Objective To make an individualized therapeutic regimen for a patient with stage III relapsed ovarian cancer guided by evidence-based medicine.Methods According to the clinical problems this patient showed and the PICO (patient, intervention, comparison and outcome) principle, the best clinical evidence associated with relapsed ovarian cancer was retrieved and evaluated. Results The current evidence showed that the relapsed ovarian cancer with platinum resistance tended to be treated by pharmacotherapy. Consequently, on the basis of combining the recommended guidelines, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews or meta-analyses on RCTs, clinical experience from doctors and willingness of patient, the regimen of Irinotecan plus Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin for interventional chemotherapy was recommended for this patient. After three courses of the treatment, the disease got some relieved; the medical team would like to keep conducting the same regimen for another six to eight courses, and the follow-up visit was undergoing. Conclusion For patients with relapsed ovarian cancer with platinum resistance, an individualized therapeutic regimen under the guidance of evidence-based methods can not only improve the therapeutic efficacy but also guide both doctors and patients to take the indeterminate risk of medicine.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the prognostic efficacy and safety of patients with ovarian cancer treated with systemic lymphadenectomy (SL). MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, and CBM databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies on the prognostic outcomes of patients with ovarian cancer treated with SL from inception to December 16th, 2020. Six reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed using RevMan 5.4 software. ResultsA total of 5 RCTs and 23 cohort studies involving 6 166 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences in the 3-year survival rate, 5-year survival rate, 3-year progression-free survival rate, and 5-year progression-free survival rate between SL group and the no systemic lymphadenectomy (NSL) group. The results of the subgroup analysis showed that pelvic and para-aortic lymph node dissection combined with large omentum resection had a better prognosis for patients. ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that SL has no significant efficacy on survival and progression-free survival in patients with ovarian cancer. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are required to verify the above conclusions.
ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) combined with chemotherapy for ovarian cancer.MethodsCNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and PubMed databases were searched to collect randomized controlled trials on the CHM combined with chemotherapy for ovarian cancer from inception to March 31st, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and evaluated the risk bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsThirteen studies were included. Meta-analysis showed that, CHM combined with chemotherapy group was superior to the chemotherapy alone group in effective rate of TCM syndrome (RR=1.72, 95%CI 1.46 to 2.03, P<0.00.000 1), effective rate of tumor change (RR=1.40, 95%CI 1.21 to 1.63,P<0.000 01), physical condition score (MD=9.19, 95%CI 5.89 to 12.48,P<0.000 01), tumor markers (MD=–18.00, 95%CI –20.62 to –1.538,P<0.000 01), leukocyte reduction (RR=0.67, 95%CI 0.58 to 0.77,P<0.000 01), granulocy tedepletion (RR=0.67, 95%CI 0.55 to 0.81,P<0.000 1), thrombocytopenia (RR=0.55, 95%CI 0.45 to 0.69,P<0.000 01), and digestive tract reaction (RR=0.66, 95%CI 0.50 to 0.87,P=0.004).ConclusionsThe current evidence shows that CHM combined with chemotherapy is superior to chemotherapy alone in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Due to limited quality and quantity of included studies, the above conclusions are required to be verified by more high-quality studies.
Extracellular matrix (ECM) has been implicated in tumor progress and chemosensitivity. Ovarian cancer brings a great threat to the health of women with a significant feature of high mortality and poor prognosis. However, the potential significance of matrix stiffness in the pattern of long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) expression and ovarian cancer drug sensitivity is still largely unkown. Here, based on RNA-seq data of ovarian cancer cell cultured on substrates with different stiffness, we found that a great amount of lncRNAs were upregulated in stiff group, whereas SNHG8 was significantly downregulated, which was further verified in ovarian cancer cells cultured on polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) hydrogel. Knockdown of SNHG8 led to an impaired efficiency of homologous repair, and decreased cellular sensitivity to both etoposide and cisplatin. Meanwhile, the results of the GEPIA analysis indicated that the expression of SNHG8 was significantly decreased in ovarian cancer tissues, which was negatively correlated with the overall survival of patients with ovarian cancer. In conclusion, matrix stiffening related lncRNA SNHG8 is closely related to chemosensitivity and prognosis of ovarian cancer, which might be a novel molecular marker for chemotherapy drug instruction and prognosis prediction.
Objective To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of paclitaxel liposomes and carboplatin for ovarian cancer. Methods The databases such as The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI and CBM were searched to collect all randomized control trials (RCTs) about the clinical effectiveness and safety of paclitaxel liposomes and carboplatin for ovarian cancer. Literatures were screened according to the inclusive and exclusive criteria, the data were extracted, the methodological quality of the included studies was assessed in line with Cochrane Handbook 5.0.1, and Meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.0.24 software. Results Three RCTs involving 214 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that compared with the paclitaxel plus carboplatin group, the paclitaxel liposomes plus carboplatin group didn’t show significant differences in the total effective rate (P=0.62), while it was obviously superior in reducing the adverse events, such as muscle and joint pain (Plt;0.000 01), peripheral neurotoxicity (P=0.04), nausea or vomiting (P=0.000 2), facial blushing (P=0.03) and rashes (P=0.003). But there were no significant differences between the two groups in trichomadesis, dyspnea, diarrhea, bellyache and blood system abnormalities. Conclusion As current clinical evidences shows, the paclitaxel liposomes and carboplatin in treating ovarian cancer is as effective as the paclitaxel and carboplatin, and it can reduce some of the adverse reactions. Therefore, the paclitaxel liposomes and carboplatin is available for ovarian cancer as a new, safe and effective treatment. Due to small scale and low quality of the included studies, this conclusion has to be further proved with more high-quality, large-scale, and double-blind RCTs.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the effectiveness and safety of intraperitoneal hyperthermic perfusion chemotherapy (IHPC) for ovarian cancer, so as to provide references for clinical practice and studies. MethodsWe electronically searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 6, 2013), Web of Science, WanFang Data, CBM, VIP and CNKI for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about IHPC vs. intravenous chemotherapy (IC) for ovarian cancer from the inception of the databases to June 2013. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. ResultsA total of 10 RCTs involving 723 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the IHPC group was superior to the IC group in clinical efficiency (OR=4.02, 95%CI 2.85 to 5.68, P < 0.000 01), clinical benefit response (OR=3.41, 95%CI 2.13 to 5.45, P < 0.000 01), recurrence and metastasis rates (OR=0.29, 95%CI 0.20 to 0.42, P < 0.000 1), and overall survival rates (OR=3.30, 95%CI 1.82 to 5.99, P < 0.000 1). In the aspect of safety, no significant difference was found in bone marrow suppression, hemoglobin reduction, nausea and vomiting between two groups. ConclusionIHPC for ovarian cancer can improve clinical efficiency, clinical benefit response and overall survival rates, and reduce recurrence and metastasis rates; and it is also safe for patients.
Objective To systematically assess literature regarding the relationship between ovulation induction and the risk of ovarian cancer. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM and CNKI (from inception to Feb, 2012). Cohort or case-control studies were identified according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Then the quality of the included studies was assessed, and the data was extracted. Meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.0 software. The incorporated RR (relative risk) and 95%CI (confidence interval) of the included cohort studies and incorporated OR (odds ratio) and 95%CI of case-control studies were calculated, respectively. Results Four cohort studies and four case-control studies were included. Result of meta-analysis on cohort studies showed ovulation induction didn’t increase the risk of ovarian cancer (RR=1.07, 95%CI 0.81 to 1.42, P=0.63). Besides, result of meta-analysis on case-control studies showed ovulation induction was not associated with the incidence of ovarian cancer (OR=1.28, 95%CI 0.78 to 2.08, P=0.33). But the risk of borderline ovarian tumors increased when compared with general population controls (OR=1.71, 95%CI 1.05 to 2.79, P=0.03). Conclusion Ovulation induction does not increase the risk of ovarian cancer, but may relate to the incidence of borderline ovarian cancer. However, more high-quality studies, especially perspective cohort studies are required because of the limited quantity of the included studies.
Ovarian cancer is one of the common malignant tumors of female genital organs. In gynecological tumors, the incidence rate of ovarian cancer ranks the third after cervical cancer and uterine body cancer, but the death rate of ovarian cancer ranks the first, posing a serious threat to women’s life and health. In recent years, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical practice guidelines for ovarian cancer has become an important basis for diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer. In this paper, we interpret the latest version (version 4. 2017) of NCCN clinical practice guidelines for ovarian cancer for its better clinical application.
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and the adverse reactions of intensive therapy compared with conventional therapy. Methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 3, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1980 to June 2008), EMbase (1984 to June 2008), CBM-disc (January 1980 to June 2008) and CNKI (1994 to June 2008) to get all the randomized control trials (RCTs) about paclitaxel intensive versus conventional therapy for ovarian cancer. We used RevMan 5 to perform meta-analysis. Results Six RCTs involving 572 patients were included. Metaanalysis showed the efficacy of intensive therapy and conventional therapy was similar. There were no significant differences in response rate (RR 1.06, 95%CI 0.94 to 1.20), median survival time, survival rate, median progression free survival and median time to progression between the two groups. When taking safety into consideration, intensive therapy significantly reduced the occurrence of grade Ⅲ or higher neutropenia (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.35 to 0.69, Plt;0.000 1) and Grade Ⅲ or higher neuropathy (RR 0.43, 95%CI 0.24 to 0.78, P=0.006). But there were no significant differences between intensive therapy and conventional therapy in flush, grade Ⅲ or higher vomiting, anemia, leucopenia, grade Ⅲ or higher thrombocytopenia and alopecia. Conclusion Paclitaxel intensive therapy has similar efficacy and adverse reactions compared with conventional therapy in ovarian cancer. Above all, intensive therapy can reduce the incidence of grade Ⅲ or higher neutropenia and neuropathy. It is a good substitution for the conventional therapy.
Objective To estimate the diagnostic value of mesothelin in ovarian cancer. Methods PubMed, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data databases were searched from inception to October 2016 to collect relevant diagnostic accuracy studies of mesothelin in ovarian cancer. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Statistical analysis was performed using Meta-Disc 1.4, Stata 12.0 and RevMan 5.2 softwares. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio were calculated, the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was drawn and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. Results Seventeen studies involving 2 052 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR were 0.63 (95%CI 0.60 to 0.67), 0.92 (95%CI 0.90 to 0.93) and 26.62 (95%CI 14.96 to 47.38), respectively. The AUC and Q index were 0.915 1 and 0.847 8, respectively. Conclusion The current evidence indicates that mesothelin has high specificity and low sensitivity, which can’t be used alone as a biomarker for the detection of ovarian cancer, but should be combined with other biomarkers.