Dataset Information

Efficiency of complete omentectomy in patients with resectable gastric cancer: a meta‑analysis and systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We performed a meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of complete omentectomy (CO) in patients undergoing radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Methods

We conducted a literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases for clinical research that compared CO with non-complete omentectomy (NCO). These articles were published prior to April 2021. Overall survival (OS) rates, relapse-free survival (RFS) rates, recurrence rates, operation times, estimates of blood loss, numbers of harvested lymph nodes, complications, and lengths of hospital stays were compared using relative risks (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs). RevMan 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis.

Results

Nine studies that included 3329 patients (1960 in the CO group) and 1369 in the NCO group comprised the analysis. The meta-analysis showed that CO was associated with a decreased 3-year OS rate (RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.98, P = 0.005) and 5-year OS rate (RR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.98, P = 0.007). However, it was not associated with the 3-year RFS rate (RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.90-1.04, P = 0.44), 5-year RFS (RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.90-1.06, P = 0.60), or recurrence rate (RR = 1.17, 95% CI 0.95-1.45, P = 0.15) compared to the NCO group. For surgical-related outcomes, significant heterogeneity existed between the studies. Compared to the NCO group, CO was found to be associated with significantly more estimated blood loss (WMD = 250.90, 95% CI 105.90-396.28, P = 0.0007) and less harvested lymph nodes (WMD = - 3.59, 95% CI - 6.88, - 0.29, P = 0.03). Although, there was no significant difference in the surgical time (WMD = 15.93, 95% CI - 0.21, 32.07, P = 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed in the rates of overall (P = 0.79) and major complications (P = 0.90), or the lengths of hospital stays (P = 0.11) between the two groups.

Conclusions

Based on the available evidence, CO is not superior to NCO in terms of survival. CO is not recommended as a routine surgery for gastric cancer. Future well-designed high-quality RCTs are warranted.

SUBMITTER: Zhu A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8439052 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundNeoadjuvant therapy for resectable gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction tumors is progressing slowly. Although immunotherapy for advanced gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction tumors has made great progress, the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for locally resectable gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction tumors have not been clearly demonstrated. Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy and advance the current research.MethodsOriginal articles describing the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant immunotherapy for resectable gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction tumors published up until October 15, 2023 were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and other major databases. The odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for heterogeneity and subgroup analysis.ResultsA total of 1074 patients from 33 studies were included. The effectiveness of neoadjuvant immunotherapy was mainly evaluated using pathological complete remission (PCR), major pathological remission (MPR), and tumor regression grade (TRG). Among the included patients, 1015 underwent surgical treatment and 847 achieved R0 resection. Of the patients treated with neoadjuvant immunotherapy, 24% (95% CI: 19%-28%) achieved PCR and 49% (95% CI: 38%-61%) achieved MPR. Safety was assessed by a surgical resection rate of 0.89 (95% CI: 85%-93%), incidence of ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of 28% (95% CI: 17%-40%), and incidence of ≥ 3 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) of 19% (95% CI: 11%-27%).ConclusionNeoadjuvant immunotherapy, especially neoadjuvant dual-immunotherapy combinations, is effective and safe for resectable gastric/gastroesophageal junction tumors in the short term. Nevertheless, further multicenter randomized trials are required to demonstrate which combination model is more beneficial.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=358752, identifier CRD42022358752.

Project description:BackgroundFOLFIRINOX is a standard treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer patients. The effectiveness of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) remains debated.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and patient-level meta-analysis on neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in patients with BRPC. Studies with BRPC patients who received FOLFIRINOX as first-line neoadjuvant treatment were included. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, resection rate, R0 resection rate, and grade III-IV adverse events. Patient-level survival outcomes were obtained from authors of the included studies and analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method.ResultsWe included 24 studies (8 prospective, 16 retrospective), comprising 313 (38.1%) BRPC patients treated with FOLFIRINOX. Most studies (n = 20) presented intention-to-treat results. The median number of administered neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX cycles ranged from 4 to 9. The resection rate was 67.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 60.1% to 74.6%), and the R0-resection rate was 83.9% (95% CI = 76.8% to 89.1%). The median OS varied from 11.0 to 34.2 months across studies. Patient-level survival data were obtained for 20 studies representing 283 BRPC patients. The patient-level median OS was 22.2 months (95% CI = 18.8 to 25.6 months), and patient-level median progression-free survival was 18.0 months (95% CI = 14.5 to 21.5 months). Pooled event rates for grade III-IV adverse events were highest for neutropenia (17.5 per 100 patients, 95% CI = 10.3% to 28.3%), diarrhea (11.1 per 100 patients, 95% CI = 8.6 to 14.3), and fatigue (10.8 per 100 patients, 95% CI = 8.1 to 14.2). No deaths were attributed to FOLFIRINOX.ConclusionsThis patient-level meta-analysis of BRPC patients treated with neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX showed a favorable median OS, resection rate, and R0-resection rate. These results need to be assessed in a randomized trial.

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.