Table 1 Main characteristic of the eligible studies in the meta-analysis
Author | Year | Study Phase/design | Numbers of parents | Median age | Region | Arm | Median OS | HR (95%CI) | Median PFS | HR (95%CI) | ORR | Primary tumor site |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chekerov et al. | 2018 | II/RCT | 85/89 | 59/58 | Germany | Sorafenib + topotecan vs. placebo + topotecan | 17.1 vs. 10.1 | 0.65 ( 0.45–0.93) | 6.7 vs. 4.4 | 0.60 (0.43–0.83) | 30.8% vs. 12% | OC FTC PC |
Colombo et al. | 2022 | II/RCT | 41/41 | 64/63 | Italy | Cediranib + olaparib vs. paclitaxel | 11.6 vs. 9.3 | 0.86 ( 0.5–1.46) | 5.6 vs. 3.1 | 0.76 (0.50–1.14) | 15.4% vs. 37.5% | OC FTC PC |
Pignata et al. | 2014 | II/RCT | 37/37 | 56/58 | Italy | paclitaxel + pazopanib vs. paclitaxel | 19.1 vs. 13.7 | 0.60 (0.32–1.13) | 6.4 vs. 3.5 | 0.42 (0.25–0.69) | 55.6% vs. 25% | OC FTC PC |
Pujade-Lauraine et al. | 2014 | III/RCT | 179/182 | 62/61 | European | chemotherapy + bevacizumab vs. chemotherapy | 16.6 vs. 13.3 | 0.85 (0.66–1.08) | 6.7 vs. 3.4 | 0.48 (0.38–0.60) | 30.9% vs. 12.6% | OC FTC PC |
Roque et al. | 2021 | II/RCT | 39/37 | 67/67 | United States | ixabepilone + bevacizumab vs. ixabepilone | 10.0 vs. 6.0 | 0.52 (0.31–0.87) | 5.5 vs. 2.2 | 0.33 (0.19–0.55) | 30.8% vs. 8.1% | OC FTC PC |
Sharma et al. | 2021 | II/RCT | 37/38 | 54/53 | India | Pazopanib + etoposide + cyclophosphamide vs. etoposide + cyclophosphamide | - vs. 11.2 | 0.64 (0.25–1.65) | 5.1 vs. 3.4 | 0.67 (0.34–1.30) | 54.1% vs. 55.3% | OC |
Shoji et al. | 2021 | II/RCT | 52/51 | 60/61 | Japan | chemotherapy + bevacizumab vs. chemotherapy | 15.3 vs. 11.3 | 0.67 (0.38–1.17) | 4.0 vs. 3.1 | 0.54 (0.32–0.90) | 25% vs. 13.7% | OC |
Wang et al. | 2022 | II/RCT | 78/74 | 54/56 | China | Apatinib + PLD vs. PLD | 23.0 vs. 14.4 | 0.66 (0.40–1.09) | 5.8 vs. 3.3 | 0.44 (0.28–0.71) | 43.1% vs. 10.9% | OC FTC PC |