4.6 Article

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 28, 期 5, 页码 777-782

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.12152

关键词

gastric cancer; meta-analysis; neoadjuvant chemotherapy; randomized controlled trial

资金

  1. Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aim Although the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in gastric cancer has been extensively studied, the data of survival benefit are still controversial. The purpose of this work was to assess the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery in patients with gastric cancer. Methods We searched systematically electronic through the databases of PUBMED, EMBASE, China Biological Medicine, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure Whole Article for studies published from 1975. Two reviewers independently evaluated the relevant reports and searched manually reference from these reports for additional trials. Outcomes assessed by meta-analysis included overall survival rate, progression-free survival rate, R0 resection rate, downstaging effect, postoperative complications, and perioperative mortality. Results Six randomized, controlled trials with 781 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Odds ratio (95% confidence interval; P-value), expressed as neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery versus surgery alone, was 1.16 (0.851.58; P=0.36) for overall survival, 1.24 (0.781.96; P=0.36) for R0 resection, 1.25 (0.752.09; P=0.39) for postoperative complications, and 3.60 (0.5922.45; P=0.17) for perioperative mortality. Conclusions Compared with surgery alone, neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery was not associated with a higher rate of overall survival or complete resection (R0 resection). It does not increase treatment-related morbidity and mortality. This meta-analysis did not demonstrate a survival benefit for the combination of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据