新药联合化疗治疗原发性浆母细胞淋巴瘤的比较疗效和安全性荟萃分析。

IF 3.2 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Bingling Guo, Xi Quan, Zailin Yang, Jieping Li, Yao Liu
{"title":"新药联合化疗治疗原发性浆母细胞淋巴瘤的比较疗效和安全性荟萃分析。","authors":"Bingling Guo, Xi Quan, Zailin Yang, Jieping Li, Yao Liu","doi":"10.1007/s10238-025-01636-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of regimens combining new drugs (bortezomib, etc.) with chemotherapy in the treatment of plasmaoblastoid lymphoma (PBL). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting Proceedings, Cochrane Controlled Trials Center Registry, Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, and meeting abstracts were searched for quality evaluation based on Cochrane Risk and Jadad scores and other assessment tools. Patients were divided into subgroup 1 (traditional treatment vs. no treatment) and subgroup 2 (traditional treatment vs. combination of new drugs) based on medication use, and Revman 5.4 software was applied for statistical analysis. A total of 12 papers were included, including 410 patients with PBL. Meta-analysis results: the objective remission rate (ORR) of patients in the combination of new drugs group was higher than that of the traditional treatment group [56.8% (25/44) vs. 70.2% (66/94); OR = 2.18, 95%CI 1.58-2.78, P = 0.002 < 0.05], and the progression-free survival (PFS) rate of patients in the combination of new drugs group was higher than that of the traditional treatment group. the progression survival (PFS) was better than traditional treatment group (HR = 2.22, 95%CI 1.71-2.90, P < 0.001), and the heterogeneity between the results of each study I = 95%; there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.81, 95%CI 0.44-7.46, P = 0.41), and grade 3-4 adverse events (AE) (HR = 0.85, 95%CI 0.27-7.46, P = 0.002 < 0.05). 95%CI 0.27-2.71, P = 0.78) were not statistically different. The regimen combining new drugs is an effective means to improve the prognosis of PBL, with better ORR and PFS than the traditional regimen, and there is no statistically significant difference between the two adverse events. However, the small sample size of this study increases the possibility of bias and the results need to be treated with caution.</p>","PeriodicalId":10337,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Medicine","volume":"25 1","pages":"103"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11961531/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meta-analysis of the comparative efficacy and safety of new drugs in combination with chemotherapy in primary plasmoblastic lymphoma.\",\"authors\":\"Bingling Guo, Xi Quan, Zailin Yang, Jieping Li, Yao Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10238-025-01636-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of regimens combining new drugs (bortezomib, etc.) with chemotherapy in the treatment of plasmaoblastoid lymphoma (PBL). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting Proceedings, Cochrane Controlled Trials Center Registry, Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, and meeting abstracts were searched for quality evaluation based on Cochrane Risk and Jadad scores and other assessment tools. Patients were divided into subgroup 1 (traditional treatment vs. no treatment) and subgroup 2 (traditional treatment vs. combination of new drugs) based on medication use, and Revman 5.4 software was applied for statistical analysis. A total of 12 papers were included, including 410 patients with PBL. Meta-analysis results: the objective remission rate (ORR) of patients in the combination of new drugs group was higher than that of the traditional treatment group [56.8% (25/44) vs. 70.2% (66/94); OR = 2.18, 95%CI 1.58-2.78, P = 0.002 < 0.05], and the progression-free survival (PFS) rate of patients in the combination of new drugs group was higher than that of the traditional treatment group. the progression survival (PFS) was better than traditional treatment group (HR = 2.22, 95%CI 1.71-2.90, P < 0.001), and the heterogeneity between the results of each study I = 95%; there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.81, 95%CI 0.44-7.46, P = 0.41), and grade 3-4 adverse events (AE) (HR = 0.85, 95%CI 0.27-7.46, P = 0.002 < 0.05). 95%CI 0.27-2.71, P = 0.78) were not statistically different. The regimen combining new drugs is an effective means to improve the prognosis of PBL, with better ORR and PFS than the traditional regimen, and there is no statistically significant difference between the two adverse events. However, the small sample size of this study increases the possibility of bias and the results need to be treated with caution.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10337,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and Experimental Medicine\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"103\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11961531/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and Experimental Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10238-025-01636-9\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10238-025-01636-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

系统评价新型药物(硼替佐米等)联合化疗治疗浆母细胞样淋巴瘤(PBL)的疗效和安全性。检索PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、American Society of Hematology年会论文集、Cochrane Controlled Trials Center Registry、Cochrane Library、Science Citation Index和会议摘要,基于Cochrane Risk和Jadad评分等评估工具进行质量评价。根据用药情况将患者分为1亚组(传统治疗vs.不治疗)和2亚组(传统治疗vs.联合新药),应用Revman 5.4软件进行统计分析。共纳入12篇论文,包括410例PBL患者。meta分析结果:新药联合治疗组患者客观缓解率(ORR)高于传统治疗组[56.8% (25/44)vs. 70.2% (66/94);Or = 2.18, 95%ci 1.58-2.78, p = 0.002
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Meta-analysis of the comparative efficacy and safety of new drugs in combination with chemotherapy in primary plasmoblastic lymphoma.

To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of regimens combining new drugs (bortezomib, etc.) with chemotherapy in the treatment of plasmaoblastoid lymphoma (PBL). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting Proceedings, Cochrane Controlled Trials Center Registry, Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, and meeting abstracts were searched for quality evaluation based on Cochrane Risk and Jadad scores and other assessment tools. Patients were divided into subgroup 1 (traditional treatment vs. no treatment) and subgroup 2 (traditional treatment vs. combination of new drugs) based on medication use, and Revman 5.4 software was applied for statistical analysis. A total of 12 papers were included, including 410 patients with PBL. Meta-analysis results: the objective remission rate (ORR) of patients in the combination of new drugs group was higher than that of the traditional treatment group [56.8% (25/44) vs. 70.2% (66/94); OR = 2.18, 95%CI 1.58-2.78, P = 0.002 < 0.05], and the progression-free survival (PFS) rate of patients in the combination of new drugs group was higher than that of the traditional treatment group. the progression survival (PFS) was better than traditional treatment group (HR = 2.22, 95%CI 1.71-2.90, P < 0.001), and the heterogeneity between the results of each study I = 95%; there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.81, 95%CI 0.44-7.46, P = 0.41), and grade 3-4 adverse events (AE) (HR = 0.85, 95%CI 0.27-7.46, P = 0.002 < 0.05). 95%CI 0.27-2.71, P = 0.78) were not statistically different. The regimen combining new drugs is an effective means to improve the prognosis of PBL, with better ORR and PFS than the traditional regimen, and there is no statistically significant difference between the two adverse events. However, the small sample size of this study increases the possibility of bias and the results need to be treated with caution.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical and Experimental Medicine
Clinical and Experimental Medicine 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
2.20%
发文量
159
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: Clinical and Experimental Medicine (CEM) is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to be a forum of scientific excellence and information exchange in relation to the basic and clinical features of the following fields: hematology, onco-hematology, oncology, virology, immunology, and rheumatology. The journal publishes reviews and editorials, experimental and preclinical studies, translational research, prospectively designed clinical trials, and epidemiological studies. Papers containing new clinical or experimental data that are likely to contribute to changes in clinical practice or the way in which a disease is thought about will be given priority due to their immediate importance. Case reports will be accepted on an exceptional basis only, and their submission is discouraged. The major criteria for publication are clarity, scientific soundness, and advances in knowledge. In compliance with the overwhelmingly prevailing request by the international scientific community, and with respect for eco-compatibility issues, CEM is now published exclusively online.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信