Dataset Information

Bursectomy for advanced gastric cancer: an update meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The present meta-analysis was to explore the surgical and oncological outcomes of bursectomy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

Methods

Relevant studies that evaluated the role of bursectomy for AGC were comprehensively examined to perform a meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary outcomes were the number of harvested lymph nodes (LNs), operation time, operative bleeding, hospital stay, postoperative complication and mortality.

Results

A total of seven studies comprising 2633 cases (1176 cases in the bursectomy group and 1457 cases in the non-bursectomy group) were finally included. There was no significant difference in OS (HR 0.95, P?=?0.647) and DFS (HR 0.99, P?=?0.936) between the two groups. Even for patients with serosa-penetrating tumours, OS was comparable between the two groups (HR 0.87, P?=?0.356). The operation time of the bursectomy group was longer (weighted mean difference, WMD 32.76 min, P?=?0.002). No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the number of dissected LNs (WMD 5.86, P?=?0.157), operative bleeding (WMD 66.99 ml, P?=?0.192) and hospital stay (WMD -?0.15 days, P?=?0.766). The overall postoperative complication (relative risk, RR 1.08, P?=?0.421) and mortality (RR 0.44, P?=?0.195) were similar between two groups.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis indicated that bursectomy is time-consuming without increasing the number of harvested LNs. Although bursectomy can be safely performed without increasing complications and mortality, it does not prolong the OS and DFS of AGC patients, including patients with serosa-penetrating tumours. Therefore, bursectomy should not be recommended as a standard procedure for AGC.

SUBMITTER: Nie RC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5872552 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Bursectomy for advanced gastric cancer: an update meta-analysis.

Nie Run-Cong RC Yuan Shu-Qiang SQ Chen Shi S Yan Shu-Mei SM Chen Yong-Ming YM Chen Xiao-Jiang XJ Chen Guo-Ming GM Zhou Zhi-Wei ZW Chen Ying-Bo YB Li Yuan-Fang YF

World journal of surgical oncology 20180327 1

<h4>Background</h4>The present meta-analysis was to explore the surgical and oncological outcomes of bursectomy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC).<h4>Methods</h4>Relevant studies that evaluated the role of bursectomy for AGC were comprehensively examined to perform a meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary outcomes were the number of harvested lymph nodes (LNs), operation time, operative bleeding, hospital stay, postoperative ...[more]

PMID: 29592807

Similar Datasets

Project description:To conduct a meta-analysis comparing laparoscopic (LGD2) and open D2 gastrectomies (OGD2) for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (AGC).Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs comparing LGD2 with OGD2 for AGC treatment, published between 1 January 2000 and 12 January 2013, were identified in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Primary endpoints included operative outcomes (operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and conversion rate), postoperative outcomes (postoperative analgesic consumption, time to first ambulation, time to first flatus, time to first oral intake, postoperative hospital stay length, postoperative morbidity, incidence of reoperation, and postoperative mortality), and oncologic outcomes (the number of lymph nodes harvested, tumor recurrence and metastasis, disease-free rates, and overall survival rates). The Cochrane Collaboration tools and the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality and risk of bias of RCTs and non-RCTs in the study. Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore the incidence rate of various postoperative morbidities as well as recurrence and metastasis patterns. A Begg's test was used to evaluate the publication bias.One RCT and 13 non-RCTs totaling 2596 patients were included in the meta-analysis. LGD2 in comparison to OGD2 showed lower intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -137.87 mL, 95%CI: -164.41--111.33; P < 0.01], lower analgesic consumption (WMD = -1.94, 95%CI: -2.50--1.38; P < 0.01), shorter times to first ambulation (WMD = -1.03 d, 95%CI: -1.90--0.16; P < 0.05), flatus (WMD = -0.98 d, 95%CI: -1.30--0.66; P < 0.01), and oral intake (WMD = -0.85 d, 95%CI: -1.67--0.03; P < 0.05), shorter hospitalization (WMD = -3.08 d, 95%CI: -4.38--1.78; P < 0.01), and lower postoperative morbidity (odds ratio = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.61-0.99; P < 0.05). No significant differences were observed between LGD2 and OGD2 for the following criteria: reoperation incidence, postoperative mortality, number of harvested lymph nodes, tumor recurrence/metastasis, or three- or five-year disease-free and overall survival rates. However, LGD2 had longer operative times (WMD = 57.06 min, 95%CI: 41.87-72.25; P < 0.01).Although a technically demanding and time-consuming procedure, LGD2 may be safe and effective, and offer some advantages over OGD2 for treatment of locally AGC.

Project description:Background: Advanced gastric cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Patients with metastatic advanced gastric cancer commonly develop a gastric outlet obstruction that considerably worsens their quality of life. Surgical interventions such as gastrojejunostomy and palliative gastrectomy are commonly administered to alleviate this obstruction. However, whether one intervention is better than another at improving morbidity- and mortality-related outcomes is unclear. Thus, in this meta-analysis, we compare outcomes of palliative gastrectomy and gastrojejunostomy (overall hospital stay length, time to oral intake, survival, and complication rates) in patients with metastatic advanced gastric cancer to identify the best procedure. Objective: To compare morbidity and mortality outcomes of palliative gastrectomy and gastrojejunostomy in patients with metastatic advanced gastric cancer. Methods: We followed the PRISMA guidelines to systematically search Web of Science, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Scopus, and MEDLINE for relevant studies. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to find differential outcomes between palliative gastrectomy and gastrojejunostomy among variables such as time to oral intake, overall hospital stay length, complication rates, and survival in patients with metastatic advanced gastric cancer. Results: From 963 studies, we found 7 eligible studies with 642 patients (70.3 ± 4.7 years) who had undergone palliative gastrectomy or gastrojejunostomy. Our meta-analysis revealed an insignificant (p > 0.05) differences in terms of overall survival duration (Hedge's g, 1.22), complication risks (odds ratio, 1.35), and time to oral intake (g, 0.62) and hospital stay length (g, 0.12) between patients undergoing gastrojejunostomy and palliative gastrectomy. Conclusion: In this present study we observed no statistically significant differences in terms of morbidity and mortality outcomes after palliative gastrectomy and gastrojejunostomy in patients with metastatic advanced gastric cancer. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn for the variables evaluated. This study provides a preliminary overview of the risks associated with gastrojejunostomy and palliative gastrectomy to help gastroenterologists manage patients with metastatic advanced-stage gastric cancer.

Dataset Information

Bursectomy for advanced gastric cancer: an update meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Bursectomy for advanced gastric cancer: an update meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets