Dataset Information

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy for resectable esophageal cancer: A protocol of meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Esophageal cancer is a highly malignant cancer with a very poor prognosis. For resectable esophageal cancer, neoadjuvant treatment could improve the prognosis of esophageal cancer. However, current clinical neoadjuvant treatment options for esophageal cancer are still limited. The application of immunotherapy is a potentially beneficial new neoadjuvant treatment option for esophageal cancer. The objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy for the neoadjuvant treatment of esophageal cancer.

Methods

We will search Wanfang Database, SinoMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Embase, Web of Science, Pubmed, and Cochrane Library for relevant articles published before July, 2021. We will also search the unpublished clinical trials of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in esophageal cancer in preprint website (such as bioRXiv and medRxiv) up to July, 2021. We will perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for resectable esophageal cancer. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will be included in this study. The risk of bias will be evaluated for each included study using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We will use RevMan 5.3 software for statistical analysis of the data.

Results

The results of this study will provide evidence of immunotherapy using as neoadjuvant treatment for esophageal cancer. This meta-analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal seeking for publication.

Conclusion

The results of this study will provide a reliable basis for clinicians and patients to formulate the best pre-surgical treatment plan for resectable esophageal cancer.

Systematic review registration

INPLASY202120026.

SUBMITTER: Yu G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8177427 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCarcinoma of the esophagus is an aggressive malignancy with an increasing incidence. Its virulence, in terms of symptoms and mortality, justifies a continued search for optimal therapy. The large and growing number of patients affected, the high mortality rates, the worldwide geographic variation in practice, and the large body of good quality research warrants a systematic review with meta-analysis.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the impact of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy on resectable thoracic esophageal cancer to inform evidence-based practice was produced.MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology were searched for trial reports. Included were randomized trials or meta-analyses of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatments compared with surgery alone or other treatments in patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer. Outcomes of interest were survival, adverse effects, and quality of life. Either one- or three-year mortality data were pooled and reported as relative risk ratios.ResultsThirty-four randomized controlled trials and six meta-analyses were obtained and grouped into 13 basic treatment approaches. Single randomized controlled trials detected no differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparisons:- Preoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy.- Preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy. Preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy was associated with a significantly higher mortality rate.- Postoperative chemotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy.- Postoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy plus protein-bound polysaccharide versus chemoradiation versus chemoradiation plus protein-bound polysaccharide. Pooling one-year mortality detected no statistically significant differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparisons:- Preoperative radiotherapy compared with surgery alone (five randomized trials).- Postoperative radiotherapy compared with surgery alone (five randomized trials).- Preoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials).- Preoperative and postoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone (two randomized trials).- Preoperative chemoradiation therapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials). Single randomized controlled trials detected differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparison:- Preoperative hyperthermia and chemoradiotherapy versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy in favour of hyperthermia. Pooling three-year mortality detected no statistically significant difference in mortality between treatments for the following comparison:- Postoperative chemotherapy compared with surgery alone (two randomized trials). Pooling three-year mortality detected statistically significant differences between treatments for the following comparisons:- Preoperative chemoradiation therapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials) in favour of preoperative chemoradiation with surgery.- Preoperative chemotherapy compared with preoperative radiotherapy (one randomized trial) in favour of preoperative radiotherapy.ConclusionFor adult patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer for whom surgery is considered appropriate, surgery alone (i.e., without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy) is recommended as the standard practice.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Although the only curative strategy for pancreatic cancer is surgical resection, up to 85% of patients relapse after surgery. The efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment in resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC) remains unclear and there is no systematic review focusing fully on this issue. Recently, two prospective trials of neoadjuvant treatment in RPC were terminated early because of slow recruiting and existing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have too small sample sizes. Therefore, to overcome probable biases, it would be more reasonable to include both RCTs and non-randomised studies (NRSs) with selected criteria. This review aims to investigate the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CTx) and chemoradiation therapy (CRT) in RPC using RCTs and specific NRSs. METHOD AND ANALYSIS:This systematic review will include conventional RCTs as group I, and quasi-randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials and prospective cohort studies as group II. Two groups will be assessed and analysed separately. Comprehensive literature search will use Medline, Embase, Cochrane library and Scopus databases. Additionally, we will search references from relevant studies and abstracts from major conferences. Two authors will independently identify, screen, include studies, extract data and assess the risk of bias. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus with another author. An independent methodologist will categorise and assess NRSs to minimise heterogeneity. In each study group, meta-analysis will be conducted using a random-effect model and statistical heterogeneity will be evaluated using I(2)-statistics. Publication bias will be visualised with contour-enhanced funnel plots and analysed with Egger's test. In group I, cumulative meta-analysis will be considered because the CTx regimen and CRT protocol have changed. The quality of evidence will be summarised using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This review does not use primary data, and formal ethical approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and committee conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42015023820.

Project description:BackgroundNeoadjuvant combination immunotherapy is changing the treatment landscape for patients with cancer. Exploring the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in relation to this novel approach may provide valuable insights for future clinical investigations.MethodsThis review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) websites were searched for all relevant literature from their inception to November 24, 2023. We then extracted the required data from the included studies and used the R software to analyze the pooled incidence of irAEs. Subgroup analyses examined the pooled incidence of irAEs according to cancer and combination types using a random-effects model.ResultsSixteen studies involving 501 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Considering the heterogeneity of the study design, we analyzed the randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and the single-arm studies separately. In RCTs, the incidence of any-grade irAEs was 95.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 87.3-99.3) and that of grade ≥3 irAEs was 24.0% (95% CI 13.7-36.0). In single-arm studies, the incidence of any-grade irAEs was 89.4% (95% CI 75.0-98.0) and grade ≥3 irAEs was 20.3% (95% CI 8.7-35.2). In both RCTs and single arms, the most common any- grade irAEs were rash and fatigue, while the most common grade ≥3 irAEs was abnormal liver function and colitis. Due to irAEs, 9.4% of patients in RCTs and 6.9% of patients in single-arm studies did not complete the prescribed neoadjuvant treatment cycle.ConclusionThis study comprehensively summarized the incidence of irAEs in neoadjuvant combination immunotherapy. The occurrence of irAEs varies depending on the cancer and combination types. Our meta-analysis provides clinicians with essential guidance for the management of patients with cancer.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42023387969.