Dataset Information

Prognostic factors of resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality studies.

ABSTRACT: Data on prognostic factors associated with outcome following resection of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma vary. We sought to define and characterize current available evidence on prognostic factors associated with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma after resection. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library were systematically searched for relevant studies published before December 2019. Prognostic factors were identified from multivariate regression analyses in studies. Only high-quality studies were included (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale?>?6 stars). A total of 45 studies involving 7338 patients were analyzed. The meta-analysis demonstrated that serum bilirubin levels (hazard ratio: 1.76, 95% confidence interval: 1.27-2.44), serum CA19-9 levels (hazard ratio: 1.32, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-1.65), tumor size (hazard ratio: 1.27, 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.55), major vascular involvement (hazard ratio: 1.61, 95% confidence interval: 1.09-2.38), distance metastasis (hazard ratio: 17.60, 95% confidence interval: 2.01-154.09), perioperative blood transfusion (hazard ratio: 1.36, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.62), T-stage (hazard ratio: 1.96, 95% confidence interval: 1.47-2.61), lymph node metastasis (hazard ratio: 2.06, 1.83-2.31), resection margin status (hazard ratio: 2.34, 95% confidence interval: 1.89-2.89), not-well histology differentiation (hazard ratio: 2.03, 95% confidence interval: 1.69-2.44), perineural invasion (hazard ratio: 2.37, 95% confidence interval: 1.59-3.55), and lymphovascular invasion (hazard ratio: 1.41, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.73) were prognostic factors for poorer overall survival. Adjuvant chemotherapy (hazard ratio: 0.37, 95% confidence interval: 0.25-0.55) had a positive effect on prolonged overall survival. In addition, positive resection margin status (hazard ratio: 1.96, 95% confidence interval: 1.47-2.61) and lymph node metastasis (hazard ratio: 2.06, 95% confidence interval: 1.83-2.31) were associated with poorer disease-free survival. The prognostic factors identified in the present meta-analysis can be used to characterize patients in clinical practice and enrich prognostic tools, which could be included in future trial designs and generate hypotheses to be tested in future research to promote personalized treatment.

SUBMITTER: Liang L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7882763 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prognostic factors of resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality studies.

Liang Lei L Li Chao C Jia Hang-Dong HD Diao Yong-Kang YK Xing Hao H Pawlik Timothy M TM Lau Wan Yee WY Shen Feng F Huang Dong-Sheng DS Zhang Cheng-Wu CW Yang Tian T Yang Tian T

Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopy 20210101

Data on prognostic factors associated with outcome following resection of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma vary. We sought to define and characterize current available evidence on prognostic factors associated with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma after resection. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library were systematically searched for relevant studies published before December 2019. Prognostic factors were identified from multivariate regression analyses in studies. Only high-quality studies were incl ...[more]

PMID: 33629062

Similar Datasets

Project description:The refinement in surgical techniques combined with the preoperative management has improved the resectability rate of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA). However, the prognosis of pCCA with curative resection is still dismal. This meta-analysis was performed to investigate the prognostic clinicopathological factors in resectable pCCA.PubMed, the Cochran Library, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science were searched systematically to identify reports focusing on studying the prognostic clinicopathological factors in resectable pCCA. The hazard ratios (HRs) and its 95% confidence interval (95%CI) from the identified studies using Cox proportional hazard regression model were extracted for overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and disease-free survival (DFS) analysis.Three prospective and 35 retrospective cohort studies including 5681 resectable pCCA were included in the pooled analysis. Among more than 20 clinicopathological factors associated with negative survival of pCCA, only 6 were included in quantitative analysis which showed that lymph node involvement was associated with a reduced OS (HR = 2.04; 95%CI: 2.10-2.62), DSS (HR = 1.80; 95%CI: 1.39-2.34), DFS (HR = 4.38; 95%CI: 1.89-10.14), negative resection margin (HR = 2.04; 95%CI:1.73-2.41), operative transfusion (HR = 1.82; 95%CI: 1.06-3.11), and T3 or T4-stage (HR = 2.04; 95%CI: 2.04-2.53) were poor prognostic factors of OS, and poor or moderate differentiation was also an adverse prognostic factor of OS (HR = 2.71; 95%CI: 1.80-4.07) and DSS (HR = 1.74; 95%CI: 1.25-2.44). The overall median resectability rate (95CI%), R0 resection (95CI%), and 5-year OS (95CI%) in Eastern and Western countries were 74.9 (66.4-78.4) % and 41.3 (32.6-80.8) %, 70.7 (65.6-80.8) % and 75.9 (64.0-80.4) %, and 33.0 (29.7-39.7) % and 25.5 (20.0-31.6) %, respectively.Negative resection margin, lymph node involvement, poor or moderate differentiation grade was identified as the negative predictor factors of resectable pCCA. Operative transfusion and T3/T4 stage were also associated with a reduced survival of resectable pCCA.

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.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the methodological quality of prognostic model development studies pertaining to post resection prognosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).Design/settingA narrative systematic review of international peer reviewed journals DATA SOURCE: Searches were conducted of: MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane database and Google Scholar for predictive modelling studies applied to the outcome of prognosis for patients with PDAC post resection. Predictive modelling studies in this context included prediction model development studies with and without external validation and external validation studies with model updating. Data was extracted following the Checklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were all components of the CHARMS checklist. Secondary outcomes included frequency of variables included across predictive models.Results263 studies underwent full text review. 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. 3 studies underwent external validation. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was the most commonly employed modelling method (n=13). 10 studies were based on single centre databases. Five used prospective databases, seven used retrospective databases and three used cancer data registry. The mean number of candidate predictors was 19.47 (range 7 to 50). The most commonly included variables were tumour grade (n=9), age (n=8), tumour stage (n=7) and tumour size (n=5). Mean sample size was 1367 (range 50 to 6400). 5 studies reached statistical power. None of the studies reported blinding of outcome measurement for predictor values. The most common form of presentation was nomograms (n=5) and prognostic scores (n=5) followed by prognostic calculators (n=3) and prognostic index (n=2).ConclusionsAreas for improvement in future predictive model development have been highlighted relating to: general aspects of model development and reporting, applicability of models and sources of bias.Trial registration numberCRD42018105942.

Dataset Information

Prognostic factors of resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality studies.

Publications

Prognostic factors of resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets