Esophagectomy versus definitive chemoradiotherapy as initial treatment for clinical stage I esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li-Xiang Mei ◽  
Jun-Xian Mo ◽  
Yong Chen ◽  
Lei Dai ◽  
Yong-Yong Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Initial Treatment ◽  
Tumor Recurrence ◽  
Clinical Stage ◽  
Stage I ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Definitive Chemoradiotherapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background Esophagectomy and definitive chemoradiotherapy are commonly used in the treatment of stage I esophageal cancer (EC). The present study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of esophagectomy and definitive chemoradiotherapy as the initial treatment for clinical stage I EC. Methods This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020197203). Relevant studies were identified through PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from database inception to June 30, 2020. Hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was employed to compare overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI was employed to compare treatment-related death, complications, and tumor recurrence. Results A total of 13 non-randomized controlled studies involving 3,346 patients were included. Compared with definitive chemoradiotherapy, esophagectomy showed an improved OS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55–0.86; P < 0.001), PFS (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.33–0.67; P < 0.001), and a lower risk of tumor recurrence (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30–0.61; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.75–1.65; P = 0.60) and treatment-related death (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.31–4.30; P = 0.84) between the two treatments. Conclusions Current evidence shows esophagectomy has superior survival benefits as the initial treatment for clinical stage I EC. It is still the preferred choice for patients with clinical stage I EC. However, future high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to validate this conclusion.

Definitive chemoradiotherapy may be standard treatment options in clinical stage I esophageal cancer

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (14_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4017-4017 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Ura ◽  
K. Muro ◽  
Y. Shimada ◽  
K. Shirao ◽  
H. Igaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Clinical Stage ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Stage I ◽  
Definitive Chemoradiotherapy

Definitive chemoradiotherapy may be standard treatment options in clinical stage I esophageal cancer

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (14_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4017-4017
Author(s):  
T. Ura ◽  
K. Muro ◽  
Y. Shimada ◽  
K. Shirao ◽  
H. Igaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Clinical Stage ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Stage I ◽  
Definitive Chemoradiotherapy

scholarly journals Dyspnea Measurement in Acute Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Evidence Map of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoyu Zhang ◽  
Chen Zhao ◽  
Houjun Zhang ◽  
Wenjing Liu ◽  
Jingjing Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Acute Heart Failure ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Analytical Approaches

Background: Dyspnea is the most common presenting symptom among patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF). Dyspnea relief constitutes a clinically relevant therapeutic target and endpoint for clinical trials and regulatory approval. However, there have been no widely accepted dyspnea measurement standards in AHF. By systematic review and mapping the current evidence of the applied scales, timing, and results of measurement, we hope to provide some new insights and recommendations for dyspnea measurement.Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception until August 27, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with dyspnea severity measured as the endpoint in patients with AHF were included.Results: Out of a total of 63 studies, 28 had dyspnea as the primary endpoint. The Likert scale (34, 54%) and visual analog scale (VAS) (22, 35%) were most widely used for dyspnea assessment. Among the 43 studies with detailed results, dyspnea was assessed most frequently on days 1, 2, 3, and 6 h after randomization or drug administration. Compared with control groups, better dyspnea relief was observed in the experimental groups in 21 studies. Only four studies that assessed tolvaptan compared with control on the proportion of dyspnea improvement met the criteria for meta-analyses, which did not indicate beneficial effect of dyspnea improvement on day 1 (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.99–1.37; p = 0.07; I2 = 61%).Conclusion: The applied scales, analytical approaches, and timing of measurement are in diversity, which has impeded the comprehensive evaluation of clinical efficacy of potential therapies managing dyspnea in patients with AHF. Developing a more general measurement tool established on the unified unidimensional scales, standardized operation protocol to record the continuation, and clinically significant difference of dyspnea variation may be a promising approach. In addition, to evaluate the effect of experimental therapies on dyspnea more precisely, the screening time and blinded assessment are factors that need to be considered.

scholarly journals Efficacy of High-Dose Polyclonal Intravenous Immunoglobulin in COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Vaccines ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 94
Author(s):  
Daniele Focosi ◽  
Massimo Franchini ◽  
Marco Tuccori ◽  
Mario Cruciani
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Intravenous Immunoglobulin ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Although several therapeutic strategies have been investigated, the optimal treatment approach for patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) remains to be elucidated. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of polyclonal intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy in COVID-19. Methods: A systematic literature search using appropriate medical subject heading (MeSH) terms was performed through Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, SCOPUS, OVID and Cochrane Library electronic databases. The main outcomes considered were mortality and safety of IVIG versus placebo/standard of care. This review was carried out in accordance with Cochrane methodology including the risk bias assessment and grading of the quality of evidence. Measures of treatment effect were mean differences (MD) together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous outcome measures and risk ratio (RR) or MD for binary outcomes. Two reviewers independently extracted data from individual studies, and disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Results: A total of 2401 COVID-19 patients from 10 studies (four randomized controlled trials (RCT) and six non-randomized controlled trials (non-RCTs)) were included in the analysis. Participants received IVIG or placebo/standard of care. The use of IVIG was not associated with a significantly reduced risk of death (RR 0.50, 95% CIs 0.18–1.36, p = 0.17 for RCTs; RR 0.95, 95% CIs 0.61–1.58, p = 0.94 for non-RCTs; low certainty of evidence). IVIG significantly reduced the length of hospital stay (MD −2.24, 95% CIs −3.20/−1.27; p = 0.00001; low certainty of evidence), although this difference was significant only for studies evaluating moderate COVID-19 patients. No significant difference was observed in the incidence of overall and serious adverse events between IVIG recipients and controls (very low certainty of evidence). Conclusions: The current evidence from the literature does not support the use of IVIG in COVID-19 patients.

scholarly journals Perioperative immunonutrition in esophageal cancer patients undergoing esophagectomy: the first meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wang Mingliang ◽  
Ke Zhangyan ◽  
Fan Fangfang ◽  
Wang Huizhen ◽  
Li Yongxiang
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Anastomotic Leakage ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Summary Although several randomized controlled trials have been published in recent years, the effect of perioperative immunonutrition in esophageal cancer (EC) patients remains unclear. This initial meta-analysis was conducted to assess whether perioperative enteral immunonutrition reduces postoperative complications in patients undergoing esophagectomy for EC. Relevant randomized controlled trials published before 1st September 2019 were retrieved from the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE databases. After the literature was screened, two researchers extracted the information and data from eligible studies according to predefined selection criteria. Obtained data were pooled and analyzed by RevMan 5.3 software. The results were presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The heterogeneity among studies was tested by I2 test. Seven high-quality randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 606 patients, 311 of whom received immunonutrition before and after surgery, while 295 received perioperative standard nutrition. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in the incidence of postoperative infection complications, including total infection complications (RR = 0.97, CI: 0.78–1.20, P = 0.76), pneumonia (RR = 0.97, CI: 0.71–1.33, P = 0.84), wound infection (RR = 0.80, CI: 0.46–1.40, P = 0.44), sepsis (RR = 1.35, CI: 0.67–2.71, P = 0.40), and urinary tract infection (RR = 0.87, CI: 0.54–1.40, P = 0.56). The prevalence of anastomotic leakage in the two groups was 9.4 and 5.4%, but the difference was not statistically significant (RR = 0.59, CI: 0.33–1.04, P = 0.07). Perioperative enteral immunonutrition provided no benefit in terms of the incidence of infection complications and anastomotic leakage in EC patients undergoing esophagectomy. Further large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this conclusion.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Steroidal Anti-Androgens in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammed Rashid ◽  
Madhan Ramesh ◽  
K. Shamshavali ◽  
Amit Dang ◽  
Himanshu Patel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the sixth primary cause of cancer death. However, conflicts are present about the efficacy and safety of Non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAA) for its treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of NSAAs versus any comparator for the treatment of advanced or metastatic PCa (mPCa). Methodology: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched. References of included studies and clinicaltrials.gov were also searched for relevant studies. Only English language studies after 1990 were considered for review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of NSAAs as compared with any other comparator including surgery or chemotherapy in mPCa patients were included. The outcomes include efficacy, safety and the tolerability of the treatment. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used for quality assessment. Two authors were independently involved in the selection, extraction and quality assessment of included studies and disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. Results: Fifty-eight out of 1307 non-duplicate RCTs with 29154 patients were considered for the review. NSAA showed significantly better progression-free survival [PFS] (Hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.78; P=0.0001), time to distant metastasis or death [TTD] (HR, 0.80; 95% CI 0.73-0.91; p<0.0001), objective response (Odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI 1.06-2.54; P=0.03) and clinical benefits (OR, 1.33; 95% CI 1.08-1.63; P=0.006) as compared to the control group. There was no significant difference observed between the groups in terms of overall survival (HR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.87-1.03; P=0.18) and time to progression (HR, 0.93; 95% CI 0.77-1.11; P=0.43). Treatment-related adverse events were more with the NSAA group, but the discontinuation due to lack of efficacy reason was 43% significantly lesser than the control group in patients with mPCa. Rest of the outcomes were appeared to be non-significant. Conclusion: Treatment with NSAA was appeared to be better efficacious with respect to PFS, TTD, and response rate with considerable adverse events when compared to the control group in patients with metastatic PCa.

scholarly journals Post-Neoadjuvant Surveillance and Surgery as Needed Compared with Post-Neoadjuvant Surgery on Principle in Multimodal Treatment for Esophageal Cancer: A Scoping Review

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 429
Author(s):  
Julian Hipp ◽  
Blin Nagavci ◽  
Claudia Schmoor ◽  
Joerg Meerpohl ◽  
Jens Hoeppner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Local Recurrence ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Multimodal Treatment ◽  
Neoadjuvant Treatment ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Diagnostic Methods ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background: A substantial fraction of patients with esophageal cancer show post-neoadjuvant pathological complete response (pCR). Principal esophagectomy after neoadjuvant treatment is the standard of care for all patients, although surveillance and surgery as needed in case of local recurrence may be a treatment alternative for patients with complete response (CR). Methods: We performed a scoping review to describe key characteristics of relevant clinical studies including adults with non-metastatic esophageal cancer receiving multimodal treatment. Until September 2020, relevant studies were identified through systematic searches in the bibliographic databases Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, ClinicalTrials, the German study register, and the WHO registry platform. Results: In total, three completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs, with 468 participants), three planned/ongoing RCTs (with a planned sample size of 752 participants), one non-randomized controlled study (NRS, with 53 participants), ten retrospective cohort studies (with 2228 participants), and one survey on patients’ preferences (with 100 participants) were identified. All studies applied neoadjuvant chemoradiation protocols. None of the studies examined neoadjuvant chemotherapeutic protocols. Studies investigated patient populations with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and mixed cohorts. Important outcomes reported were overall, disease-free and local recurrence-free survival. Limitations of the currently available study pool include heterogeneous chemoradiation protocols, a lack of modern neoadjuvant treatment protocols in RCTs, short follow-up times, the use of heterogeneous diagnostic methods, and different definitions of clinical CR. Conclusion: Although post-neoadjuvant surveillance and surgery as needed compared with post-neoadjuvant surgery on principle has been investigated within different study designs, the currently available results are based on a wide variation of diagnostic tools to identify patients with pCR, short follow-up times, small sample sizes, and variations in therapeutic procedures. A thoroughly planned RCT considering the limitations in the currently available literature will be of great importance to provide patients with CR with the best and less harmful treatment.

Early Versus Routine Stoma Closure in Patients With Colorectal Resection: A Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-298
Author(s):  
Yinyin Guo ◽  
Yanxin Luo ◽  
Hui Zhao ◽  
Liangliang Bai ◽  
Juan Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Surgery ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Bowel Obstruction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Wound Complications ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Stoma Closure ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background. A substantial proportion of patients undergoing colorectal surgery receive a temporary stoma, and the timing for stoma closure remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of early stoma closure (ESC) compared with routine stoma closure (RSC) after colorectal surgery. Methods. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that compared ESC and RSC after colorectal surgery. Results. A total of 7 randomized controlled trials with 814 enrolled patients were identified for this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the ESC and RSC groups regarding the complications of stoma closure (26.8% and 16.6%, respectively; odds ratio [OR]: 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-1.90; P = .17). A subgroup analysis was conducted by Clavien-Dindo grade of complication, and no significant difference was observed in any subgroup ( P > .05). However, the ESC group had a significantly higher risk of wound complications than the RSC group (17.6% and 7.8%, respectively; OR: 2.61; 95% CI: 1.43-4.76; P = .002), and the RSC group had more cases of small bowel obstruction than the ESC group (3.1% and 8.4%, respectively; OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.15-0.87; P = .02). Conclusions. ESC is a safe and effective therapeutic approach in patients who have undergone colorectal surgery; it is associated with a reduced risk of bowel obstruction but a higher risk of wound complications.

scholarly journals Kinesio Taping for Balance Function after Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yijuan Hu ◽  
Dongling Zhong ◽  
Qiwei Xiao ◽  
Qiang Chen ◽  
Juan Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Treatment Duration ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Clinical Effects ◽  
Balance Function ◽  
Balance Impairment ◽  
Kinesio Taping ◽  
Significant Difference

Objective. With the increasing social and economic burdens of balance impairment after stroke, the treatment for balance impairment after stroke becomes a major public health problem worldwide. Kinesio taping (KT) as a part of clinical practice has been used widely in the treatment of balance impairment after stroke. However, the clinical effects of KT for balance function have not been confirmed. The objective of this study is to investigate the effects and safety of KT for balance impairment after stroke. Methods. We conducted a systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of KT for balance impairment after stroke. We searched the following databases: (1) English databases: EMBASE (via Ovid), MEDLINE (via Ovid), the Cochrane library, PubMed, and PEDro; (2) Chinese databases: China Biology Medicine (CBM), Wan Fang database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and VIP. Besides, hand searches of relevant references were also conducted. We systematically searched from the inception to December 2018, using the keywords (Kinesio, Kinesio Tape, tape, or Orthotic Tape) and (stroke, hemiplegia, or hemiplegic paralysis) and (balance or stability). The search strategies were adjusted for each database. The reference lists of included articles were reviewed for relevant trials. For missing data, we contacted the authors to get additional information. Results. 22 RCTs involved 1331 patients, among which 667 patients in the experimental group and 664 patients in the control group were included. Results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with conventional rehabilitation (CR), there was significant difference in Berg Balance Scale (BBS) (MD=4.46, 95%CI 1.72 to 7.19, P=0.001), Time Up and Go Test (TUGT) (MD=-4.62, 95%CI -5.48 to -3.79, P < 0.00001), functional ambulation category scale (FAC) (MD=0.53, 95%CI 0.38 to 0.68, P < 0.00001), Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA-L) (MD=4.20, 95%CI 3.17 to 5.24, P < 0.00001), and Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) (MD=-0.38, 95%CI -0.49 to -0.27, P < 0.00001). The results of subgroup analysis showed that there was no significant difference between KT and CR with ≤4 weeks treatment duration (< 4 weeks: MD=5.03, 95%CI -1.80 to 11.85, P=0.15; =4 weeks: MD=4.33, 95%CI -1.50 to 10.15, P=0.15), while there was significant difference with more than 4-week treatment duration (MD=4.77, 95%CI 2.58 to 6.97, P < 0.0001). Conclusions. Based on current evidence, KT was more effective than CR for balance function, lower limb function, and walking function in poststroke patients. Longer treatment duration may be associated with better effects. However, more well-conducted RCTs are required in the future.

scholarly journals Antibiotic prophylaxis for surgical procedures: a scoping review

2021 ◽  
Vol 45 ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Eva Brocard ◽  
Ludovic Reveiz ◽  
Jean-Philippe Régnaux ◽  
Veronica Abdala ◽  
Pilar Ramón-Pardo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antibiotic Prophylaxis ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
First Generation ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Antibiotic Administration ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis

Objectives. To map the current evidence on surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) administration and identify knowledge gaps in the literature available in this field. Methods. The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and Health Systems Evidence databases were searched from January 2015 to March 2020 for systematic reviews published in English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish. Results. Eighty-three systematic reviews were included, the quality of the reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2, and data were extracted for all primary outcomes. Perioperative antibiotic administration, the use of first generation cephalosporins, and surgical site infection (SSI) were the most commonly reported for timing of antibiotic administration, drug class, and primary outcome, respectively. Findings showed that, overall, SAP may reduce SSIs compared with a placebo or with no SAP. Results suggested that intraoperative SAP may lower SSI, while postoperative SAP did not show a statistically significant difference. Conclusions. Findings have confirmed the role of SAP in reducing postoperative SSI across various surgeries and do not support the use of antibiotics after surgery to prevent infections. The findings of this scoping review have enhanced the evidence base that can inform decisions regarding the development of global guidelines for the prevention of SSI. However, high-quality systematic reviews and research reflecting diverse populations and settings are needed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document