Evidence Hub

Survival benefits with diverse chemotherapy regimens for ovarian cancer: meta-analysis of multiple treatments

Kyrgiou M, Salanti G, Pavlidis N, Paraskevaidis E, Ioannidis JP

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2006

38,440 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Numerous randomized trials have compared different chemotherapy regimens in women with ovarian cancer. Although ovarian cancer survival has improved in recent years, the magnitude of these incremental benefits across diverse regimens is unclear.

METHODS: We used multiple-treatment meta-analysis methodology to combine information from direct and indirect comparisons of all chemotherapy regimens used in randomized trials of ovarian cancer in the last 40 years. Chemotherapy was categorized by the use or not of platinum and/or taxanes, combinations of agents, and intraperitoneal administration. Monte Carlo simulations were used to determine which regimen most improved survival. Analyses of trials that examined first- and second-line treatments were also performed separately.

RESULTS: We found 198 trials (N = 38,440 women) involving 120 different chemotherapy regimens published in 1971-2006. Eighty-two trials compared different types of chemotherapy, among which 60 had usable survival information (N = 15,609 women). Monte Carlo simulations showed a 92% probability that the regimen that best prolonged survival is a platinum and taxane combination with intraperitoneal administration; this regimen resulted in a 55% relative risk reduction (95% confidence interval [CI] = 39% to 67%) for mortality as compared with nonintraperitoneal monotherapy using neither platinum nor taxane. Against that same monotherapy comparator, platinum-based combinations with and without…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 38,440 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free