Cochrane · systematic review · CD005589
Topotecan for ovarian cancer
Abudou, M, Zhong, D, Wu, T, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2008 · Cochrane Library
Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan CancerAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
13
current version
GRADE rated
13
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 3 · 23.1%Moderate 4 · 30.8%High 6 · 46.2%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Topotecon+Carboplatin+Paclitaxel compared to Carboplatin+Paclitaxel for ovarian cancer
Population: patients with ovarian cancer
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Overall Survivalclinical observation Topotecon+Carboplatin+Paclitaxel vs Carboplatin+Paclitaxel | HR 1.02 [0.97, 1.06] | 2 studies · 1998 participants | High |
Progress free survival Topotecon+Carboplatin+Paclitaxel vs Carboplatin+Paclitaxel | HR 1.03 [1.03, 1.03] | 2 studies · 1998 participants | Low Downgraded: inconsistency |
Topotecon compared to PLD for EOC
Population: patients with EOC
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Survival Hazard Ratio (platium‐sensitive) Topotecon vs PLD | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 220 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Survival Hazard Ratio (Platium‐resistant) Topotecon vs PLD | RR 0.69 [0.35, 1.38] | 1 study · 255 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Progression free survival (platium‐sensitive) Topotecon vs PLD | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 220 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Progression free survival (platium‐resistant) Topotecon vs PLD | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 220 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Topotecon compared to paclitaxel for EOC
Population: patients with EOC
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
SurvivalScale from: 1 to 226.3. Topotecon vs paclitaxel | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 226 participants | High |
Time to progressionScale from: 1 to 137.3. Topotecon vs paclitaxel | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 226 participants | High |
Topotecon compared to Topotecon+thalidomide for EOC
Population: patients with EOC
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Progreesion free survival Topotecon vs Topotecon+thalidomide | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 73 participants | High |
Overall response Topotecon vs Topotecon+thalidomide | RR 0.47 [0.23, 0.99] | 1 study · 75 participants | Low |
Topotecan compared to treosulfan for EOC
Population: patients with EOC
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Overall survival Topotecan vs treosulfan | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 274 participants | High |
Progression free survival Topotecan vs treosulfan | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 274 participants | High |
Response to treatment Topotecan vs treosulfan | RR 1.76 [1.06, 2.94] | 1 study · 274 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |