Effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy in the treatment of esophageal adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant therapy is an essential modality for reducing the clinical stage of esophageal cancer; however, the superiority of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) is unclear. Therefore, a discussion of these two modalities is necessary. AIM: To investigate the benefits and complications of neoadjuvant modalities. METHODS: To address this concern, predefined criteria were established using the PICO protocol. Two independent authors performed comprehensive searches using predetermined keywords. Statistical analyses were performed to identify significant differences between groups. Potential publication bias was visualized using funnel plots. The quality of the data was evaluated using the Risk of Bias Tool 2 (RoB2) and the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Ten articles, including 1928 patients, were included for the analysis. Significant difference was detected in pathological complete response (pCR) [P < 0.001; odds ratio (OR): 0.27; 95%CI: 0.16-0.46], 30-d mortality (P = 0.015; OR: 0.4; 95%CI: 0.22-0.71) favoring the nCRT, and renal failure (P = 0.039; OR: 1.04; 95%CI: 0.66-1.64) favoring the nCT. No significant differences were observed in terms of survival, local or distal recurrence, or other clinical or surgical complications. The result of RoB2 was moderate, and that of the GRADE approach was low or very low in almost all cases. CONCLUSION: Although nCRT may have a higher pCR rate, it does not translate to greater long-term survival. Moreover, nCRT is associated with higher 30-d mortality, although the specific cause for postoperative complications could not be identified. In the case of nCT, toxic side effects are suspected, which can reduce the quality of life. Given the quality of available studies, further randomized trials are required.

Faster recovery and bowel movement after early oral feeding compared to late oral feeding after upper GI tumor resections: a meta-analysis.

Background: There were more than 1 million new cases of stomach cancer concerning oesophageal cancer, there were more than 600,000 new cases of oesophageal cancer in 2020. After a successful resection in these cases, the role of early oral feeding (EOF) was questionable, due to the possibility of fatal anastomosis leakage. It is still debated whether EOF is more advantageous compared to late oral feeding. Our study aimed to compare the effect of early postoperative oral feeding and late oral feeding after upper gastrointestinal resections due to malignancy. Methods: Two authors performed an extensive search and selection of articles independently to identify randomized control trials (RCT) of the question of interest. Statistical analyses were performed including mean difference, odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals, statistical heterogeneity, and statistical publication bias, to identify potential significant differences. The Risk of Bias and the quality of evidence were estimated. Results: We identified 6 relevant RCTs, which included 703 patients. The appearance of the first gas (MD = -1.16; p = 0.009), first defecation (MD = -0.91; p < 0.001), and the length of hospitalization (MD = -1.92; p = 0.008) favored the EOF group. Numerous binary outcomes were defined, but significant difference was not verified in the case of anastomosis insufficiency (p = 0.98), pneumonia (p = 0.88), wound infection (p = 0.48), bleeding (p = 0.52), rehospitalization (p = 0.23), rehospitalization to the intensive care unit (ICU) (p = 0.46), gastrointestinal paresis (p = 0.66), ascites (p = 0.45). Conclusion: Early postoperative oral feeding, compared to late oral feeding has no risk of several possible postoperative morbidities after upper GI surgeries, but has several advantageous effects on a patient's recovery. Systematic Review Registration: identifier, CRD 42022302594.