Tolerability, Efficacy, and Safety of Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin in Combination with Carboplatin Versus Gemcitabine–Carboplatin for the Treatment of Platinum-Sensitive Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the tolerability, efficacy, and safety profiles of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in combination with carboplatin (PLD-Carbo) with those of gemcitabine-carboplatin (Gem-Carbo) for the treatment of patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) by reviewing the published literature. METHODS: Using the PubMed database, a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published between January 2000 and September 2009 was undertaken to identify studies related to the treatment of patients with PSROC with PLD-Carbo or Gem-Carbo. Studies reporting either response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and/or overall survival (OS) were included. Treatment regimens, efficacy endpoints, and safety profiles were compared between the two combination therapies. RESULTS: Ten studies evaluating 608 patients (PLD-Carbo: 5 studies, 278 patients; Gem-Carbo: 5 studies, 330 patients) were identified. The mean planned doses were: PLD, 34.8 mg/m(2) and Gem, 993 mg/m(2). The dose intensity reported in Gem trials was lower (75% of the planned dose) than the dose intensity reported in PLD trials (93.7% of the planned dose), suggesting better tolerability for the PLD-Carbo regimen. Among patients receiving PLD-Carbo, 60.2% achieved a response (complete, 27.0%; partial, 33.2%), versus 51.4% of patients treated with Gem-Carbo (complete, 19.2%; partial, 32.2%). The median PFS times were 10.6 months and 8.9 months in the PLD-Carbo and the Gem-Carbo populations, respectively. The median OS was longer for the PLD-Carbo regimen (27.1 months) than for the Gem-Carbo regimen (19.7 months). The hematological safety profiles were comparable in the two groups, although grade III or IV anemia (PLD-Carbo, 13.6%; Gem-Carbo, 24.5%) and neutropenia (PLD-Carbo, 45.5%; Gem-Carbo, 62.9%) were more common in patients receiving Gem-Carbo. CONCLUSION: Results from this systematic analysis of peer-reviewed literature suggest that PLD-Carbo therapy is a rational alternative to Gem-Carbo for the treatment of patients with PSROC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".