Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item for each included study.

Comparison 1 Prophylactic chemotherapy versus no prophylactic chemotherapy, Outcome 1 Incidence of GTN (overall).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Prophylactic chemotherapy versus no prophylactic chemotherapy, Outcome 1 Incidence of GTN (overall).

Comparison 1 Prophylactic chemotherapy versus no prophylactic chemotherapy, Outcome 2 Incidence of GTN (high‐risk HM only).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Prophylactic chemotherapy versus no prophylactic chemotherapy, Outcome 2 Incidence of GTN (high‐risk HM only).

Comparison 1 Prophylactic chemotherapy versus no prophylactic chemotherapy, Outcome 3 Time to GTN diagnosis.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Prophylactic chemotherapy versus no prophylactic chemotherapy, Outcome 3 Time to GTN diagnosis.

Comparison 1 Prophylactic chemotherapy versus no prophylactic chemotherapy, Outcome 4 Number of courses of chemotherapy to cure.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Prophylactic chemotherapy versus no prophylactic chemotherapy, Outcome 4 Number of courses of chemotherapy to cure.

Comparison 1 Prophylactic chemotherapy versus no prophylactic chemotherapy, Outcome 5 Mortality rate.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Prophylactic chemotherapy versus no prophylactic chemotherapy, Outcome 5 Mortality rate.

Prophylactic chemotherapy compared with no prophylactic chemotherapy for hydatidiform mole

Patient or population: women with a molar pregnancy

Settings: inpatient

Intervention: methotrexate or dactinomycin

Comparison: placebo or no prophylaxis

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

No prophylaxis

P‐Chem

Incidence of GTN

(including low‐quality studies)

Mixed‐risk population

RR 0.37 (0.24 to 0.57)

550 women
(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

The NNTB to prevent 1 woman developing GTN after evacuation of HM was 6 (95% CI 5 to 10). We downgraded this evidence because this meta‐analysis included 2 studies that we considered to be of poor methodological quality.

254 per 1000

94 per 1000 (61 to 145)

High‐risk population

RR 0.29

(0.14 to 0.60)

99 women

(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

The NNTB for women with high‐risk HM was 3 (95% CI 2 to 5). We downgraded this evidence because the meta‐analysis included 2 small studies, 1 of which was of a poor methodological quality.

490 per 1000

142 per 1000 (69 to 294)

Incidence of GTN

(excluding low‐quality studies)

High‐risk population

RR 0.28 (0.10 to 0.73)

59 women

(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

The NNTB to prevent 1 woman developing GTN after evacuation of high‐risk HM was 3 (95% CI 2 to 20). We downgraded this evidence because only 1 small study (Limpongsanurak 2001) contributed data, giving an imprecise result.

500 per 1000

140 per 1000 (50 to 365)

Time to GTN diagnosis

(days)

The mean time to GTN diagnosis ranged across control groups from 35.7 days to 59.5 days.

The mean time to GTN diagnosis in the intervention groups was 65.5 days to 81.8 days (higher).

MD 28.72 (13.19 to 44.24)

33 women
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low

We downgraded this evidence because the meta‐analysis included 1 study of poor methodological quality (Kim 1986). When this study was excluded, the results of the remaining study (Limpongsanurak 2001; 19 women) were: MD 22.30; 95% CI −9.05 to 53.65.

Number of courses of chemotherapy to cure

The mean number of courses of chemotherapy required to cure subsequent GTN was 1.4 courses (10 women).

The mean number of courses of chemotherapy required to cure subsequent GTN was 2.5 courses (4 women).

MD 1.10

(0.52 to 1.68)

14 women
(1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low

This analysis only included 1 study, and we considered to be of a poor methodological quality (Kim 1986).

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: confidence interval; HM: hydatidiform mole; NNTB: number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome; RR: risk ratio; MD: mean difference; GTN: gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate.

The assumed risk for the mixed‐risk population was calculated by using the weighted mean risk across the control group for this outcome. The assumed risk for the high‐risk population was based on the control group of Limpongsanurak 2001, which was the only study to evaluate a high‐risk population only.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Risk scoring system for the prediction of GTN in women with molar pregnancy*

Prognostic factor

Score

0

1

2

3

U/S diagnosis

Partial

Complete

Recurrent

Uterine size for GA (months)

not more than 1

> 1

> 2

> 3

hCG level (mIU/mL)

< 50,000

> 50,000 to < 100,000

> 100,000 to < 1,000,000

> 1,000,000

Diameter of theca lutein cysts (cm)

< 6

< 6 to < 10

> 10

Patient age (years)

< 20

≥ 40

> 50

Medical complications**

≥ 1

*From Berkowitz 1987

Low risk is defined as a score of < 4; high risk is defined as a score ≥ 4

U/S: ultrasound; GA: gestational age, hCG: β‐human chorionic gonadotrophin.

** hyperemesis, hyperthyroidism, pre‐eclampsia, trophoblastic embolisation, disseminated intravascular coagulation.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Risk scoring system for the prediction of GTN in women with molar pregnancy*
Table 2. Comparative studies of P‐Chem for hydatidiform mole

Study

Design

Participants

(P‐Chem)

Participants

(control/no P‐Chem)

Intervention

Rate of GTN (P‐Chem)

Rate of GTN (control)

Comments

Koga 1968*

Case‐control

107 women (HM)

42 women (HM)

Methotrexate 10 mg/day PO × 7 days given within 3 weeks of ERPC.

2/107 (2%)

4/42 (10%)

No choriocarcinoma observed in the P‐Chem group vs 3/42 in the control group. Toxic side effects occurred in 84/107 women, including stomatitis (34/107) and myelosuppression (22/107).

Goldstein 1971

Prospective case‐control

73 women (CM)

116 women (CM)

3 intervention arms: methotrexate 0.3 mg/kg/day × 5 days (20 women); or dactinomycin 9 to 12 μg/kg/day × 5 days (53 women); ERPC on day 3.

6/73

(8%)

23/116 (20%)

No metastatic disease observed in the P‐Chem groups. P‐Chem well tolerated with minor side effects.

Goldstein 1974

Prospective case‐control

100 women (HM)

100 women (HM)

Dactinomycin 12 μg/kg/day × 5 days. ERPC on day 3.

2/100

(2%)

16/100

(16%)

No metastatic disease observed in the P‐Chem group vs 4/100 in the control group (4%). Reversible alopecia occurred in 32% of the P‐Chem group. No serious toxic reactions.

Goldstein 1981

Prospective case‐control

174 women (CM)

858 women (CM)

Dactinomycin 12 μg/kg/day × 5 days. ERPC on day 3.

10/247

(4%)

160/858 (19%)

No metastatic disease observed in the P‐Chem group vs 34/858 (4%) in the control group. This report includes data from Goldstein 1974.

Fasoli 1982

Retrospective case‐control

104 women (92% CM)

250 women (CM)

Methotrexate 10 mg/day PO × 5 days every 3 weeks for 3 cycles.

3/104

(3%)

23/250

(9%)

Significantly fewer high‐risk women in the P‐Chem group (1/47) vs the control group (18/126) developed GTN (2% vs 14%; P < 0.05). 2 women had severe myelosuppression and 1 had severe alopecia.

Kashimura 1986*

RCT (?)

293 women (CM)

127 women (CM)

Methotrexate 10 mg/day (IM or PO) for 7 days, within 3 weeks of evacuation.

22/293

(7%)

23/127

(18%)

There were 5 cases of metastatic disease in each group (1.7% vs 3.9%, respectively)

27.3% of the P‐Chem group experienced drug‐related side effects including stomatitis (10.3%), nausea/vomiting (6.8%) and leukopenia (4.4%). However none were reported to be severe.

Kim 1986

RCT

39/71 women (CM; 18/31 low‐risk and 21/40 high‐risk women)

32 women (CM)

Methotrexate 1.0 mg/kg/day IM (days 1, 3, 5, 7) and citrovorum factor rescue 0.1 mg/kg/day IM (days 2, 4, 6, 8). ERPC on day 3.

4/39 (10%)

10/32 (31%)

Significantly fewer high‐risk women in the P‐Chem group (14%) vs the control group (47%) developed GTN. There was no significant difference in the GTN rates of low‐risk women between groups.

Park 1996

Retrospective case‐control

52 women (14 low‐risk, 21 medium‐risk and 17 high‐risk HM)

88 women

(38 low‐risk, 25 medium‐risk and 25 high‐risk HM)

Methotrexate 1 mg/kg (days 1, 3, 5, 7) and citrovorum factor (0.1 mg/kg (days 2, 4, 6, 8); or dactinomycin 12 μg/kg/day × 5 days started at the time of ERPC.

8/52

(15.4%)

28/88 (31.8%)

Significantly fewer high‐risk women in the P‐Chem group (7/17) vs the control group (22/25) developed GTN (41% vs 88%; P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the GTN rates in low‐ and medium‐risk women between groups. The time to achieve normal hCG levels was shorter in high‐risk women in the P‐Chem group.

Limpongsanurak 2001*

Double‐blind RCT

30 women (high‐risk CM)

30 women (high risk CM)

Dactinomycin 10 µg/kg for 5 days, within 1 week after ERPC and histology.

4/29

(15.4%)

15/30

(50%)

Mild, reversible side effects reported including stomatitis (10%), nausea/vomiting (10%), oral ulcers (3.3%) and hair loss (13.3%) ‒ all grade 1 except for 2 women with grade 2 patchy alopecia.

Uberti 2006

Retrospective case‐control

29 adolescents

(high‐risk CM)

31 adolescents

(high‐risk CM)

Dactinomycin 1.25 mg/m² IV given 1 hour before ERPC.

2/29

(6.9%)

9/31

(29%)

Mean risk scores and hCG levels were significantly higher and gestational age was significantly lower in the P‐Chem group than the control group. Mild and transient side effects included hepatotoxicity (10%) and mild alopecia (6.8%).

Uberti 2009

Retrospective case‐control

163 women

(high risk, > 90% CM)

102 women

(high risk, > 90% CM)

Dactinomycin 1.25 mg/m² IV given 1 hour before ERPC.

30/163 (18.4%)

35/102 (34.3%)

Mild and transient side effects including nausea (8%), raised liver enzymes (3.7%), stomatitis (3.1%), rash (2.4%) diarrhoea (2.4%), alopecia (1.2%) and neutropenia (0.6%) were seen in 21% of the P‐Chem group. Time to GTN diagnosis, subsequent drug resistance and the number of chemotherapy course to cure was similar in the 2 groups.

* Three studies administered P‐Chem after ERPC including Koga 1968, Kashimura 1986 and Limpongsanurak 2001.

CM; complete mole; ERPC: evacuation of retained products of conception; GTN: gestational trophoblastic neoplasia; HM: hydatidiform mole; IM: intramuscular; IV: intravenous; P‐Chem; prophylactic chemotherapy; PO: per os; RCT: randomised controlled trial.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. Comparative studies of P‐Chem for hydatidiform mole
Comparison 1. Prophylactic chemotherapy versus no prophylactic chemotherapy

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Incidence of GTN (overall) Show forest plot

3

550

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.37 [0.24, 0.57]

1.1 Methotrexate prophylaxis

2

491

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.39 [0.24, 0.64]

1.2 Dactinomycin prophylaxis

1

59

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.10, 0.73]

2 Incidence of GTN (high‐risk HM only) Show forest plot

2

99

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.29 [0.14, 0.60]

2.1 Methotrexate prophylaxis

1

40

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.30 [0.10, 0.95]

2.2 Dactinomycin prophylaxis

1

59

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.10, 0.73]

3 Time to GTN diagnosis Show forest plot

2

33

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

28.72 [13.19, 44.24]

3.1 Methotrexate prophylaxis

1

14

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

30.80 [12.93, 48.67]

3.2 Dactinomycin prophylaxis

1

19

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

22.30 [‐9.05, 53.65]

4 Number of courses of chemotherapy to cure Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Methotrexate prophylaxis

1

14

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.1 [0.52, 1.68]

5 Mortality rate Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Prophylactic chemotherapy versus no prophylactic chemotherapy