Home > DARE Reviews > Treatments for classic Kaposi sarcoma: a...

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet].

Treatments for classic Kaposi sarcoma: a systematic review of the literature

Review published: 2013.

Bibliographic details: Regnier-Rosencher E, Guillot B, Dupin N.  Treatments for classic Kaposi sarcoma: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 2013; 68(2): 313-331. [PubMed: 22695100]


BACKGROUND: Treatment guidelines are lacking for classic Kaposi sarcoma.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to review the evidence on efficacy of treatments for classic Kaposi sarcoma.

METHODS: Articles published in English or French in MEDLINE, Trip, Cochrane Library, and Pascal databases from 1980 to December 2010 were screened. Studies reporting at least 5 patients treated for histologically confirmed classic Kaposi sarcoma were selected. Primary outcome was a decrease in the number or size of lesions or of lymphedema. We reviewed 26 articles matching the inclusion criteria for methodologic quality, classifying them according to World Health Organization criteria.

RESULTS: The percentage of patients with a 50% or greater decrease in lesions was 71% to 100% for pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, 58% to 90% for vinca-alkaloids, 74% to 76% for etoposide, 93% to 100% for taxanes, 100% for gemcitabine, 97% for the combination of vinblastine and bleomycin, 71% to 100% for interferon alfa-2, 43% for thalidomide, and 12% for indinavir. For local treatments, a decrease of 50% or greater was achieved in 62% of lesions for intralesional vincristine, 50% to 90% for intralesional interferon alfa-2, 56% for imiquimod, and 25% for nicotine patches. A complete response was attained in 60% to 93% of lesions with radiotherapy.

LIMITATIONS: Eligible trials were of poor quality. The lack of standardized classification of disease activity and clinical outcomes precluded the comparison of studies.

CONCLUSION: The evidence for efficacy of any particular intervention is of low quality and does not support recommending any particular therapeutic strategy. Further studies are required and it will be important to standardize the assessment of disease activity and clinical response.

Copyright © 2012 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

CRD has determined that this article meets the DARE scientific quality criteria for a systematic review.

Copyright © 2014 University of York.

PMID: 22695100

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...