Dataset Information

Comparison of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery vs. surgery alone for locally advanced gastric cancer: a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The neoadjuvant chemotherapy is increasingly used in advanced gastric cancer, but the effects on safety and survival are still controversial. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the overall survival and short-term surgical outcomes between neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (NACS) and surgery alone (SA) for locally advanced gastric cancer.

Methods

Databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar) were explored for relative studies from January 2000 to January 2021. The quality of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies was evaluated using the modified Jadad scoring system and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, respectively. The Review Manager software (version 5.3) was used to perform this meta-analysis. The overall survival was evaluated as the primary outcome, while perioperative indicators and post-operative complications were evaluated as the secondary outcomes.

Results

Twenty studies, including 1420 NACS cases and 1942 SA cases, were enrolled. The results showed that there were no significant differences in overall survival (P = 0.240), harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.200), total complications (P = 0.080), and 30-day post-operative mortality (P = 0.490) between the NACS and SA groups. However, the NACS group was associated with a longer operation time (P < 0.0001), a higher R0 resection rate (P = 0.003), less reoperation (P = 0.030), and less anastomotic leakage (P = 0.007) compared with SA group.

Conclusions

Compared with SA, NACS was considered safe and feasible for improved R0 resection rate as well as decreased reoperation and anastomotic leakage. While unbenefited overall survival indicated a less important effect of NACS on long-term oncological outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Yu JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8318625 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The current study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant apatinib plus tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil potassium (S-1) plus oxaliplatin (SOX) chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced gastric carcinoma (LAGC). Therefore, patients with LAGC treated with neoadjuvant apatinib plus SOX chemotherapy (apatinib + SOX group; n=25) or SOX chemotherapy (SOX group; n=35) were enrolled in the present study. Subsequently, the objective response (ORR) and disease control rates (DCR), pathological response, disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events were recorded. The results showed that patients in the apatinib + SOX group exhibited a higher ORR (64.0 vs. 37.1%; P=0.040), but a similar DCR (96.0 vs. 88.6%; P=0.580), compared with those in the SOX group. The pathological response rates in patients with grade 0, 1, 2 and 3 LAGC were 0.0, 20.8, 62.5 and 16.7%, respectively, in the apatinib + SOX group, while in those treated with SOX alone they were 9.1, 39.4, 42.4 and 9.1%, respectively. By contrast, the pathological response was elevated in the apatinib + SOX group compared with the SOX group (P=0.030). During a median follow-up period of 21.0 months (range, 6.4-38.1 months), median DFS and OS were not reached. More specifically, the 1-, 2- and 3-year DFS rates were 91.7, 75.2 and 75.2% in the apatinib + SOX group and 71.8, 59.6 and 44.7% in the SOX group, respectively. In addition, the 1-, 2- and 3-year OS rates were 100.0, 89.6 and 78.4% in the apatinib + SOX group, while those in the SOX group were 90.3, 69.2 and 55.4%, respectively. However, no differences in DFS (P=0.094) or OS (P=0.155) were observed between the two groups. Additionally, the most common adverse events in the SOX group were mild leukopenia (42.9%) and fatigue (34.3%), while those in the apatinib + SOX group were tolerable leukopenia (44.0%) and hypertension (44.0%). In conclusion, the present study suggested that neoadjuvant apatinib plus SOX chemotherapy could be more effective and tolerable compared with SOX chemotherapy alone in patients with LAGC.

Project description:BackgroundThe effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) on Gastric carcinoma (GC) has been extensively studied, while its survival and surgical benefits remain controversial. This study aims to perform a meta-analysis of high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing efficacy, safety and other outcomes of NAC followed by surgery with surgery alone (SA) for GC.MethodsWe systematically searched databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Springer for RCTs comparing NAC with SA when treating GC. Reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings and ongoing trial databases were also searched. Primary outcomes were 3-year and 5-year survival rates, survival time, and total and perioperative mortalities. Secondary outcomes included down-staging effects, R0 resection rate, and postoperative complications. Meta-analysis was conducted where possible comparing items using relative risks (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) according to type of data. NAC-related objective response, safety and toxicity were also specifically analyzed.ResultsA total of 9 RCTs comparing NAC (n = 511) with SA (n = 545) published from 1995 to 2010 were identified. SA tended to be accompanied with higher overall mortality rate than NAC (46.03% vs 40.61%, RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.65-1.06, P = 0.14). Significantly, higher incidence of cases without regional lymph node metastasis observed upon resection were achieved among patients receiving NAC than those undergoing SA (25.68% vs 16.95%, RR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.20-3.06, P = 0.006). All other parameters were comparable. Of the evaluable patients, 43.0% demonstrated either complete or partial response. The comprehensive NAC-related side-effect rate was 18.2% among patients available for safety assessment.ConclusionsNAC contributes to lowering nodal stages, and potentially reduces overall mortality. Response rate may be an important influential factor impacting advantages, with chemotherapy-related adverse effects as a drawback. This level 1a evidence doesn't support NAC to outweigh SA in terms of survival and surgical benefits when dealing with GC.

Project description:BackgroundConcurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (CCRT-AC) is currently recommended as the standard treatment for locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA-NPC). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NAC-CCRT) is an alternative strategy for decreasing tumor size and controlling micrometastases before main treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare survival outcomes between LA-NPC patients treated with CCRT-AC and those treated with NAC-CCRT.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included consecutive histologically confirmed LA-NPC patients that were treated with NAC-CCRT or CCRT-AC at Siriraj Hospital during the March 2010 to October 2014 study period. CCRT in both protocols consisted of 3-week cycles of cisplatin 100 mg/m2 with concurrent radiotherapy. Either NAC or AC consisted of 3-week cycles of cisplatin on day 1 and fluorouracil/leucovorin on days 1-4 for a maximum three cycles. The primary endpoint was 5-year overall survival (OS). Flexible parametric survival analysis was used, because the proportional hazards assumption of Cox regression was violated.ResultsOf the 266 LA-NPC patients that received treatment during the study period, 79 received NAC-CCRT and 187 received CCRT-AC. Median follow-up was 37 months. Significantly more patients with advanced clinical stage (stage IVA-IVB) received NAC-CCRT (86% in NAC-CCRT vs. 29% in CCRT-AC; p < 0.001). Compared to CCRT-AC in crude analysis, 3-year and 5-year OS of NAC-CCRT were 72% vs. 86% and 62% vs. 75% respectively (p = 0.059). Interestingly, the 3-year and 5-year post-estimation adjusted OS was 84% and 74% for NAC-CCRT and 81% and 70% for CCRT-AC, respectively (HR: 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-1.56; p = 0.571). Also, adjusted analysis of distant-metastasis survival, NAC-CCRT showed HR was 0.79 (95% CI:0.37-1.72, p = 0.557). Conversely, adjusted analysis of locoregional relapse (LLR)-free survival revealed NAC-CCRT to have a significantly higher risk of LRR (HR: 2.18, 95% CI: 0.98-4.87; p = 0.057).ConclusionsThe results suggested that prognosis in the NAC-CCRT treated patients was not superior to that of the CCRT-AC treated individuals. In patients that receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy, locoregional relapse should be of concern. High-risk distant metastasis patients (N3 stage) that could achieve survival advantage from NAC-CCRT is an interesting and important topic for further study.