Effect of perioperative blood transfusion on the long-term survival of patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
P R Boshier ◽  
C Ziff ◽  
M E Adam ◽  
M Fehervari ◽  
S R Markar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Blood Transfusion ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Perioperative Blood Transfusion

723 TWO- VS. THREE-FIELD LYMPHADENECTOMY FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF SHORT- AND LONG-TERM OUTCOMES.

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Letícia Nogueira Datrino ◽  
Clara Lucato Santos ◽  
Guilherme Tavares ◽  
Luca Schiliró Tristão ◽  
Maria Carolina Andrade Serafim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Extended Lymphadenectomy ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Short And Long Term

Abstract   Nowadays, there is still no consensus about the benefits of adding neck lymphadenectomy to the traditional two-fields esophagectomy. An extended lymphadenectomy could potentially increase operation time and the risks for postoperative complications. However, extended lymphadenectomy allows resection of cervical nodes at risk for metastases, potentially increasing long-term survival rates. This study aims to estimate whether cervical prophylactic lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer influences short- and long-term outcomes through a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis. Methods A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library Central, and Lilacs (BVS). The inclusion criteria were: (1) studies that compare two-field vs. three-field esophagectomy; (2) adults (>18 years); (3) articles that analyze short- or long-term outcomes; and (4) clinical trials or cohort studies. The results were summarized by forest plots, with effect size (ES) or risk difference (RD) and 95% CI. Results Twenty-five articles were selected, comprising 8,954 patients. Three-field lymphadenectomy was associated to higher operation time (ES: -1.51; 95%CI -1.84, −1.18) and higher blood loss (ES: -0.24; 95%CI: −0.37, −0.11). Also, neck lymphadenectomy inputs additional risk for pulmonary complications (RD: 0.03; 95%CI: 0.01, 0.05). No difference was noted for morbidity (RD: 0.01; 95%CI: −0.01, 0.03); leak (−0.02; 95%CI: −0.07, 0.03); postoperative mortality (RD: 0.00; 95%CI: −0.00, 0.01), and hospital stay (ES: -0.05; 95%CI -0.20, 0.10). Three-field lymphadenectomy allowed higher number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD: -1.51; 95%CI -1.84, −1.18), but did not increase the overall survival (HR: 1.11; 95%CI: 0.96, 1.26). Conclusion Prophylactic neck lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer should be performed with caution once it is associated with poorer short-term outcomes compared to traditional two-field lymphadenectomy and does not improve long-term survival. Future esophageal cancer studies should determine the subgroup of patients who could benefit from prophylactic neck lymphadenectomy in long-term outcomes.

scholarly journals The Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Immunotherapy for Gastric Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis and Literature Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 107327482199743
Author(s):  
Ke Chen ◽  
Xiao Wang ◽  
Liu Yang ◽  
Zheling Chen
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
And Control

Background: Treatment options for advanced gastric esophageal cancer are quite limited. Chemotherapy is unavoidable at certain stages, and research on targeted therapies has mostly failed. The advent of immunotherapy has brought hope for the treatment of advanced gastric esophageal cancer. The aim of the study was to analyze the safety of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy and the long-term survival of patients who were diagnosed as gastric esophageal cancer and received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy. Method: Studies on anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy of advanced gastric esophageal cancer published before February 1, 2020 were searched online. The survival (e.g. 6-month overall survival, 12-month overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rates (ORR)) and adverse effects of immunotherapy were compared to that of control therapy (physician’s choice of therapy). Results: After screening 185 studies, 4 comparative cohort studies which reported the long-term survival of patients receiving immunotherapy were included. Compared to control group, the 12-month survival (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.31 to 2.12, P < 0.0001) and 18-month survival (OR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.39 to 2.81, P = 0.0001) were significantly longer in immunotherapy group. The 3-month survival rate (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.36 to 3.06, P = 0.92) and 18-month survival rate (OR = 1.44, 95% CI: 0.98 to 2.12, P = 0.07) were not significantly different between immunotherapy group and control group. The ORR were not significantly different between immunotherapy group and control group (OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 0.65 to 3.66, P = 0.01). Meta-analysis pointed out that in the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 sub group population, the immunotherapy could obviously benefit the patients in tumor response rates (OR = 3.80, 95% CI: 1.89 to 7.61, P = 0.0002). Conclusion: For the treatment of advanced gastric esophageal cancer, the therapeutic efficacy of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy was superior to that of chemotherapy or palliative care.

Leucocyte depletion of perioperative blood transfusion does not affect long-term survival and recurrence in patients with gastrointestinal cancer

2009 ◽  
Vol 96 (7) ◽  
pp. 734-740 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. M. Lange ◽  
J. A. van Hilten ◽  
L. M. G. van de Watering ◽  
B. A. Bijnen ◽  
R. M. H. Roumen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Transfusion ◽  
Gastrointestinal Cancer ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Perioperative Blood Transfusion

665 PROPHYLACTIC THORACIC DUCT OBSTRUCTION DURING ESOPHAGECTOMY: THE IMPACT ON PERIOPERATIVE RISKS AND LONG-TERM SURVIVAL. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Clara Santos ◽  
Laura Santos ◽  
Leticia Datrino ◽  
Guilherme Tavares ◽  
Luca Tristão ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Thoracic Duct ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Thoracic Duct Ligation ◽  
Duct Ligation

Abstract   During esophagectomy for cancer, there is no consensus if prophylactic thoracic duct ligation (TDL), with or without thoracic duct resection (TDR), could influence the perioperative outcomes and long-term survival. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared patients who went through esophagectomy associated or not to ligation or resection of the thoracic duct. Methods A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library Central and Lilacs (BVS). The inclusion criteria were: (1) studies that compare thoracic duct ligation, with or without resection, and non-thoracic duct ligation; (2) involve adult patients with esophageal cancer; (3) articles that analyses the outcomes—perioperative complications, perioperative mortality, chylothorax development and overall survival; (4) only clinical trials and cohort were accepted. A 95% confidence interval (CI) was used, and random-effects model was performed. Results Fifteen articles were selected, comprising 6,249 patients. TDL did not reduce the risk for chylothorax (Risk difference [RD]: -0.01; 95%CI: −0.02, 0.00). Also, TDL did not influence the risk for complications (RD: -0.02; 95%CI: −0.11, 0.07); mortality (RD: 0.00; 95%CI: −0.00, 0.00); and reoperation rate (RD: -0.01; 95%CI: −0.02, 0.00). TDR was associated with higher risk for postoperative complications (RD: 0.1; 95%CI 0.00, 0.19); chylothorax (RD: 0.02; 95%CI 0.00, 0.03). Both TDL and TDR did not influence the overall survival rate (TDL: HR: 1.17; 95%CI: 0.86, 1.48; and TDR: HR: 1.16; 95%CI: 0.8, 1.51). Conclusion Thoracic duct obliteration with or without its resection during esophagectomy does not change long term survival. Nonetheless, TDR increased the risk for postoperative complications and chylothorax.

Diabetes mellitus and survival of esophageal cancer patients after esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xi Zheng ◽  
Xingsheng Ma ◽  
Han-Yu Deng ◽  
Panpan Zha ◽  
Jie Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact

SUMMARY Diabetes mellitus (DM) is one of the most common comorbidities in esophageal cancer patients who undergo esophagectomy. It is well established that DM has an unfavorable impact on short-term outcomes of patients with surgically treated esophageal cancer; however, whether DM has any impact on long-term survival of these patients remains unclear. We performed the first meta-analysis to investigate the impact of DM on survival of surgically treated esophageal cancer patients. We searched the following databases systematically to retrieve relevant studies on January 2, 2019: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. The main outcome data consisting of 3- and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates and hazard ratios (HRs) of OS were extracted to compare survival between patients with and without DM. We finally included for meta-analysis a total of eight cohort studies involving 5,044 esophageal cancer patients who underwent esophagectomy. We found no significant difference between 3-year (risk ratio [RR] = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.73–1.21; P = 0.65) and 5-year (RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.80–1.08; P = 0.31) OS rates between patients with and without DM after esophagectomy. Moreover, DM was not found to be an independent predictor of OS for these patients (HR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.65–1.84; P = 0.72). Our study suggests that DM appears to have no significant impact on long-term survival of esophageal cancer patients who undergo esophagectomy. To improve the prognosis of these patients, it may be more important to control glycemic level in patients with DM who undergo esophagectomy. However, further high-quality studies with appropriate adjustment for confounding factors are needed to verify this conclusion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document