Impact of surgical resection on the survival in Mexican patients with gastric cancer: A meta-analysis and systematic review
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Methods:
A systematic review of literature searches (Evidence-based MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and SciELO) and meta-analysis were performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis criteria. The published articles from 2000 to the current time were divided into cross-sectional and randomized studies. The inclusion criteria were survival, surgical resections, patients treated in Mexico, and primary GC. The effect estimation was calculated using the risk ratio (RR). The random-effects model and a confidence interval (CI) of 95% were used. Results:
The RR of the pooled studies was 1.09 (95% CI, 0.71–1.67). RR of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.63–1.07) was obtained in cross-sectional studies, and randomized studies showed a RR of 2.08 (95% CI, 0.25–17.07). Conclusion:
This work is the first systematic study that assesses the role of surgery on the survival of patients with GC in the Mexican population, the results showed that surgical resection did not improve survival in patients with GC.
SUBMITTER: Gutierrez-Solis A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10256426 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionGenerally, complete resection with cancer cell negative (R0) margin has been accepted as the most effective treatment of gastric cancer and positive resection (R1/R2) margin has been associated with decreased survival to varied degrees. However, the independent impact of microscopical positive (R1) margin on long-term survival may be confounded. No meta-analysis has worked at the association between R1 margin and outcomes of gastric cancer and the available evidence are scant. Therefore, we plan to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantitatively explore the role of R1 margin on gastric (including oesophagogastric junction) cancer survival after curative intent resection.Methods and analysisThe protocol was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guideline. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases will be performed from their inceptions to 30 April 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case-control studies focusing on the impact of R1 margin on survival of gastric cancer after curative intent resection. The primary outcome will be the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) and the secondary outcomes will be 5-year OS rate and 5-year DFS rate. The Cochrane tool for bias assessment in randomised trials and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-I for the assessment of bias in non-randomised studies (NRS) will be used. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed by visual inspection of forest plots and measured using the I2 statistics. A fixed-effect model will be used when heterogeneity is low, otherwise, a random-effect model will be chosen. Publication bias will be assessed by funnel plots, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be performed in the right context. For each outcome, we will perform data synthesis separately for RCTs and NRS using Rev Man V.5.3 software and compile 'summary of findings' tables separately for RCTs and NRS using GRADEpro software. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations considerations will also be used to make an overall assessment of the quality of evidence.Ethics and disseminationThere is no requirement for ethics approval because no patient data will be collected at an individual level in this systematic review and meta-analysis.The results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences, any deviations from the protocol will be clearly documented and explained in its final report.Prospero registration numberCRD42020165110.
| S-EPMC7643516 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt is inconclusive whether R1 margin determined by postoperative pathological examination indicates worse long-term survival in gastric cancer (GC) patients after curative intent resection (CIR). Hence, we aimed to systematically pool the conflicting evidence to fill this gap.MethodsThe present study was performed according to the published protocol and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Published studies examining the impact of microscopic margin status on overall survival (OS) and 5-year OS rate in GC were systematically searched in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. RevMan 5.3 was used to conduct statistical analysis, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.ResultsTwenty-three retrospective cohort studies including 19 992 patients were analyzed. The pooled hazard ratio for OS of 14 studies was 2.06 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.61-2.65, low certainty), indicating that R1 margin predicted inferior OS. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses upheld the statistical stability of this finding. The pooled odds ratio (OR) of 14 studies was .21 (95% CI: .17-.26, moderate certainty), demonstrating that the presence of R1 margins was associated with a poorer 5-year OS rate. Sensitivity analyses and most of the subgroup analyses confirmed this finding, except the "esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancers" subgroup, which included two studies with a pooled OR of .41 (95% CI: .10-1.61).ConclusionR1 margin detected by pathological examination might exhibit a high correlation with poorer OS and 5-year OS rate in GC (except EGJ cancers) patients who underwent CIR. To figure out the effect of R1 margin on survival of different stages and histological types need prospective studies with large sample sizes and standardized methods. What is the best treatment for R1 margin patients also need more in-depth and special research.
| S-EPMC8482729 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to examine the significance of the extent of gastric resection on the postoperative and overall gastric cancer survival.BackgroundResection with clean margins (4 cm or more) is widely accepted as the standard-ized goal for radical treatment of gastric cancer according to current guidelines, while the type of resection (subtotal or total) is still a matter of debate.Patients and methodsThe study included 155 patients diagnosed and treated in the Department of Surgery, Aleksandrovska University Hospital between January 2005 and December 2014. In order to determine the significance of the resection volume, we excluded from the study 54 patients receiving palliative intervention or staging exploratory laparoscopy. The remaining 101 patients were divided into two groups based on the volume of the performed gastric resection (total and subtotal) and compared based on overall survival and perioperative mortality. We also investigated the 3-year survival in the two groups as well as the overall survival only in the subgroup of patients with D2 lymphadenectomy.ResultsWe could not determine any statistically significant difference in overall survival and 3-year survival (P=0.990) based on the extent of surgical resection (P=0.824) or perioperative mortality. The statistical analysis on patients with D2 lymph node dissection only did not show significance for overall survival.ConclusionOur study shows no difference in safety and long-term survival rate of patients with gastric carcinoma based on the volume of stomach resection. Comparison with other studies also shows no difference in survival based on volume of the resection.
| S-EPMC4968853 | biostudies-literature
Project description:While curative resection is the only chance of cure in pancreatic cancer, controversies exist about the impact of surgical margin status on survival. Non-standardized pathologic report and different criteria on the R1 status made it difficult to implicate adjuvant therapy after resection based on the margin status. We evaluated the influence of resection margins on survival by meta-analysis.We thoroughly searched electronic databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. We included studies reporting survival outcomes with different margin status: involved margin (R0 mm), margin clearance with ≤ 1 mm (R0-1 mm), and margin with > 1 mm (R>1 mm). Hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival was extracted, and a random-effects model was used for pooled analysis.A total of eight retrospective studies involving 1,932 patients were included. Pooled HR for overall survival showed that patients with R>1 mm had reduced risk of death than those with R0-1 mm (HR, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 0.88; p=0.001). In addition, patients with R0-1 mm had reduced risk of death than those with R0 mm (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.91; p < 0.001). There was no heterogeneity between the included studies (I2 index, 42% and 0%; p=0.10 and p=0.82, respectively).Our results suggest that stratification of the patients based on margin status is warranted in the clinical trials assessing the role of adjuvant treatment for pancreatic cancer.
| S-EPMC5512376 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the long-term therapeutic efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus that of surgical resection in small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).MethodsRelevant articles in English from PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were retrieved. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated to assess the prognostic value of RFA compared with that of surgical resection.ResultsA total of 19 studies involving 15,071 patients were included. The combined HRs (95% confidence interval [CI]) of RFA for recurrence/relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were 1.55 (95% CI = 1.29-1.86, I2 = 72.5%) and 1.61 (95% CI = 1.29-2.01, I2 = 60.4%), respectively, compared with surgical resection. In subgroup analyses according to study design, both RFS and OS of the prospective subgroups showed statistical significance, and no statistical heterogeneity existed between studies.ConclusionOur clinical data suggest that surgical resection offers better long-term oncologic outcomes than RFA.
| S-EPMC7899892 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhether the presence of postoperative complications was associated with poor prognosis of gastric carcinoma (GC) patients remain controversial. This meta-analysis was designed and reported to compare the survival difference between patients with complications and non-complications.MethodsCochrane Library, PubMed and Embase databases were comprehensively searched for published literatures to review current evidence on this topic. The survival data were extracted, and a random-effect or fixed-effect model was used to analyze the correlation between postoperative complications and oncologic outcome of GC patients.ResultsOf all studies identified, 32 were eligible for this pooled analysis, with a total of 32,067 GC patients. The incidence of postoperative complications was approximately 12.5% to 51.0%. Among them, infectious complications varied from 3.0% to 28.6%, anastomotic leakage varied from 1.1% to 8.7% and postoperative pneumonia varied from 1.6% to 12.8%. The presence of postoperative complications resulted in a significant poorer overall survival (OS) of gastric carcinoma patients (hazard ratio [HR]:1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.33-1.67, P < 0.001). Additionally, the pooled results showed a significant correlation between infectious complications and decreased OS (HR: 1.61, 95%CI: 1.38-1.88, P < 0.001). Concerning specific postoperative complications, we found that both anastomotic leakage (HR: 2.36, 95%CI: 1.62-3.42, P < 0.001) and postoperative pneumonia (HR: 1.74, 95%CI: 1.22-2.49, P = 0.002) impaired the OS of gastric carcinoma patients.ConclusionPostoperative complications were significantly correlated to recurrence and poor survival in gastric carcinoma patients. To gain a better surgical outcome and long-term oncological outcome, postoperative complications should be minimized as much as possible.
| S-EPMC8204457 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsSarcopenia has been associated with poor prognosis in patients with malignant tumors. However, its impact on the outcomes of patients with biliary tract cancer (BTC) undergoing surgical resection remains unclear and warrants further review. This study aims to summarize the available evidence on this issue.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for eligible studies up to March 10, 2024. We extracted data on overall survival (OS), recurrence free survival (RFS), and postoperative major complications from the included studies as the outcomes of interest. Following data synthesis and analysis, we assessed the heterogeneity and performed subgroup analyses. Additionally, the potential for publication bias was evaluated.ResultsA total of 26 studies involving 4292 BTC patients were ultimately retrieved. The findings indicated that sarcopenia was significantly associated with reduced OS in BTC patients after surgery (adjusted HR: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.65-2.48, P < 0.001, I2 = 57.4%). Moreover, sarcopenia may also be linked to poorer RFS (adjusted HR: 2.15, 95% CI: 1.79-2.59, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%) and increased postoperative major complications (OR: 1.22, 95% CI 1.02-1.47, P = 0.033, I2 = 29.2%) as well. Notably, no significant publication bias was detected through funnel plots and Egger's tests.ConclusionSarcopenia is associated with poorer OS in BTC patients following surgery. Additionally, it may serve as a prognostic indicator for poorer RFS and increased postoperative major complications. Further studies are warrant to standardize existing definitions and validate these findings.
| S-EPMC11367777 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesHepatectomy is the best treatment for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) at present, but there has been controversy about the width of surgical margins. In this study, we systematically investigated the effects of different surgical margin widths on the prognosis of patients with ICC undergoing hepatectomy.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases were systematically searched from inception to June 2022.Eligibility criteriaCohort studies reported in English with patients who underwent negative marginal (R0) resection were included. The effects of surgical margin width on overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with ICC were assessed.Data extraction and synthesisTwo investigators independently conducted literature screening and data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed using funnel plots and quality was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Forest plots of HRs and their 95% CIs for outcome indicators were plotted. Heterogeneity was assessed and determined quantitatively using I2, and the stability of the study results was evaluated using sensitivity analysis. Analyses were performed using Stata software.ResultsNine studies were included. With the wide margin group (≥10 mm) as the control, pooled HR of OS in the narrow margin group (<10 mm) was 1.54 (95% CI 1.34 to 1.77). HRs of OS in three subgroups where the margin was less than 5 mm ranged from 5 mm to 9 mm, or was less than 10 mm in length were 1.88 (1.45 to 2.42), 1.33 (1.03 to 1.72) and 1.49 (1.20 to 1.84), respectively. Pooled HR of DFS in the narrow margin group (<10 mm) was 1.51 (1.14 to 2.00). Pooled HR of RFS in the narrow margin group (<10 mm) was 1.35 (1.19 to 1.54). HRs of RFS in three subgroups where the margin was less than 5 mm ranged from 5 mm to 9 mm, or was less than 10 mm in length were 1.38 (1.07 to 1.78), 1.39 (1.11 to 1.74) and 1.30 (1.06 to 1.60), respectively. Neither lymph node lesions (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.70) nor lymph node invasion (2.14, 1.39 to 3.28) was favourable for postoperative OS in patients with ICC. Lymph node metastasis (1.31, 1.09 to 1.57) was unfavourable for RFS in patients with ICC.ConclusionPatients with ICC who underwent curative hepatectomy with a negative margin ≥10 mm may have a long-term survival advantage, but lymph node dissection also needs to be considered. In addition, tumour-related pathological features need to be explored to see if they affect the surgical outcome of R0 margins.
| S-EPMC10174020 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ampullary lesions (ALs) can be treated by endoscopic (EA) or surgical ampullectomy (SA) or pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). However, EA carries significant risk of incomplete resection while surgical interventions can lead to substantial morbidity. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis for R0, adverse-events (AEs) and recurrence between EA, SA and PD. Electronic databases were searched from 1990 to 2018. Outcomes were calculated as pooled means using fixed and random-effects models and the Freeman-Tukey-Double-Arcsine-Proportion-model. We identified 59 independent studies. The pooled R0 rate was 76.6% (71.8-81.4%, I2 = 91.38%) for EA, 96.4% (93.6-99.2%, I2 = 37.8%) for SA and 98.9% (98.0-99.7%, I2 = 0%) for PD. AEs were 24.7% (19.8-29.6%, I2 = 86.4%), 28.3% (19.0-37.7%, I2 = 76.8%) and 44.7% (37.9-51.4%, I2 = 0%), respectively. Recurrences were registered in 13.0% (10.2-15.6%, I2 = 91.3%), 9.4% (4.8-14%, I2 = 57.3%) and 14.2% (9.5-18.9%, I2 = 0%). Differences between proportions were significant in R0 for EA compared to SA (p = 0.007) and PD (p = 0.022). AEs were statistically different only between EA and PD (p = 0.049) and recurrence showed no significance for EA/SA or EA/PD. Our data indicate an increased rate of complete resection in surgical interventions accompanied with a higher risk of complications. However, studies showed various sources of bias, limited quality of data and a significant heterogeneity, particularly in EA studies.
| S-EPMC7696506 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectiveDiabetes mellitus (DM) is a risk factor for pancreatic cancer but its impact on postoperative outcomes and long-term survival after cancer resection remains controversial. A meta-analysis of published studies was conducted to address this issue.MethodsAn extensive electronic search of four databases was performed for relevant articles. Data were processed for meta-analysis using Review Manager version 5.1.ResultsSeventeen observational studies involving 5407 patients were subjected to the analysis. Overall morbidity or any type of complications and mortality were comparable between diabetic and non-diabetic subjects. Overall DM has a significant negative impact on survival (risk ratio [RR], 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.45; P = 0.01). Stratification by the type of DM revealed that new-onset DM (<2 years duration, RR, 1.54, 95% CI, 1.24-1.91; P <0.001) but not long-standing DM (≥2 years duration, RR, 1.74, 95% CI, 0.86-3.52; P = 0.12) was associated with reduced survival.ConclusionsDiabetes mellitus does not affect perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for pancreatic cancer. However, new-onset DM confers a negative impact on survival of pancreatic cancer in patients undergoing surgical resection.
| S-EPMC5291503 | biostudies-literature