Dataset Information

Adjuvant therapy for retroperitoneal sarcoma: a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Adjuvant therapy is a promising treatment to improve the prognosis of cancer patients, however, the evidence base driving recommendations for adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) or chemotherapy (ACT) in retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPS) primarily hinges on observational data. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of adjuvant therapy in the management of RPS patients.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, ASCO Abstracts, and Cochrane Library for comparative studies (until December 2020) of adjuvant therapy versus surgery alone. Data on the following endpoints were evaluated: overall survival (OS), local recurrence (LR), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS). Data were summarized as hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Risk of bias of studies was assessed with Begg's and Egger's tests.

Results

A total of 15 trials were eligible, including 9281 adjuvant therapy and 21,583 surgery alone cases (20 studies for OS, six studies for RFS, two studies for LR, and two studies for MFS). Meta-analysis showed that ART was associated with distinct advantages as compared to surgery alone, including a longer OS (HR = 0.80, P < 0.0001), a longer RFS (HR = 0.61, P = 0.0002), and a lower LR (HR = 0.31, P = 0.005). However, this meta-analysis failed to demonstrate a benefit of ACT for RPS patients, including OS (HR = 1.11, P = 0.19), RFS (HR = 1.30, P = 0.09) and MFS (HR = 0.69, P = 0.09). In the sensitivity analysis, ACT was associated with a worse OS (HR = 1.19, P = 0.0002). No evidence of publication bias was observed.

Conclusions

Overall, the quality of the evidence was moderate for most outcomes. The evidence supports that ART achieved a generally better outcome as compared to surgery alone.

SUBMITTER: Li X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8496039 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe current study investigated the role of radiotherapy (RT) in patients with primary nonmetastatic retroperitoneal liposarcomas.MethodsA total of 607 patients with localized retroperitoneal well-differentiated liposarcomas (WDLPS) and dedifferentiated liposarcomas (DDLPS) underwent surgical resection with or without RT at 8 high-volume sarcoma centers (234 patients with WDLPS, 242 patients with grade 1 to 2 DDLPS, and 131 patients with grade 3 DDLPS; grading was performed according to the National Federation of Centers for the Fight Against Cancer [Federation Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer; FNCLCC]). RT was administered in 19.7%, 34.7%, and 35.1%, respectively, of these 3 cohorts. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the incidences of local recurrence and distant metastasis (DM) were estimated in a competing risk framework. To account for bias consistent with nonrandom RT assignment, propensity scores were estimated. Cox univariable analysis of the association between RT and oncological endpoints was performed by applying inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using propensity scores.ResultsAge, tumor size, and the administration of chemotherapy were found to be significantly imbalanced between patients who did and did not undergo RT in all cohorts. IPTW largely removed imbalances in key prognostic variables. Although the 8-year local recurrence incidences in patients treated with surgery plus RT versus surgery only were 11.8% and 39.2%, respectively, for patients with WDLPS (P = .011;); 29.0% and 56.7%, respectively, for patients with grade 1 to 2 DDLPS (P = .008); and 29.8% and 43.7%, respectively, for patients with grade 3 DDLPS (P = .025), this significant benefit was lost after IPTW analyses. There were no significant differences noted with regard to DM and OS between irradiated and unirradiated patients across all 3 cohorts.ConclusionsPerioperative RT was found to be associated with better local control in univariable unadjusted analysis in all 3 cohorts, but not after accounting for imbalances in prognostic variables. RT did not impact on DM or OS. The appropriate selection of RT in this disease remains challenging. The results of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)-Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG) 62092-22092 prospective randomized trial are awaited.

Project description:IntroductionUsing ozone therapy to manage COVID-19 patients has been accompanied by conflicting results in prior studies. Therefore, we aimed to widely assess the effects of ozone as adjuvant therapy in COVID-19 patients.MethodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, ProQuest, Springer, and Sage journals were searched systematically until April 2022. Mortality rate, ICU admission, hospital-length stay, negative PCR, pulmonary, renal, and hepatic functions, as well as inflammatory and blood systems were pooled to compare the efficacy of ozone as adjacent therapy (OZ) and standard treatment (ST). Analyses were run with the random/fixed models, sub-group analysis, funnel plot, and sensitivity analysis using comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA) software version 2.0.ResultsThe results of four randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and four case-control studies with a total of 371 COVID-19 positive patients were analyzed. The OZ group patients had a shorter length of hospital stay (P > 0.05), lower ICU admissions (P > 0.05), and lower mortality rates (P < 0.05) than the ST group cases. After treatment, 41% more COVID-19 patients had negative PCR tests than the ST group (P < 0.05). Serum creatinine and urea levels were not modified in either group (P > 0.05). Moreover, except for albumin serum levels, which decreased significantly in the OZ group, serum bilirubin, ALT, and AST were not modified in either group (P > 0.05). Both arms did not show a decrease in C-reactive protein blood levels (P > 0.05), but the OZ group showed a significant modification in LDH serum levels (P < 0.05). Unlike the d-dimer and WBC serum levels (P > 0.05), platelet levels were increased in the OZ group (P < 0.05). No negative side effects were demonstrated in either group.ConclusionOzone therapy was effective significantly on PCR test and LDH serum levels, as well as mortality based on overall estimation. Concerning the length of hospital stay and ICU admissions, although the results were insignificant, their effect sizes were notable clinically. More RCT studies are needed to show the efficacy of ozone therapy on other studied variables.