ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND@#The neoadjuvant chemotherapy is increasingly used in advanced gastric cancer, but the effects on safety and survival are still controversial. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the overall survival and short-term surgical outcomes between neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (NACS) and surgery alone (SA) for locally advanced gastric cancer.@*METHODS@#Databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar) were explored for relative studies from January 2000 to January 2021. The quality of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies was evaluated using the modified Jadad scoring system and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, respectively. The Review Manager software (version 5.3) was used to perform this meta-analysis. The overall survival was evaluated as the primary outcome, while perioperative indicators and post-operative complications were evaluated as the secondary outcomes.@*RESULTS@#Twenty studies, including 1420 NACS cases and 1942 SA cases, were enrolled. The results showed that there were no significant differences in overall survival (P = 0.240), harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.200), total complications (P = 0.080), and 30-day post-operative mortality (P = 0.490) between the NACS and SA groups. However, the NACS group was associated with a longer operation time (P < 0.0001), a higher R0 resection rate (P = 0.003), less reoperation (P = 0.030), and less anastomotic leakage (P = 0.007) compared with SA group.@*CONCLUSIONS@#Compared with SA, NACS was considered safe and feasible for improved R0 resection rate as well as decreased reoperation and anastomotic leakage. While unbenefited overall survival indicated a less important effect of NACS on long-term oncological outcomes.
Subject(s)
Humans , Neoadjuvant Therapy , Stomach Neoplasms/surgery , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND@#Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) has become a popular procedure for low rectal cancer as compared with abdominoperineal excision (APE). No definitive answer has been achieved whether one is superior to the other. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ELAPE for low rectal cancer with meta-analysis.@*METHODS@#The Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed databases before September 2019 were comprehensively searched to retrieve comparative trials of ELAPE and APE for low rectal cancer. Pooled analyses of the perioperative variables, surgical complications, and oncological variables were performed. Odds ratio (OR) and mean differences (MD) from each trial were pooled using random or fixed effects model depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies. A subgroup analysis or a sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the potential source of heterogeneity when necessary.@*RESULTS@#This meta-analysis included 17 studies with 4049 patients, of whom 2248 (55.5%) underwent ELAPE and 1801 (44.5%) underwent APE. There were no statistical differences regarding the circumferential resection margin positivity (13.0% vs. 16.2%, OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.42-1.14, P = 0.15) and post-operative perineal wound complication rate (28.9% vs. 24.1%, OR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.75-1.94, P = 0.43). The ELAPE was associated with lower rate of intraoperative perforation (6.6% vs. 11.3%, OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.39-0.64, P < 0.001) and local recurrence (8.8% vs. 20.5%, OR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.21-0.41, P < 0.001) when compared with APE.@*CONCLUSIONS@#The ELAPE was associated with a reduction in the rate of intra-operative perforation and local recurrence, without any increase in the circumferential resection margin positivity and post-operative perineal wound complication rate when compared with APE in the surgical treatment of low rectal cancer.
ABSTRACT
Background@#Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) has become a popular procedure for low rectal cancer as compared with abdominoperineal excision (APE). No definitive answer has been achieved whether one is superior to the other. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ELAPE for low rectal cancer with meta-analysis.@*Methods@#The Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed databases before September 2019 were comprehensively searched to retrieve comparative trials of ELAPE and APE for low rectal cancer. Pooled analyses of the perioperative variables, surgical complications, and oncological variables were performed. Odds ratio (OR) and mean differences (MD) from each trial were pooled using random or fixed effects model depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies. A subgroup analysis or a sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the potential source of heterogeneity when necessary.@*Results@#This meta-analysis included 17 studies with 4049 patients, of whom 2248 (55.5%) underwent ELAPE and 1801 (44.5%) underwent APE. There were no statistical differences regarding the circumferential resection margin positivity (13.0% vs. 16.2%, OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.42-1.14, P = 0.15) and post-operative perineal wound complication rate (28.9% vs. 24.1%, OR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.75-1.94, P= 0.43). The ELAPE was associated with lower rate of intraoperative perforation (6.6% vs. 11.3%, OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.39-0.64, P < 0.001) and local recurrence (8.8% vs. 20.5%, OR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.21-0.41, P < 0.001) when compared with APE.@*Conclusions@#The ELAPE was associated with a reduction in the rate of intra-operative perforation and local recurrence, without any increase in the circumferential resection margin positivity and post-operative perineal wound complication rate when compared with APE in the surgical treatment of low rectal cancer.