A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Doxorubicin/Adriamycin Monotherapy or Plus Ifosfamide in First-Line Treatment for Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials. | LitMetric

Background: Doxorubicin/Adriamycin (ADM) alone or combined with ifosfamide (IFO) (AI) is available for previously untreated advanced soft tissue sarcoma (ASTS). However, the clinical choice between them remains controversial. In this pooled analysis, we comprehensively compared the efficacy and tolerability of AI versus ADM in patients with ASTS.

Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to April 14, 2021. Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials comparing AI to ADM. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR). Discontinuation rate (DR) and toxic death (TD) were explored as secondary outcomes.

Results: Overall, three open-label randomized phase 2/3 clinical trials with a total of 1108 newly diagnosed ASTS patients were enrolled. Between AI and ADM, pooled hazard ratios were 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.58-1.50, = 0.78) for OS and 0.85 (0.57-1.25, = 0.41) for PFS. While pooled risk ratios for ORR, DR, and TD were 1.37 (0.94-1.99, = 0.10), 1.04 (0.74-1.46, = 0.82), and 0.68 (0.19-2.36, = 0.54) respectively. No publication bias was observed across the studies.

Conclusion: In the first-line setting, adding IFO to ADM failed to benefit ASTS patients against ADM alone, even with comparable tolerability.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8648074PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.762288DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

advanced soft
8
soft tissue
8
tissue sarcoma
8
pooled analysis
8
clinical trials
8
asts patients
8
adm
6
doxorubicin/adriamycin monotherapy
4
monotherapy ifosfamide
4
ifosfamide first-line
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!