Table 1.
The characteristics of included studies
| Study | Comparators | Dosage | Country | Race | Sample size | Gender (M/F) | Age (median) | Follow‐up | Premedication |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hermes et al. 20 | IRI + CAR vs. ETO + CAR |
Group A IRI: 175 mg/m2 IV day 1; 4 cycles CAR: (AUC) = 4 IV day 1; 4 cycles Group B ETO: 120 mg/m2 orally day 1–5; 4 cycles CAR: (AUC) = 4 IV day 1; 4 cycles |
Norway, Sweden | NA | 209 | 138/71 | 67 vs. 68 | 40 weeks | Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole 160/800mg and ofloxacin 200mg (day 5 to day 14; the first circle) |
| Lara et al. 21 † | IRI + CIS vs. ETO + CIS |
Group A IRI: 60 mg/m2 IV days 1, 5, 8; 4 cycles CIS: 60 mg/m2 IV day 1; 4 cycles Group B ETO: 100 mg/m2 IV days 1–3; 4 cycles CIS: 80 mg/m2 IV day 1; 4 cycles |
US |
White: 93% vs. 93% Black: 4% vs. 6% Asian: 1% vs. 0% Others: 2% vs. 1% |
651 | 370/281 | 62 vs. 63 | NA | Antiemetic drugs |
| Hanna et al. 19 | IRI + CIS vs. ETO + CIS |
Group A IRI: 65 mg/m2 IV days 1, 8; 4 cycles CIS: 30 mg/m2 IV days 1, 8; 4 cycles Group B ETO: 120 mg/m2 IV day 1; 4 cycles CIS: 60 mg/m2 IV day 1; 4 cycles |
US |
White: 92.3% vs. 88.2. Black: 2.3% vs. 5.5% Asian: 0.9% vs. 0.9% Others: 4.5% vs. 5.4% |
331 | 189/141 | 63 vs. 62 | 18 months | NA |
| Noda et al. 22 | IRI + CIS vs. ETO + CIS |
Group A IRI: 60 mg/m2 IV days 1, 8, 15; 4 cycles CIS: 60 mg/m2 IV day 1; 4 cycles Group B ETO: 100 mg/m2 IV days 1–3; 4 cycles CIS: 80 mg/m2 IV day 1; 4 cycles |
Japan | NA | 154 | 136/22 | 63 vs. 63 | 1.5 years | Antiemetic drugs |
| Okamoto et al. 23 | ETO + CAR vs. ETO + CIS |
Group A ETO: 80 mg/m2 IV days 1–3; 4 cycles CAR: (AUC) = 5 IV day 1; 4 cycles Group B ETO: 80 mg/m2 IV days 1–3; 4 cycles CIS: 25 mg/m2 IV days 1–3; 4 cycles |
Japan | NA | 220 | 193/27 | 74 vs. 73.5 | NA | NA |
| Pan et al. 24 | IRI + CIS vs. ETO + CIS |
Group A IRI: 80 mg/m2 IV days 1, 8, 15; 4 cycles CIS: 80 mg/m2 IV days 1–3; 4 cycles Group B ETO: 120 mg/m2 IV days 1–3; 4 cycles CIS: 80 mg/m2 IV day 1–3; 4 cycles |
China | NA | 61 | 47/14 | 54 vs. 51 | NA | NA |
| Schmittel et al. 26 | IRI + CAR vs. ETO + CAR |
Group A IRI: 50 mg/m2 IV days 1, 8, 15; 4 cycles CAR: (AUC) = 5 IV day 1; 4 cycles Group B ETO: 140 mg/m2 IV days 1–3; 4 cycles CAR: (AUC) = 5 IV day 1; 4 cycles |
German | NA | 216 | 141/75 | 60 vs. 63 | NA | Antiemetic therapy consisting of 5‐HT3 antagonist iv |
| Zatloukal et al. 27 | IRI + CIS vs. ETO + CIS |
Group A IRI: 65 mg/m2 IV days 1, 8; 6 cycles CIS: 80 mg/m2 IV day 1; 6 cycles Group B ETO: 100 mg/m2 IV days 1–3; 6 cycles CIS: 80 mg/m2 IV day 1; 6 cycles |
Europe | NA | 405 | 309/96 | 60 vs. 61 | 31.6 months | NA |
| Schmittel et al. 25 | IRI + CAR vs. ETO + CAR |
Group A IRI: 50 mg/m2 IV days 1, 8, 15; 4 cycles CAR: [AUC] = 5 IV day 1; 4 cycles Group B ETO: 140 mg/m2 IV days 1–3; 4 cycles CAR: (AUC) = 5 IV day 1; 4 cycles |
German | NA | 70 | 50/20 | 59 vs. 63 | 21 months | Antiemetic therapy consisting of 5‐HT3 antagonist iv |
†
ABCB1 (C3435T) T/T was associated with an increased risk of irinotecan‐associated grade 3 or worse diarrhea (odds ratio [OR] 3.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1–13.8) compared with C/C and C/T; UGT1A1 (G‐3156A) A/A was associated with an increased risk of irinotecan‐associated grade 3 or worse neutropenia (OR 24; 95% CI 2–282); combined grade 3 neutropenia and diarrhea was associated with ABCB1 (C3435) T/T (OR 5.0; 95% CI 1.2–22.9) and UGT1A1 (G‐3156A) A/A (OR 7.6; 95% CI 0.9–63).
AUC, area under the curve; CAR, carboplatin; CIS, cisplatin; ETO, etoposide; F, female; IRI, irinotecan; IV, intravenous; M, male; NA, not available.