scholarly journals Necessity of prophylactic No.10 lymph node clearance for middle and upper third gastric cancer: a network meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaozan Zheng ◽  
Jinqiang Liu ◽  
Yinghao Guo ◽  
Fei Wang ◽  
Shushang Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Lymph Node ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Complication Rate ◽  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Overall Survival Rate ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background It remains controversial whether prophylactic No.10 lymph node clearance is necessary for gastric cancer. Thus, the present study aims to investigate the impact of prophylactic No.10 lymph node clearance on the perioperative complications and prognosis of upper and middle third gastric cancer.Methods A network meta-analysis to identify both direct and indirect evidence with respect to the comparison of gastrectomy alone (G-A), gastrectomy combination with splenectomy (G+S) and gastrectomy combination with spleen-preserving splenic hilar dissection (G+SPSHD) was conducted. We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for studies published before September 2018. Perioperative complications and overall survival were analyzed. Hazard ratios (HR) were extracted from the publications on the basis of reported values or were extracted from survival curves by established methods.Results Ten retrospective studies involving 2565 patients were included. In the direct comparison analyses, G-A showed comparable 5-year overall survival rate (HR: 1.1, 95%CI: 0.97-1.3) but lower total complication rate (OR: 0.37, 95%CI: 0.17-0.77) compared with G+S. Similarly, the 5-year overall survival rate between G+SPSHD and G+S was comparable (HR: 1.1, 95%CI: 0.92-1.4), while the total complication rate of G+SPSHD was lower than that of G+S (OR: 0.50, 95%CI: 0.28-0.88). In the indirect comparison analyses, both the 5-year overall survival rate (HR: 1.0, 95%CI: 0.78-1.3) and total complication rate (OR: 0.75, 95%CI: 0.29-1.9) were comparable between G-A and G+SPSHD.Conclusion Prophylactic No.10 lymph node clearance was not recommended for treatment of upper and middle third gastric cancer.

scholarly journals Necessity of prophylactic splenic hilum lymph node clearance for middle and upper third gastric cancer: a network meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaozan Zheng ◽  
Jinqiang Liu ◽  
Yinghao Guo ◽  
Fei Wang ◽  
Shushang Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Lymph Node ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Complication Rate ◽  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Overall Survival Rate ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background It remains controversial whether prophylactic No.10 lymph node clearance is necessary for gastric cancer. Thus, the present study aims to investigate the impact of prophylactic No.10 lymph node clearance on the perioperative complications and prognosis of upper and middle third gastric cancer. Methods A network meta-analysis to identify both direct and indirect evidence with respect to the comparison of gastrectomy alone (G-A), gastrectomy combination with splenectomy (G+S) and gastrectomy combination with spleen-preserving splenic hilar dissection (G+SPSHD) was conducted. We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for studies published before September 2018. Perioperative complications and overall survival were analyzed. Hazard ratios (HR) were extracted from the publications on the basis of reported values or were extracted from survival curves by established methods. Results Ten retrospective studies involving 2565 patients were included. In the direct comparison analyses, G-A showed comparable 5-year overall survival rate (HR: 1.1, 95%CI: 0.97-1.3) but lower total complication rate (OR: 0.37, 95%CI: 0.17-0.77) compared with G+S. Similarly, the 5-year overall survival rate between G+SPSHD and G+S was comparable (HR: 1.1, 95%CI: 0.92-1.4), while the total complication rate of G+SPSHD was lower than that of G+S (OR: 0.50, 95%CI: 0.28-0.88). In the indirect comparison analyses, both the 5-year overall survival rate (HR: 1.0, 95%CI: 0.78-1.3) and total complication rate (OR: 0.75, 95%CI: 0.29-1.9) were comparable between G-A and G+SPSHD. Conclusion Prophylactic No.10 lymph node clearance was not recommended for treatment of upper and middle third gastric cancer.

scholarly journals The Survival Benefit and Safety of Splenectomy for Gastric Cancer With Total Gastrectomy: Updated Results†

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kun Yang ◽  
Zhi-Yun Zang ◽  
Kai-Fan Niu ◽  
Li-Fei Sun ◽  
Wei-Han Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Lymph Nodes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Mortality ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Overall Survival Rate ◽  
Duration Of Surgery

BackgroundSplenectomy was traditionally performed to dissect the splenic hilar lymph nodes. Considering the important functions of spleen, whether splenectomy would bring beneficial to gastric cancer patients is debatable. This meta-analysis aimed to make an updated evaluation on the effectiveness and safety of splenectomy.MethodsLiterature searches were performed to identify eligible RCTs concerning effectiveness or safety of splenectomy with gastrectomy from PubMed, MEDLINE, CBMdisc, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Two reviewers completed the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment independently. The meta-analyses were performed by RevMan 5.3.ResultsA total of 971 patients from four studies were included (485 in splenectomy group and 486 in spleen preservation group). Splenectomy did not increase 5-year overall survival rate (RR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.96, 1.16) or increase postoperative mortality (RR=1.21, 95% CI: 0.41, 3.54). However, the analysis demonstrated that gastrectomy with splenectomy had significantly higher incidence of postoperative complications (RR=1.80, 95% CI: 1.33, 2.45). No significant differences were found in terms of the number of resected lymph nodes and reoperation rate; however, splenectomy had a tendency to prolong the duration of surgery and hospital stays. Subgroup analyses indicated that splenectomy could not increase overall survival rate for either whole or proximal gastric cancer. Sensitivity analyses also found similar results compared to the primary analyses.ConclusionsSplenectomy cannot benefit the survival of patients with tumor located at lesser curvature, and it could instead increase postoperative morbidity.

Proximal gastrectomy versus total gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: a meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 753-766 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi-chuan Chen ◽  
Li Lu ◽  
Kai-hu Fan ◽  
Dao-han Wang ◽  
Wei-hua Fu
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Total Gastrectomy ◽  
Recurrence Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Proximal Gastrectomy ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Overall Survival Rate ◽  
Upper Third

Aim: To compare efficacy between total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) for upper-third gastric cancer. Materials & methods: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library were searched to select suitable researches. Stata was used for meta-analysis including 5-year overall survival rate, recurrence rate, complication morbidities and serum nutritional levels. Results: Ten retrospective English researches were contained. Our study showed no significant difference of 5-year overall survival rate, recurrence rate, reflux symptoms and anastomotic leakage. TG experienced longer operation time, more lymph nodes-retrieved number, more estimated blood loss and higher ileus, but less anastomotic stricture. PG showed advantages over TG in terms of serum nutritional levels. Conclusion: PG is more preferable to TG for treatment of upper-third gastric cancer.

scholarly journals Treatments for the early stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Laparoscopic Liver Resection or Percutaneous Radiofrequency, How to make the decision?

Liver Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinli Zheng ◽  
Wei Xie ◽  
Yunfeng Zhu ◽  
Li Jiang
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Liver Resection ◽  
Complication Rate ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Overall Survival Rate ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Treatment

Hepatectomy is still as the first-line treatment for the early stage HCC, but the complication rate is higher than p-RFA and the overall survival rate is comparable in these two treatments. Therefore, the patients with small single nodular HCCs could get more benefit from p-RFA, and we need to do further research about p-RFA.

The Regulatory Role of Both MBNL1 and MBNL1-AS1 in Several Common Cancers

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qi Zhang ◽  
Yinxin Wu ◽  
Jinlan Chen ◽  
Yuxuan Cai ◽  
Bei Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Rna Splicing ◽  
Metabolic Regulation ◽  
Overall Survival Rate

Background: MBNL1, a protein encoded by q25 gene on chromosome 3, belongs to the tissue-specific RNA metabolic regulation family, which controls RNA splicing.[1]MBNL1 formed in the process of development drive large transcriptomic changes in cell differentiation,[2] it serves as a kind of tumor differentiation inhibitory factor.MBNL1 has a close relationship with cancer, comprehensive analysis, [3]found that breast cancer, leukemia, stomach cancer, esophageal adenocarcinoma, glial cell carcinoma and another common tumor in the cut, and cut in Huntington's disease. But MBNL1 plays a promoting role in cervical cancer, is contradictory in colorectal cancer, It promotes colorectal cancer cell proliferation, On the other hand, it inhibits its metastasis, so it is an important physiological marker in many cancers. When we integrated the role of MBNL1 protein in various tumors, we found that its antisense RNA, MBNL1-AS1, had a good inhibitory effect in several colorectal cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and gastric cancer. Objective: To elucidate the expression of MBNL1 and MBNL1-AS1 in various tumors, and to search for their physiological markers. Methods: It was searched by the PUMUB system and summarized its expression in various cancers. Results: MBNL1 was down-regulated, leukemia, breast cancer, glioblastoma, gastric cancer, overall survival rate, recurrence, metastasis increased. While the metastasis of colon cancer decreased, proliferation was promoted, and the effect of both was promoted for cervical cancer.MBNL1-AS1 was down-regulated, and the overall survival rate, recurrence, and metastasis of lung cancer, colorectal cancer, and bladder cancer increased. Conclusion: MBNL1 may be an important regulator of cancer, and MBNL1-AS1 is a better tumor suppressor.

scholarly journals Impact of surgical margin status on the survival outcome after surgical resection of gastric cancer: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e040282
Author(s):  
Zhiyuan Jiang ◽  
Zhaolun Cai ◽  
Yuan Yin ◽  
Chaoyong Shen ◽  
Jinming Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Curative Intent ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Effect Model ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionGenerally, complete resection with cancer cell negative (R0) margin has been accepted as the most effective treatment of gastric cancer and positive resection (R1/R2) margin has been associated with decreased survival to varied degrees. However, the independent impact of microscopical positive (R1) margin on long-term survival may be confounded. No meta-analysis has worked at the association between R1 margin and outcomes of gastric cancer and the available evidence are scant. Therefore, we plan to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantitatively explore the role of R1 margin on gastric (including oesophagogastric junction) cancer survival after curative intent resection.Methods and analysisThe protocol was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guideline. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases will be performed from their inceptions to 30 April 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case–control studies focusing on the impact of R1 margin on survival of gastric cancer after curative intent resection. The primary outcome will be the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) and the secondary outcomes will be 5-year OS rate and 5-year DFS rate. The Cochrane tool for bias assessment in randomised trials and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-I for the assessment of bias in non-randomised studies (NRS) will be used. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed by visual inspection of forest plots and measured using the I2 statistics. A fixed-effect model will be used when heterogeneity is low, otherwise, a random-effect model will be chosen. Publication bias will be assessed by funnel plots, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be performed in the right context. For each outcome, we will perform data synthesis separately for RCTs and NRS using Rev Man V.5.3 software and compile ‘summary of findings’ tables separately for RCTs and NRS using GRADEpro software. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations considerations will also be used to make an overall assessment of the quality of evidence.Ethics and disseminationThere is no requirement for ethics approval because no patient data will be collected at an individual level in this systematic review and meta-analysis.The results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences, any deviations from the protocol will be clearly documented and explained in its final report.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020165110.

scholarly journals Factors Affecting the Survival of Patients with Oligometastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Shi ◽  
Jianxin Yang ◽  
Ninghua Yao ◽  
Minghai Shao ◽  
Wenxiu Ding ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Overall Survival Rate ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Nsclc Patients

Background. The aim was to investigate the potential factors related with overall survival of oligometastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Methods. A literature search was conducted in databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library up to March 2017. The hazard radio (HR) as well as the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated, and all the statistics analysis was performed by the R 3.12. Heterogeneity was analyzed using I-squared and Cochran Q tests. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the stability of results. Results. In total, 6 articles were included in the meta-analysis. Nodal status was significantly correlated with the overall survival rate of NSCLC oligometastatic patients (HR: 1.69, 95% CI: 1.23–2.32, Z=3.20, P=0.001). No significant relationship was found between overall survival rate of NSCLC oligometastatic patients and the indicators including sex, stage, smoker, age, and histology. Notably, sensitivity analysis on data evaluating relationship between patients survival and the stage and histology showed that results were reversed after removing one of the studies. Conclusions. Nodal status might be associated with the overall survival of oligometastatic NSCLC patients.

Impact of obesity upon the survival of cholangiocarcinoma patients.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 288-288
Author(s):  
Phani Keerthi Surapaneni ◽  
Zhuo Li ◽  
Lalitha Padmanabha Vemireddy ◽  
Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi ◽  
Jason Scott Starr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Tumor Location ◽  
Normal Weight ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Overall Survival Rate ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact

288 Background: Obesity is a risk factor for developing cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). However, the effect of obesity on survival of CCA is unclear. The primary aim of this study was to analyze the impact of obesity upon overall survival of CCA patients. Secondary aims were to analyze impact of obesity upon other disease characteristics such as tumor site, stage, age, sex, BMI and Ca 19-9. Methods: A total of 411 unique pts diagnosed with CCA at Mayo Clinic Florida between 2000 and 2018 were retrieved from our collective SDMS database. Variables evaluated included:demographics, Body Mass Index (BMI), AJCC stage, tumor location and Ca 19-9.A total of 185 pts had all data available pertaining to these variables. We further restricted the analysis to pts with intrahepatic CCA classified BMI as per CDC criteria normal (18.5-25kg/m2), overweight (25-29.9kg/m2) and obese (≥30 kg/m2), thus leaving a total of 152 pts. Continuous and categorical variables were compared across BMI groups using Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact test. Overall survival rates after diagnosis at 1, 2 and 3 years were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Among 152 pts included in the study, 28% were normal weight, 40% were overweight and 32% were obese. The overall survival rate at 1, 2 and 3 years for normal weight pts with all stages combined was 54.1%, 35%, and 30.7%, respectively. The overall survival rate at 1, 2 and 3 years for overweight pts with all stages combined was 59.7 %, 32.6%, and 25.4%, respectively. The overall survival rate at 1, 2 and 3 years for obese pts with all stages combined was 63.9%, 37.6%, and 26.7%, respectively(p = 0.8766). Multivariate analysis demonstrated is no significant difference in overall survival for obese pts compared to normal or overweight pts.(Table to be shown) However it showed, gender and Ca19-9 were statistically significant predictors of overall survival, with males and pts with Ca19-9≥100 doing worse (HR1.65 (CI = 1.05, 2.61, p = 0.031) and HR 2.31 (CI = 1.49, 3.59, p = < 0.01), respectively). Conclusions: BMI did not make a significant impact on the overall survival, though there may be a trend toward worse OS for ptswith higher BMI. A larger, stage focused evaluation is warranted for further exploration of this trend.

scholarly journals Robotic-Assisted vs. Standard Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 19,731 Patients

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 180
Author(s):  
Kamil Safiejko ◽  
Radoslaw Tarkowski ◽  
Maciej Koselak ◽  
Marcin Juchimiuk ◽  
Aleksander Tarasik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Overall Survival Rate ◽  
Cancer Resection ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Standard Laparoscopic Surgery

Robotic-assisted surgery is expected to have advantages over standard laparoscopic approach in patients undergoing curative surgery for rectal cancer. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched from database inception to November 10th, 2021, for both RCTs and observational studies comparing robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection. Where possible, data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Forty-Two were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate was 99.6% for RG and 98.8% for LG (OR = 2.10; 95% CI: 1.00 to 4.43; p = 0.05). Time to first flatus in the RG group was2.5 ± 1.4 days and was statistically significantly shorter than in LG group (2.9 ± 2.0 days; MD=-0.34; 95%CI: −0.65 to 0.03; p = 0.03). In the case of time to a liquid diet, solid diet and bowel movement, the analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). Length of hospital stay in the RG vs LG group varied and amounted to 8.0 ± 5.3 vs 9.5 ± 10.0 days (MD = −2.01; 95%CI: −2.90 to −1.11; p < 0.001). Overall, 30-days complications in the RG and LG groups were 27.2% and 19.0% (OR = 1.11; 95%CI: 0.80 to 1.55; p = 0.53), respectively. In summary, robotic-assisted techniques provide several advantages over laparoscopic techniques in reducing operative time, significantly lowering conversion of the procedure to open surgery, shortening the duration of hospital stay, lowering the risk of urinary retention, improving survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate.

Evaluation of overall survival rate of different therapies in the treatment of T1–T3 prostate cancer: a network meta-analysis

Neoplasma ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 65 (03) ◽  
pp. 398-405
Author(s):  
S. Y. CHEN ◽  
Y. DU ◽  
Q. SHAO ◽  
J. S. LI ◽  
H. Y.
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Overall Survival Rate
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document