The Evidence-based Study Of GP Vs NP To Treatment Metastatic Breast Cancer

Objective Breast cancer is the first cause of death in female tumors. Also the50%of breast cancer is metastatic after treatment. The Median Survival Time (MST) is about two years. Combination chemotherapy is the major method to treatment the metastatic breast cancer. But there is no standard chemotherapy regimen at present. Our study uses the Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) methods to assess the effectiveness and safety of GP vs NP to treatment metastatic breast cancer and to classify the evidence in this systematic review. Based on the systematic review, using the historical cohort way research the two groups and do statistic analysis on the data. This research would provide the evidence of EBM in clinical practice for GP vs NP to treatment metastatic breast cancer.Methods The database was retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China Journal Full-Text Database, Chinese Medical Association Journals, and references of the included studies up to July2012. Randomized control trials (RCTs) of GP vs NP on metastatic breast cancer were included. The quality of the included studies was evaluated by Cochrane Handbook recommended standard. Data were analyzed by RevMan5.1.6from the Cochrane Collaboration. The evidence classification was done by GRADE pro3.6. Using the historical cohort way and according the WHO standards objectively evaluate the curative and untoward effect and economics of GP and NP on metastatic breast cancer. Statistical analyses are performed with SPSS software version19.0.Results The results of meta-analysis showed that CR, PR and SD have no difference between GP group and NP group to treatment metastatic breast cancer. However in adverse reaction, the leucopenia and phlebophlogosis are different between two groups. The historical cohort proved the curative effect and safety have no difference between two groups. The Bone marrow suppression, Nausea and vomiting, phlebophlogosis and diarrhoea have no difference in two groups. Moreover Economic evaluation showed no difference except the costs of beds and traditional Chinese medicine.Conclusions Current available evidence demonstrated the curative effect in GP and NP is similar. However, the Meta analysis showed the safety in GP is better than NP. Economic evaluation has no difference in two groups. Nevertheless, the clinical study used the historical cohort may leave limitations in this study. The conclusions expect the perspective study to be further verified.