiotherapy in the experimental arm. Trials allowing further adjuvant chemotherapy or hydroxyurea were included. Trials using radiosensitisers or radioprotectors in the experimental arm were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors reviewed trials for inclusion and extracted data. For meta-analyses of time-to-event outcomes (survival, progression-free survival), a hazard ratio (HR) was extracted or estimated from trial reports, where possible. Only overall rates of local and distant recurrence were presented in many reports so only odds ratios (OR) of recurrence rates could be calculated, which takes no account of time to recurrence or censoring. Few trials reported acute toxicity adequately, but where possible ORs were calculated for the main types and severities of acute toxicity. The HRs and ORs for individual trials were combined across all trials, using the fixed effect model. Late toxicity was rarely described in sufficient detail so could only be reviewed qualitatively. MAIN RESULTS: The original review was based on nineteen trials (17 published and two unpublished) including 4580 patients. This update includes twenty four trials (21 published, 3 unpublished) and 4921 patients, although due to patient exclusion and differential reporting 61% to 75% were available for the analyses. The review strongly suggests chemoradiation improves overall survival and progression free survival, whether or not platinum was used with absolute benefits of 10% and 13% respectively. There was, however, statistical heterogeneity for these outcomes. There was some evidence that the effect was greater in trials including a high proportion of stage I and II patients. Chemoradiation also showed significant benefit for local recurrence and a suggestion of a benefit for distant recurrence. Acute haematological and gastrointestinal toxicity was significantly greater in the concomitant chemoradiation group. Late effects of treatment were not well reported and so the impact of chemoradiation on these effects could not be determined adequately. Treatment-related deaths were rare. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant chemoradiation appears to improve overall survival and progression-free survival in locally advanced cervical cancer. It also appears to reduce local and distant recurrence suggesting concomitant chemotherapy may afford radiosensitisation and systemic cytotoxic effects. Some acute toxicity is increased, but the long-term side effects are still not clear.

Chemotherapy for advanced, recurrent or metastatic endometrial carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Endometrial adenocarcinoma is a common gynaecological cancer, but a comparatively small proportion of patients present with or develop recurrent or advanced disease. Progestogens are widely used, with little evidence of their efficacy. Co-morbidity including obesity and cardiac disease and concerns over toxicity have prevented more extensive studies of cytotoxic chemotherapy, although there are a number of active agents. OBJECTIVES: To assess any benefits or adverse effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy in women with advanced, recurrent or metastatic endometrial adenocarcinoma. SEARCH STRATEGY: The major medical literature databases were searched for all known randomised controlled trials (RCTs), as were trials registers and reference lists of relevant publications. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing chemotherapy versus another intervention (including different chemotherapy) in advanced disease were considered. Trials of adjuvant treatment or for sarcomatous tumours were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted from the papers by reviewers and authors of included studies contacted for further information. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven eligible trials were identified which entered 2288 patients between 1974 and 2000. A meta-analysis of the 6 trials comparing more with less chemotherapy with combination was possible and included 1135 patients. Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.80, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.71 to 0.90, p = 0.004), but there was only a trend toward improved survival (HR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.03). Toxicity was in general higher with the combination chemotherapy regimens. Only one trial showed a significant survival benefit from the addition of paclitaxel to combination chemotherapy, but this was at the expense of increased toxicity. There was insufficient evidence to assess whether there was any benefit from cytotoxic chemotherapy in terms of symptom control or quality of life (QOL) compared with best supportive care. There were no comparative trials of chemotherapy with endocrine therapy AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The optimum cytotoxic drug regimen for advanced endometrial adenocarcinoma has still to be defined although our review suggests that it may contain paclitaxel or platinum. These mainly North American and European trial populations represent a highly selected subgroup of the 10, 000 women dying annually from this disease. Future trials should include measures of QOL and symptom control in addition to PFS and overall survival (OS). They should should also consider comparison of of endocrine therapy and cytotoxic chemotherapy in patients with no prior drug therapy. Stratification of patients should take into account other prognostic factors including co-morbidity and prior radiation treatment.

Concomitant hydroxyurea plus radiotherapy versus radiotherapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a systematic review.

We identified eight randomised control trials of hydroxyurea and radiation versus radiotherapy alone (six published in full and two abstracts). Most concluded that outcomes were improved by use of hydroxyurea. However, methodological problems associated with these trials included small sample size, a large number of patient exclusions post randomisation, differing outcome definitions, subgroup analyses of already small numbers of patients and questionable rules for censoring, particularly a failure to include treatment related deaths in the survival analysis. All but two studies were of less than 50 patients. Patients were excluded from some analyses for treatment related reasons. The exclusion of such patients undoubtedly altered the conclusions of the studies. Even if there was a survival advantage attributed to hydroxyurea, overall survival was somewhat poor. We found the evidence regarding the use of hydroxyurea and radiotherapy to be inadequate for assessing its role in the treatment of cervical cancer.

Short versus long duration infusions of paclitaxel for any adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel has become a standard drug used in a number of common cancers. At first long infusions were used to reduce the rate of inflow of the drug and as a result reduce the occurrence of hypersensitivity types of allergic reactions. Trials with shorter durations of infusion, and using a cocktail of anti-allergic drugs to prevent hypersensitivity reactions, some randomised, were begun. These were interpreted as showing that effectiveness of treatment was not lessened by a short infusion time. These studies also appeared to show that some important toxicities were less common with short infusions and that they were more convenient for the patient and the hospital. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of varying the duration of infusion of paclitaxel on its anti-cancer effectiveness and side-effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer CRG, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EmBase, CANCERLIT, PDQ, Meta-register (mRCT) and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Centre, GOG were carried out. Information from the manufacturer and authors of reports of studies was also acquired. SELECTION CRITERIA: The review was restricted to randomised controlled trials of single agent paclitaxel or paclitaxel with other drugs, where the only variable was the duration of paclitaxel infusion. The review only included patients with advanced adenocarcinoma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was extracted by two independent reviewers and where there was disagreement this was resolved by discussion. Where possible the data was synthesised in a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Three hour paclitaxel infusions appear to result in a smaller fall in white blood cell count, less fever, infection and sore mouth than 24 hour infusions. In contrast, 24 hour infusions cause less nerve toxicity. Other side-effects are not dependent on the duration of infusion. Evidence from individual trials suggesting efficacy may be slightly greater with 24 hour infusions is inconclusive. Combination of data from trials of different cancer sites in a meta-analysis must be considered speculative, but the combined data also suggest that 24 hour infusions of paclitaxel may be slightly more effective. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: This review confirms that, apart from neurological effects, three hour infusion of paclitaxel causes significantly less side effects than 24 hour infusion. Insufficient data exists to state whether varying the duration of infusion has a significant effect on its anti-cancer effectiveness. Further study would be required to establish whether there genuinely is a significant difference in efficacy according to the duration of infusion of paclitaxel.

Short versus long duration infusions of paclitaxel for any adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel has become a standard drug used in a number of common cancers. At first long infusions were used to reduce the rate of inflow of the drug and as a result reduce the occurrence of hypersensitivity types of allergic reactions. Trials with shorter durations of infusion, and using a cocktail of anti-allergic drugs to prevent hypersensitivity reactions, some randomised, were begun. These were interpreted as showing that effectiveness of treatment was not lessened by a short infusion time. These studies also appeared to show that some important toxicities were less common with short infusions and that they were more convenient for the patient and the hospital. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of varying the duration of infusion of paclitaxel on its anti-cancer effectiveness and side-effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer CRG, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EmBase, CANCERLIT, PDQ, Meta-register (mRCT) and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Centre, GOG were carried out. Information from the manufacturer and authors of reports of studies was also acquired. SELECTION CRITERIA: The review was restricted to randomised controlled trials of single agent paclitaxel or paclitaxel with other drugs, where the only variable was the duration of paclitaxel infusion. The review only included patients with advanced adenocarcinoma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was extracted by two independent reviewers and where there was disagreement this was resolved by discussion. Where possible the data was synthesised in a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Three hour paclitaxel infusions appear to result in a smaller fall in white blood cell count, less fever, infection and sore mouth than 24 hour infusions. In contrast, 24 hour infusions cause less nerve toxicity. Other side-effects are not dependent on the duration of infusion. Evidence from individual trials suggesting efficacy may be slightly greater with 24 hour infusions is inconclusive. Combination of data from trials of different cancer sites in a meta-analysis must be considered speculative, but the combined data also suggest that 24 hour infusions of paclitaxel may be slightly more effective. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: This review confirms that, apart from neurological effects, three hour infusion of paclitaxel causes significantly less side effects than 24 hour infusion. Insufficient data exists to state whether varying the duration of infusion has a significant effect on its anti-cancer effectiveness. Further study would be required to establish whether there genuinely is a significant difference in efficacy according to the duration of infusion of paclitaxel.

Concomitant hydroxyurea plus radiotherapy versus radiotherapy for carcinoma of the uterine cervix.

BACKGROUND: A number of randomised studies suggest hydroxyurea given alongside radiotherapy improves survival in patients with locally advanced cervix cancer. Following publication of five large randomised trials in 1999 and 2000 concomitant chemoradiotherapy has become standard treatment for these patients. In two of the studies hydroxyurea was given to patients in both control and experimental arms. The precise role of this orally administered cytotoxic drug is not known. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness (survival and toxicity) of concomitant radiation and hydroxyurea compared with radiotherapy alone in treating locally advanced cervix cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following:Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group's Specialised RegisterCENTRAL (Cochrane Library on CD ROM, issue 4, 2002) MEDLINE (Silver Platter, from 1970 to 2001) EMBASE (from 1980 to 2001) CANCERLIT (from 1970 to 2001) PDQ (search for open and closed trials) LILACSMeta-register (ongoing trials)Searches were not language or publication restricted. Investigators of relevant trials were contacted for further information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing concomitant radiotherapy (+/- surgery) with hydroxyurea versus radiotherapy (+/- surgery) for locally advanced cervix cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed trials for inclusion and extracted data. Discussions on all aspects of data collection and analysis took place among all the authors at regular intervals. MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies were found to be suitable for inclusion from 33 identified as relevant. None of the trials provided adequate evidence to support the use of hydroxyurea owing to small sample size, large numbers of post-randomisation exclusions and questionable rules for censoring, particularly a failure to include treatment-related deaths in the survival analysis. Details of statistical analysis were limited and often confusing, and we felt meta-analysis would lead to unreliable and invalid conclusions. Most studies appeared to be double blind placebo-controlled studies but none give details of power calculations or reasons for stopping recruitment. Only two studies had more than 50 patients. Patients were excluded from analysis in most trials for treatment-related reasons; in one, less than half those recruited were used in the analysis, the remainder having been excluded because of tumour progression or treatment-related conditions e.g. septicaemia, worsening renal/hepatic function. In another trial five out of 20 in the hydroxyurea group died of treatment-related complications but the five-year survival group was presented as 94%. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to support the use of hydroxyurea in addition to radiotherapy in the routine treatment of cervix cancer.

Concomitant chemotherapy and radiation therapy for cancer of the uterine cervix.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute (USA) alert in February 1999 stated that concomitant chemoradiotherapy should be considered for all patients with cervical cancer, based on evidence from five randomised controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: To review all known randomised clinical controlled trials (RCTs) comparing concomitant chemotherapy and radiation therapy with radiotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched electronic databases, trials registers and reference lists of published trial reports and review articles were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: This review includes RCTs in cervical cancer comparing concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy with radiotherapy. In the experimental arm, further adjuvant chemotherapy was allowable. Hydroxyurea was considered inactive and allowable. Trials using radiosensitisers or radioprotectors in the experimental arm were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors reviewed trials for inclusion and extracted data. For meta-analyses of time-to-event outcomes (survival, progression-free survival), a hazard ratio (HR) was extracted or estimated from trial reports, where possible. Only overall rates of local and distant recurrence were presented in many reports so only an odds ratios (OR) of recurrence rates could be calculated, which takes no account of time to recurrence or censoring. The HRs and ORs for individual trials were combined across all trials, using the fixed effect model. Few trials reported acute toxicity adequately. Data were therefore grouped and the number of toxic events was used to calculate a single OR for each site and grade. Late toxicity was rarely described so could only be reviewed qualitatively. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen trials (17 published, two unpublished) were identified including 4580 patients, although due to patient exclusion and differential reporting 62-78% were available for the various analyses. The review strongly suggests chemoradiation improves overall survival and progression free survival, whether platinum was used or not with absolute benefits of 12% and 16% respectively. There was, however, statistical heterogeneity for these outcomes There was some evidence that the effect was greater in trials including a high proportion of stage I and II patients. Chemoradiation also showed significant benefit for both local and distant recurrence. Haematological and gastrointestinal toxicity was significantly greater in the concomitant chemoradiation group. Details of late morbidity were sparse. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy appears to improve overall survival and progression-free survival in locally advanced cervical cancer. It also reduces local and distant recurrence suggesting concomitant chemotherapy may afford cytotoxic and sensitisation effects. Some acute toxicity is increased, but data on long term side effects were sparse.

The effects of pelvic radiotherapy on cancer survivors: symptom profile, psychological morbidity and quality of life.

AIMS: As cancer survival rates continue to increase, it is important to maximise the quality of life of cancer survivors. Pelvic radiotherapy is a common cancer treatment. Bladder, bowel and sexual dysfunction are recognised side-effects of treatment, and yet relatively little is known of the extent to which they remain problems in the longer term when patients are often managed by primary care, nor of the psychological impact of symptoms and effects on quality of life. Therefore, the aims of this study were to estimate the prevalence of bladder, bowel and sexual dysfunction late effects in a sample of cancer survivors; assess the impact of time since treatment on symptom prevalence; and explore the relationship between symptoms, psychological morbidity and quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was given to a sample of cancer survivors treated in Oxford who had pelvic radiotherapy 1-11 years previously. The questionnaire measured patient-reported toxicity (Common Toxicity Criteria of Adverse Events/Late Effects of Normal Tissues--Subjective, Objective, Management and Analytic Measure), psychological morbidity (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and quality of life (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30). RESULTS: In total, 418 (57.1%) completed questionnaires were received. Moderate/severe problems with bowel, urinary and sexual functioning were relatively common: bowel urgency (59% women, 45% men); urine urgency (49% women, 46% men); ability to have a sexual relationship affected (24% women, 53% men). Symptoms were just as frequent in those 6-11 years after treatment as in those 1-5 years after treatment. Symptom severity was significantly associated with poorer overall quality of life and higher levels of depression. CONCLUSIONS: Late effects are common among long-term cancer survivors who have had pelvic radiotherapy, and are associated with reduced quality of life and psychological morbidity. It is imperative due attention is paid to this issue during the follow-up phase--both in secondary and primary care. Health care professionals providing follow-up care need to be aware of the importance of assessing and monitoring symptoms, and need to be adequately informed on the most appropriate management strategies.

Chemotherapy for advanced, recurrent or metastatic endometrial cancer: a systematic review of Cochrane collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Cytotoxic chemotherapy has a limited place in the management of advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. Commonly used agents include cisplatin and doxorubicin, but the side-effect profile may be unacceptable for many patients. The feasibility of administration of combination chemotherapy is limited in many patients on account of significant co-morbidity. While early-stage endometrial adenocarcinoma is a common gynaecological cancer with a favourable prognosis, advanced or recurrent disease presents a difficult management problem. The platinum and anthracycline compounds have been widely used for many years, but their impact on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) is not clear. This systematic review aimed to evaluate both the benefits and adverse effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy in these women. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We carried out systematic searches for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chemotherapy with another intervention. Data were extracted from trial reports or supplied by investigators. Where possible, hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for OS and PFS and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for acute toxicity. The impact of more versus less intensive chemotherapy on OS, PFS and acute toxicity was assessed in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Eleven eligible RCTs were identified that recruited 2288 patients. A meta-analysis of six of these trials found that PFS [HR = 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-0.90; P = 0.004], but not OS (HR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.80-1.03; P = 0.12), was significantly improved when more intensive chemotherapy was compared with less intensive chemotherapy. OS was improved when doxorubicin, cisplatin and other drugs were compared with doxorubicin and cisplatin. Toxicity was generally higher with more chemotherapy. There was insufficient evidence to assess the effect of chemotherapy on symptom control or quality of life (QoL). Platinums, anthracyclines and taxanes were the most studied in phase II trials and combinations gave the best responses, but patient selection and pre-treatment was very variable. CONCLUSIONS: More intense combination chemotherapy significantly improves the disease-free survival and the data indicate a modest improvement in OS. The addition of anthracyclines (e.g. doxorubicin) or the taxanes [e.g. paclitaxel (Taxol)] to cisplatin increases the response rate. More intensive regimens are associated with the gain in survival. However, grade 3 and 4 myelosuppression and gastrointestinal toxicity are also increased. Future developments are likely to exploit specific molecular characteristics of endometrial cancers, including their hormone dependence, growth factor target overexpression and PTEN loss. While no one drug or regimen offers a clear benefit for women with advanced endometrial cancer, platinum drugs, anthracyclines and paclitaxel seem the most promising agents. Future trials should address the impact of such agents on QoL and symptom control in addition to survival. Chemotherapy and endocrine therapy need to be compared directly in an RCT.

Survival and recurrence after concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cancer of the uterine cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The US National Cancer Institute alert in February, 1999, stated that concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy should be considered for all patients with cervical cancer. Our aim was to review the effects of chemoradiotherapy on overall and progression-free survival, local and distant control, and acute and late toxicity in patients with cervical cancer. METHODS: With the methodology of the Cochrane Collaboration, we did a systematic review of all known randomised controlled trials done between 1981 and 2000 (17 published, two unpublished) of chemoradiation for cervical cancer. FINDINGS: The trials included 4580 randomised patients, and 2865-3611 patients (62-78%) were available for analysis. Cisplatin was the most common agent used. The findings suggest that chemoradiation improves overall survival (hazard ratio 0.71, p<0.0001), whether platinum was used (0.70, p<0.0001) or not (0.81, p=0.20). A greater beneficial effect was seen in trials that included a high proportion of stage I and II patients (p=0.009). An improvement in progression-free survival was also seen with chemoradiation (0.61, p<0.0001). Thus, the absolute benefit in progression-free and overall survival was 16% (95% CI 13-19) and 12% (8-16), respectively. A significant benefit of chemoradiation on both local (odds ratio 0.61, p<0.0001) and distant recurrence (0.57, p<0.0001) was also recorded. Grade 3 or 4 haematological (odds ratio 1.49-8.60) and gastrointestinal (2.22) toxicities were significantly greater in the concomitant chemoradiation group than the control group. There was insufficient data to establish whether late toxicity was increased in the concomitant chemoradiation group. INTERPRETATION: Concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy improves overall and progression-free survival and reduces local and distant recurrence in selected patients with cervical cancer, which may give a cytotoxic and sensitisation effect.