4.7 Review

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of neoadjuvant therapy combined with surgery for patients with resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 38, 期 -, 页码 41-47

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.12.035

关键词

Neoadjuvant therapy; Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; Network meta-analysis

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The role of neoadjuvant therapy combined with surgery for treating esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remains controversial. We performed a network meta-analysis to synthesize direct and indirect evidence to identify the optimal therapeutic method for ESCC. Methods: We identified 15 randomized controlled trials that compared any of the following 4 therapeutic measures: surgery alone (S), preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery (CTS), preoperative radiotherapy followed by surgery (RTS), and preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (CRTS). The main outcomes were 5-year survival, rate of radical resection, operative mortality and postoperative complications. Results: Network meta-analysis showed that CRTS was associated with improved survival as compared with S (OR = 1.50 [95% CI 1.21 to 1.97]) and decreased occurrence of complications as compared with RTS (OR = 0.50 [95% CI 0.22 to 0.99]). Direct evidence revealed CRTS associated with improved survival (OR = 1.61 [95% CI 1.01 to 2.57]) and radical resection (OR = 4.01 [95% CI 1.66 to 9.69]) as compared with S. In terms of radical resection, CTS was more effective than S (OR = 1.73 [95% CI 1.09 to 2.76]). Findings for CTS and RTS did not differ for 5-year survival, operative mortality and postoperative complications. Conclusions: Overall, CRTS might be the best choice for resectable ESCC because it could increase the radical resection rate and lower the occurrence of complications, thereby prolonging survival time. (C) 2016 IJS Publishing Group Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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