Efficacy and cardiovascular safety of liposomal doxorubicin: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthracyclines can cause dose-dependent cardiotoxicity that may be irreversible. To minimize cardiotoxic effects, substituting doxorubicin for liposomal doxorubicin (LD) has been explored as a cardioprotective strategy. To describe randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of LD with other anthracycline-based regimens. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing LD with other anthracycline-based regimens, using data from Medline, Embase, Emcare, the Cochrane Central Register, and LILACS. Twelve studies including 3027 patients with breast cancer (6), multiple myeloma (2), lymphoma (2), sarcoma (1), and acute lymphocytic leukemia (1) were included. Most participants (86%) were women with breast cancer. Nine studies compared LD with conventional doxorubicin and three with epirubicin. Overall, the risk of bias was classified as “some concerns”. Follow-up ranged from 24–72 months – the median follow-up time among the studies was 37 months. There was a reduction in heart failure (HF) incidence in the LD group compared to the control (RR 0.32, 95%CI 0.18–0.55). A significant decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), as defined by each study´s criteria, was less frequent in the LD group compared to other anthracycline-based therapies (RR 0.39, 95%CI 0.30–0.51). All-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95%CI 0.90–1.07) and tumor response (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.93–1.05) did not differ between the groups. LD use was associated with a decrease in the occurrence of HF compared to other anthracycline-based therapies, with no worse cancer outcomes. A significant decrease in LVEF was also less frequent in the LD group; however, no difference was found in cardiovascular mortality. Efficacy and Cardiovascular Safety of Liposomal Doxorubicin. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [12]. We identified randomized controlled trials in which the use of liposomal doxorubicin was compared to another anthracycline-containing regimen. In 12 studies, including 3027 patients with breast cancer (6), multiple myeloma (2), lymphoma (2), sarcoma (1), and acute lymphocytic leukemia (1), there was a reduction in heart failure incidence in the liposomal doxorubicin group compared to the control, with no worse cancer outcomes.
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 | 0.019 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".