MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415113458 · doi:10.1186/s40959-025-00375-w

Efficacy and cardiovascular safety of liposomal doxorubicin: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

2025· review· en· W4415113458 on OpenAlexaff
Germano Dallegrave Cavalli, José López-López, Frances Caringal Carandang, A. S. Johnstone, Sara Scampoli, Ruqqiyah Rana, Pedro Meireles, Jo‐Anne Petropoulos, Christopher Hillis, Amaris Balitsky, Jenica Upshaw, Darryl P. Leong

Bibliographic record

VenueCardio-Oncology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity and mitigation
Canadian institutionsHamilton General HospitalHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialHeart failureEjection fractionClinical trialCancerMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.1040.032
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardio-OncologySame topicChemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity and mitigationFrench-language works237,207