4.5 Review

Meta-analysis of survival based on resection margin status following surgery for recurrent rectal cancer

期刊

COLORECTAL DISEASE
卷 14, 期 12, 页码 1457-1466

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.03005.x

关键词

Recurrent rectal cancer; resection margin; exenteration

资金

  1. Imperial College Cancer Research UK centre
  2. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0507-10161] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To determine the presence and duration of survival advantages was investigated for resection margin status (R0, R1 or R2) following surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). Method A systematic review of the literature was performed for studies comparing resection margin status for LRRC. Weighted mean differences and meta-analysis of hazard ratios were used as a measure of median and overall cumulative survival. Results Twenty-two studies were included, providing outcome for 1460 patients undergoing surgery for LRRC. 57% underwent an R0 resection, 25% an R1 resection and 11% an R2 resection. The most commonly performed operations were abdominoperineal excision (35%), exenteration (23%) and anterior resection (21%). The range of median survival per resection margin was R0 28-92 months, R1 12-50 months, R2 6-17 months. Patients undergoing an R0 resection survived on average for 37.6 (95% confidence interval: 23.5-51.7) months longer than those undergoing R1 resection and 53.0 (31.2-74.8) months longer than those undergoing R2 resection. This correlated to a hazard ratio of 2.03 (1.73-2.38) for R0 vs R1 and 3.41 (2.21-5.25) for R0 vs R2. Patients undergoing R1 resection survived on average 13.3 (7.23-19.4) months longer than those undergoing R2 resection [hazard ratio of 1.68 (1.33-2.12)]. Conclusion Patients undergoing R0 resection have the greatest survival advantage following surgery for recurrent rectal cancer. There is a survival advantage for R1 over R2 resection, but there may be no benefit of R2 resection over palliative treatment.

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

4.5
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