Interventions for previously untreated patients with AIDS-associated Non-Hodgkin´s Lymphoma

Treatment factors affecting outcomes in HIV-associated non-Hodgkin lymphomas: a pooled analysis of 1546 patients

“…Although meta-analyses in the past have attempted to examine heterogeneity in treatment effects, such as the use of rituximab, using a fixed effects or a mixed effects model, the results were limited by the fact that many trials were small, nonrandomized, and heterogeneous in many aspects such as supportive care, patient-eligibility criteria, and interventions studied. 20,49 It is important to recognize that during the 20-year span of the included studies, different antiretroviral therapeutic eras and lymphoma classification systems were used. Here we were able to diminish this bias first by using histological classifications uniformly for purposes of our review that have been consistently described in published studies based on the contemporary classification schema at the time (DLBCL, BL, and BLL) and second by adjusting all outcome measures equally for known important prognostic variables and other significant confounders, such as the time of enrollment.…”

“…We used an identical search strategy as used by the Cochrane Collaboration using the search terms lymphoma, nonHodgkin, AIDS, HIV infection, and combinations of these terms as previously developed by The Cochrane Collaboration. 20,21 Additionally, we searched all available online conference abstracts of the annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Hematology, AIDS, and International Conference on Malignancies in AIDS and Other Acquired Immunodeficiencies, by using combinations of the above search terms. To ensure that all relevant trials were included, we reviewed the bibliographic references of review articles and the retrieved publications and queried experts in the field for the existence of other published or unpublished trials.…”

Treatment factors affecting outcomes in HIV-associated non-Hodgkin lymphomas: a pooled analysis of 1546 patients

“…Although meta-analyses in the past have attempted to examine heterogeneity in treatment effects, such as the use of rituximab, using a fixed effects or a mixed effects model, the results were limited by the fact that many trials were small, nonrandomized, and heterogeneous in many aspects such as supportive care, patient-eligibility criteria, and interventions studied. 20,49 It is important to recognize that during the 20-year span of the included studies, different antiretroviral therapeutic eras and lymphoma classification systems were used. Here we were able to diminish this bias first by using histological classifications uniformly for purposes of our review that have been consistently described in published studies based on the contemporary classification schema at the time (DLBCL, BL, and BLL) and second by adjusting all outcome measures equally for known important prognostic variables and other significant confounders, such as the time of enrollment.…”

“…We used an identical search strategy as used by the Cochrane Collaboration using the search terms lymphoma, nonHodgkin, AIDS, HIV infection, and combinations of these terms as previously developed by The Cochrane Collaboration. 20,21 Additionally, we searched all available online conference abstracts of the annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Hematology, AIDS, and International Conference on Malignancies in AIDS and Other Acquired Immunodeficiencies, by using combinations of the above search terms. To ensure that all relevant trials were included, we reviewed the bibliographic references of review articles and the retrieved publications and queried experts in the field for the existence of other published or unpublished trials.…”

Comparative efficacy of different chemotherapies for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a network-meta analysis

“…Along with the advanced biological understanding and improved treatments of NHL, several curative strategies were proposed for the management of this malignance disease [ 6 ]. The common treatments for NHL included chemotherapy, radiotherapy, immunotherapy, antibiotic therapy, stem cell transplantation and surgery, depending on the disease type, stage (defined as stage I-IV) and health condition of patient [ 1 ].…”

“…For example, although CHOP and R-CHOP had both been commonly adopted in NHL clinical treatments, some studies suggested that R-CHOP could significantly reduce the risk of treatment failure [ 11 ] and improve OS among patients [ 12 ] while another study implied that rituximab did not improve clinical outcomes [ 13 ]. Besides, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and current published meta-analyses mainly focused on the pair-wise comparisons, such as comparison of CHOP versus R-CHOP [ 14 ], GM-CSF versus CHOP [ 6 ], and third generation MACOP-B or m-BACOD or ProMACE-CytaBOM versus CHOP [ 15 ], etc . Although the evidence supported the efficacy of these treatments, no network meta-analysis (NMA) was reported to compare the therapeutic efficacy among different regimens.…”

Treatment factors affecting outcomes in HIV-associated non-Hodgkin lymphomas: a pooled analysis of 1546 patients

“…Although meta-analyses in the past have attempted to examine heterogeneity in treatment effects, such as the use of rituximab, using a fixed effects or a mixed effects model, the results were limited by the fact that many trials were small, nonrandomized, and heterogeneous in many aspects such as supportive care, patient-eligibility criteria, and interventions studied. 20,49 It is important to recognize that during the 20-year span of the included studies, different antiretroviral therapeutic eras and lymphoma classification systems were used. Here we were able to diminish this bias first by using histological classifications uniformly for purposes of our review that have been consistently described in published studies based on the contemporary classification schema at the time (DLBCL, BL, and BLL) and second by adjusting all outcome measures equally for known important prognostic variables and other significant confounders, such as the time of enrollment.…”

“…We used an identical search strategy as used by the Cochrane Collaboration using the search terms lymphoma, nonHodgkin, AIDS, HIV infection, and combinations of these terms as previously developed by The Cochrane Collaboration. 20,21 Additionally, we searched all available online conference abstracts of the annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Hematology, AIDS, and International Conference on Malignancies in AIDS and Other Acquired Immunodeficiencies, by using combinations of the above search terms. To ensure that all relevant trials were included, we reviewed the bibliographic references of review articles and the retrieved publications and queried experts in the field for the existence of other published or unpublished trials.…”

Comparative efficacy of different chemotherapies for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a network-meta analysis

“…Along with the advanced biological understanding and improved treatments of NHL, several curative strategies were proposed for the management of this malignance disease [ 6 ]. The common treatments for NHL included chemotherapy, radiotherapy, immunotherapy, antibiotic therapy, stem cell transplantation and surgery, depending on the disease type, stage (defined as stage I-IV) and health condition of patient [ 1 ].…”

“…For example, although CHOP and R-CHOP had both been commonly adopted in NHL clinical treatments, some studies suggested that R-CHOP could significantly reduce the risk of treatment failure [ 11 ] and improve OS among patients [ 12 ] while another study implied that rituximab did not improve clinical outcomes [ 13 ]. Besides, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and current published meta-analyses mainly focused on the pair-wise comparisons, such as comparison of CHOP versus R-CHOP [ 14 ], GM-CSF versus CHOP [ 6 ], and third generation MACOP-B or m-BACOD or ProMACE-CytaBOM versus CHOP [ 15 ], etc . Although the evidence supported the efficacy of these treatments, no network meta-analysis (NMA) was reported to compare the therapeutic efficacy among different regimens.…”

Treatment factors affecting outcomes in HIV-associated non-Hodgkin lymphomas: a pooled analysis of 1546 patients

“…Although meta-analyses in the past have attempted to examine heterogeneity in treatment effects, such as the use of rituximab, using a fixed effects or a mixed effects model, the results were limited by the fact that many trials were small, nonrandomized, and heterogeneous in many aspects such as supportive care, patient-eligibility criteria, and interventions studied. 20,49 It is important to recognize that during the 20-year span of the included studies, different antiretroviral therapeutic eras and lymphoma classification systems were used. Here we were able to diminish this bias first by using histological classifications uniformly for purposes of our review that have been consistently described in published studies based on the contemporary classification schema at the time (DLBCL, BL, and BLL) and second by adjusting all outcome measures equally for known important prognostic variables and other significant confounders, such as the time of enrollment.…”

“…We used an identical search strategy as used by the Cochrane Collaboration using the search terms lymphoma, nonHodgkin, AIDS, HIV infection, and combinations of these terms as previously developed by The Cochrane Collaboration. 20,21 Additionally, we searched all available online conference abstracts of the annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Hematology, AIDS, and International Conference on Malignancies in AIDS and Other Acquired Immunodeficiencies, by using combinations of the above search terms. To ensure that all relevant trials were included, we reviewed the bibliographic references of review articles and the retrieved publications and queried experts in the field for the existence of other published or unpublished trials.…”

Comparative efficacy of different chemotherapies for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a network-meta analysis

“…Along with the advanced biological understanding and improved treatments of NHL, several curative strategies were proposed for the management of this malignance disease [ 6 ]. The common treatments for NHL included chemotherapy, radiotherapy, immunotherapy, antibiotic therapy, stem cell transplantation and surgery, depending on the disease type, stage (defined as stage I-IV) and health condition of patient [ 1 ].…”

“…For example, although CHOP and R-CHOP had both been commonly adopted in NHL clinical treatments, some studies suggested that R-CHOP could significantly reduce the risk of treatment failure [ 11 ] and improve OS among patients [ 12 ] while another study implied that rituximab did not improve clinical outcomes [ 13 ]. Besides, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and current published meta-analyses mainly focused on the pair-wise comparisons, such as comparison of CHOP versus R-CHOP [ 14 ], GM-CSF versus CHOP [ 6 ], and third generation MACOP-B or m-BACOD or ProMACE-CytaBOM versus CHOP [ 15 ], etc . Although the evidence supported the efficacy of these treatments, no network meta-analysis (NMA) was reported to compare the therapeutic efficacy among different regimens.…”