Cochrane · systematic review · CD009219
Medical interventions for the prevention of platinum‐induced hearing loss in children with cancer
van As, JW, van den Berg, H, van Dalen, EC · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · Cochrane Library
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
19
current version
GRADE rated
10
No studies
9
Included studies
NR
No studies 9 · 47.4%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 9 · 47.4%Moderate 1 · 5.3%High 0 · 0%
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
Current version onlyAmifostine compared to no otoprotective intervention for the prevention of platinum‐induced hearing loss in children with cancer
Population: children with cancer treated with platinum‐based therapy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Ototoxicity according to NCICTCv2 criteria with intra‐arterial platinum (combined asymptomatic and symptomatic disease) Exact test method not reported Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | RR 1.29 [0.94, 1.77] | 1 study · 28 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Ototoxicity according to NCICTCv2 criteria with intravenous platinum (combined asymptomatic and symptomatic disease) Objective and subjective audiometric evaluations were performed, no further information provided Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | RR 1.04 [0.76, 1.44] | 1 study · 36 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Ototoxicity according to modified Brock criteria with intravenous platinum (combined asymptomatic and symptomatic disease) Audiograms were performed, but no further information provided Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | RR 1.07 [0.74, 1.55] | 1 study · 82 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Survival Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Survival (overall and event‐free) – not reported Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Tumour response Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Tumour response with intra‐arterial platinum (good and partial remission) Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | RR 1.6 [0.97, 2.63] | 1 study · 27 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Renal toxicity/vomiting/ cardiotoxicity (all grade ≥ 3 according to NCICTCv2 criteria) with intra‐arterial platinum Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 28 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Quality of life Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life – not reported Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Sodium thiosulfate compared to no otoprotective intervention for the prevention of platinum‐induced hearing loss in children with cancer
Population: children with cancer treated with platinum‐based therapy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Ototoxicity according to Brock criteria with intravenous platinum (combined asymptomatic and symptomatic disease) Sodium thiosulfate vs no otoprotective intervention | RR 0.52 [0.33, 0.81] | 1 study · 101 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Survival Sodium thiosulfate vs no otoprotective intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Overall survival with intravenous platinum (i.e. mortality/number of participants deceased) Sodium thiosulfate vs no otoprotective intervention | HR 0.43 [0.03, 5.85] | 1 study · 109 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Event‐free survival with intravenous platinum (i.e. number of participants with disease progression, disease relapse, second primary cancer or death) Sodium thiosulfate vs no otoprotective intervention | HR 0.85 [0.37, 1.94] | 1 study · 109 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Tumour response Sodium thiosulfate vs no otoprotective intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Tumour response with intravenous platinum (complete and partial remission) Sodium thiosulfate vs no otoprotective intervention | RR 1.06 [0.98, 1.15] | 1 study · 108 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adverse effects other than ototoxicity (≥ grade 3 according to NCICTCAEv3 criteria) with intravenous platinum Sodium thiosulfate vs no otoprotective intervention | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 109 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Quality of life Sodium thiosulfate vs no otoprotective intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life – not reported Sodium thiosulfate vs no otoprotective intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Amifostine compared to no otoprotective intervention for children with cancer treated with platinum‐based therapy
Population: children with cancer treated with platinum‐based therapy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Ototoxicity according to NCI CTC v2 criteria with intra‐arterial platinum (combined asymptomatic and symptomatic disease) Exact test method not reported Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | RR 1.29 [0.94, 1.77] | 1 study · 28 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Ototoxicity according to NCI CTC v2 criteria with intravenous platinum (combined asymptomatic and symptomatic disease) Objective and subjective audiometric evaluations were performed, no further information provided Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | RR 1.04 [0.76, 1.44] | 1 study · 36 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Ototoxicity according to modified Brock criteria with intravenous platinum (combined asymptomatic and symptomatic disease) Audiograms were performed, but no further information provided Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | RR 1.07 [0.74, 1.55] | 1 study · 82 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Tumour response Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Tumour response with intra‐arterial platinum (good and partial remission) Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | RR 1.6 [0.97, 2.63] | 1 study · 27 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Survival Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Survival (overall and event‐free) ‐ not reported Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Renal toxicity/vomiting/ cardiotoxicity (all grade ≥ 3 according to NCI CTC v2 criteria) with intra‐arterial platinum Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 28 participants | Ungraded |
Quality of life Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life ‐ not reported Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Amifostine compared to no otoprotective intervention for children with cancer treated with platinum‐based therapy
Population: children with cancer treated with platinum‐based therapy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Ototoxicity according to NCI CTCv2 criteria with intra‐arterial platinum (combined asymptomatic and symptomatic disease) Exact test method not reported Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | RR 1.29 [0.94, 1.77] | 1 study · 28 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Ototoxicity according to NCI CTCv2 criteria with intravenous platinum (combined asymptomatic and symptomatic disease) Objective and subjective audiometric evaluations were performed, no further information provided Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | RR 1.04 [0.76, 1.44] | 1 study · 36 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Ototoxicity according to modified Brock criteria with intravenous platinum (combined asymptomatic and symptomatic disease) Audiograms were performed, but no further information provided Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | RR 1.07 [0.74, 1.55] | 1 study · 82 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Tumour response Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Tumour response with intra‐arterial platinum (good and partial remission) Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | RR 1.6 [0.97, 2.63] | 1 study · 27 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Survival Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Survival (overall and event‐free) ‐ not reported Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Renal toxicity / vomiting/ cardiotoxicity (all grade 3 or higher according to NCI CTCv2 criteria) with intra‐arterial platinum Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 28 participants | Ungraded |
Quality of Life Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of Life ‐ not reported Amifostine vs no otoprotective intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |