Comparative effectiveness and safety between oxaliplatin-based and cisplatin-based therapy in advanced gastric cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

// Jun Huang 1, * , Yongzhao Zhao 2, * , Yong Xu 3, * , Yanjie Zhu 2 , Jiale Huang 2 , Yanna Liu 4 , Liying Zhao 4 , Zhijia Li 4 , Hao Liu 4 , Qi-long Wang 5 , Xiaolong Qi 4 1 Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China 2 School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China 3 Department of Nephrology, The Affiliated Huai'an Hospital of Xuzhou Medical College and The Second People's Hospital of Huai'an, Huai'an, China 4 Department of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China 5 Department of Clinical Oncology, Huai'an First People's Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Huai'an, China * These authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence to: Xiaolong Qi, email: qixiaolong@vip.163.com Qi-long Wang, email: qlwang@njmu.edu.cn Keywords: effectiveness, safety, chemotherapy, advanced gastric cancer Received: March 09, 2016      Accepted: April 16, 2016      Published: May 05, 2016 ABSTRACT Background & Aims: Platinum-based drugs are the most significant chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer. The study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of oxaliplatin-based therapy versus cisplatin-based therapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: An adequate literature search in EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) was conducted. Phase II or III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared effectiveness and safety between oxaliplatin-based and cisplatin-based therapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer were eligible. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The second endpoint was the adverse events. Results: Five phase II or III RCTs involving a total of 2,046 patients were identified. The results showed that there were no significant difference in ORR (OR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.98–1.40, p = 0.08, I 2 = 0%), PFS (HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.84–1.01, p = 0.09, I 2 = 0%) and OS (HR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.82–1.01, p = 0.07, I 2 = 0%) between oxaliplatin-based therapy and cisplatin-based therapy. In addition, oxaliplatin-based therapy had lower risk of neutropenia, anemia, nausea, alopecia, thromboembolism, stomatitis and creatinine increased at all grades, and neutropenia, anemia, leukopenia and alopecia at 3–4 grades than cisplatin-based therapy. However, oxaliplatin-based therapy was associated with increased risk of neurosensory toxicity and thrombocytopenia. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis showed that there were no significant difference in ORR, PFS and OS between oxaliplatin-based therapy and cisplatin-based therapy. The oxaliplatin-based therapy could generally decrease the risk of adverse effects except neurosensory toxicity and thrombocytopenia.