3.9 Review

The Effect and Safety of Bortezomib in the Treatment of AL Amyloidosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER INDIA
DOI: 10.1007/s12288-018-0937-x

关键词

Light chain (AL) amyloidosis; Bortezomib treatment; Effect and safety

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81570106, 814000888, 81600093]
  2. anticancer major special project of Tianjin [12ZCDZSY18000]
  3. Tianjin Municipal Natural Science Foundation [14JCYBJC25400, 15JCYBJC24300]
  4. Tianjin Health and Family Planning Commision [15KG150]
  5. Tianjin Medical University [YJSCX201717]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bortezomib began to be used in the treatment of light chain (AL) amyloidosis in recent years. We performed the first meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials and clinical controlled trials to evaluate the effect and safety of bortezomib treatment for AL amyloidosis. We conducted a search (until July 2016) in electronic databases (PubMed databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials bases from the year 2003). There were 205 records we searched and eight studies was included (n = 617 persons). We demonstrated that bortezomib treatment significantly improved overall response rate (ORR), complete response, a cardiac response rate, 2-year overall survival and the risk of neuropathy and reduced overall mortality compared to controls without bortezomib therapy. From the comparison and subgroup analysis of ORR between bortezomib group and no bortezomib group, the patients with bortezomib had a higher ORR, especially patients pretreated with bortezomib before high-dose melphalan followed by autologous stem cell transplant compared to no pretreatment. In addition, patients with bortezomib in standard dosage had significantly higher ORR. According to our results, bortezomib should be used in AL amyloidosis patients to improve response rate and survival rate and future relevant randomized controlled trials require to be performed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据