Dataset Information

Does additional resection of a positive microscopic ductal margin benefit patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The incidence of a positive microscopic ductal margin (R1) after surgical resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) remains high, but the beneficial of additional resection has not been confirmed by any meta-analysis and randomized clinical trials (RCT), which also increased the risk of morbidity and mortality. Hence, a systematic review is warranted to evaluate the clinical value of additional resection of intraoperative R1 for pCCA. METHODS:Eligible studies were searched by PubMed, MedLine, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, from Jan.1st 2000 to Nov.30th 2019, evaluating the 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates of additional resection of intraoperative pathologic R1 for pCCA. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to determine the effect size by a randomized-effect model. RESULTS:Eight studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis, including 179 patients in the secondary R0 group, 843 patients in the primary R0 group and 253 patients in the R1 group. The pooled OR for the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rate between secondary R0 group and primary R0 group were 1.03(95%CI 0.64~1.67, P = 0.90), 0.92(95%CI 0.52~1.64, P = 0.78), and 0.83(95%CI 0.37~1.84, P = 0.65), respectively. The pooled OR for the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rate between secondary R0 group and R1 group were 2.14(95%CI 1.31~3.50, P = 0.002), 2.58(95%CI 1.28~5.21, P = 0.008), and 3.54(95%CI 1.67~7.50, P = 0.001), respectively. However, subgroup analysis of the West showed that the pooled OR for the 1-, and 3-year OS rate between secondary R0 group and R1 group were 2.05(95%CI 0.95~4.41, P = 0.07), 1.91(95%CI 0.96~3.81, P = 0.07), respectively. CONCLUSION:With the current data, additional resection should be recommended in selected patients with intraoperative R1, but the conclusion is needed further validation.

SUBMITTER: Ke Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7205232 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does additional resection of a positive microscopic ductal margin benefit patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ke Qiao Q Chen Yuqing Y Huang Qizhen Q Lin Nanping N Wang Lei L Wang Lei L Liu Jingfeng J

PloS one 20200507 5

<h4>Background</h4>The incidence of a positive microscopic ductal margin (R1) after surgical resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) remains high, but the beneficial of additional resection has not been confirmed by any meta-analysis and randomized clinical trials (RCT), which also increased the risk of morbidity and mortality. Hence, a systematic review is warranted to evaluate the clinical value of additional resection of intraoperative R1 for pCCA.<h4>Methods</h4>Eligible studies we ...[more]

PMID: 32379819

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of vascular resection (VR), including portal vein resection (PVR) and hepatic artery resection (HAR), on short- and long-term outcomes in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC).BackgroundResection surgery and transplantation are the main treatment methods for PHC that provide a chance of long-term survival. However, the efficacy and safety of VR, including PVR and HAR, for treating PHC remain controversial.MethodsThis study was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020223330). The EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were used to search for eligible studies published through November 28, 2020. Studies comparing short- and long-term outcomes between patients who underwent hepatectomy with or without PVR and/or HAR were included. Random- and fixed-effects models were applied to assess the outcomes, including morbidity, mortality, and R0 resection rate, as well as the impact of PVR and HAR on long-term survival.ResultsTwenty-two studies including 4,091 patients were deemed eligible and included in this study. The meta-analysis showed that PVR did not increase the postoperative morbidity rate (odds ratio (OR): 1.03, 95% confidenceinterval (CI): [0.74-1.42], P = 0.88) and slightly increased the postoperative mortality rate (OR: 1.61, 95% CI [1.02-2.54], P = 0.04). HAR did not increase the postoperative morbidity rate (OR: 1.32, 95% CI [0.83-2.11], P = 0.24) and significantly increased the postoperative mortality rate (OR: 4.20, 95% CI [1.88-9.39], P = 0.0005). Neither PVR nor HAR improved the R0 resection rate (OR: 0.70, 95% CI [0.47-1.03], P = 0.07; OR: 0.77, 95% CI [0.37-1.61], P = 0.49, respectively) or long-term survival (OR: 0.52, 95% CI [0.35-0.76], P = 0.0008; OR: 0.43, 95% CI [0.32-0.57], P < 0.00001, respectively).ConclusionsPVR is relatively safe and might benefit certain patients with advanced PHC in terms of long-term survival, but it is not routinely recommended. HAR results in a higher mortality rate and lower overall survival rate, with no proven benefit.

Dataset Information

Does additional resection of a positive microscopic ductal margin benefit patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Does additional resection of a positive microscopic ductal margin benefit patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets