Is PEGylated G-CSF superior to G-CSF in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: PEGylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a safe alternative to G-CSF to improve chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN). This superiority has resulted in its increased use by physicians; however, the superiority of PEGylated G-CSF for CIN in breast cancer has not been conclusively determined. OBJECTIVES: To assess the superiority of PEGylated G-CSF for CIN in breast cancer in terms of effectiveness and safety via a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A literature search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed for eligible studies published from database inception to December 2019. All studies comparing PEGylated G-CSF and G-CSF for CIN of breast cancer were reviewed. After literature selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis was conducted using Revman, version 5.2. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials were finally identified. The publication bias of these studies was acceptable. For the endpoint of effectiveness, analysis of the incidence/duration of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia, the duration of grade 4 neutropenia, the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), and the time to absolute neutrophil count recovery showed no advantage of PEGylated G-CSF over G-CSF for CIN of breast cancer (P > 0.05), with the premise of a sufficient dose of G-CSF according to the guidelines. No significant differences in grade 4 adverse events were observed between the groups (P = 0.29), and PEGylated G-CSF did not increase the incidence of skeletal and/or muscle pain compared with G-CSF (P = 0.32). CONCLUSION: PEGylated G-CSF was as effective and safe as G-CSF to reduce CIN in breast cancer but did not show an obvious superiority. However, in clinical practice, PEGylated G-CSF has an obvious advantage in terms of convenience, which could improve patient's quality of life.

Is laparoscopic appendectomy feasible for complicated appendicitis ?A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: laparoscopic appendectomy(LA) has proved to be a safe alternative to open appendectomy(OA) in uncomplicated appendicitis; however, the feasibility of LA for complicated appendicitis(CA) has not been conclusively determined. OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility and safety of LA for CA through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A literature search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and web of Science was performed for eligible studies published from the inception of the databases to January 2016. All studies comparing LA and OA for CA were reviewed. After literature selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers independently, and meta-analysis was conducted using Revman software, vision 5.2. RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14 retrospective cohort studies(RCSs) were finally identified. Our meta-analysis showed that LA for CA could reduce the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) (OR = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.25 to0.31, P < 0.00001), but LA did not increase the rate of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess(IAA) (OR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.34, P = 0.40). The results showed that the operating time in the LA groups was much longer than that in the OA groups (WMD = 13.78, 95% CI: 8.99 to 18.57, P < 0.00001). However, the length of hospital stays in the LA groups were significantly shorter than those in the OA groups (WMD = -2.47, 95%CI: -3.75 to -1.19, P < 0.0002), and the time until oral intake(TTOI) was much earlier in the LA groups than in the OA groups (WMD = -0.88, 95% CI: -1.20 to -0.55, P < 0.00001). No significant difference was observed in the times of postoperative analgesia between the two groups(P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: LA was feasible and safe for complicated appendicitis, and it not only could shorten the hospital stays and the time until oral intake, but it could also reduce the risk of surgical site infection.