Sarah El-Nakeep, Samragnyi Madala, Anusha Chidharla, Balarama Krishna Surapaneni, Subhrajit Saha, Benjamin Martin, Anup Kasi
{"title":"早期直肠癌根治术与局部切除术的比较:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Sarah El-Nakeep, Samragnyi Madala, Anusha Chidharla, Balarama Krishna Surapaneni, Subhrajit Saha, Benjamin Martin, Anup Kasi","doi":"10.26502/aimr.0160","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Radical excision (RE) for rectal cancer carries a higher risk of mortality and morbidity, while local excision (LE) could decrease these postoperative risks. However, the long-term benefit of LE is still debatable.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To study the effectiveness of LE versus RE in T1 and T2 rectal cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using key databases like PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. Only cohort studies and randomized controlled trials were included. RevMan 5.4 tool was used for data analysis. Both clinical and statistical heterogeneity of the studies were assessed, and I<sup>2</sup> >75% was considered as highly heterogeneous. The primary outcomes being measured were 5-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year disease free survival (DFS). A subgroup analysis of patients with T1-only was also conducted, without adjuvant chemo/radiotherapy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 18 studies were included for final meta-analysis. Four were RCTs, while the other 15 were retrospective cohort studies. One included study had data from both RCT and non-RCT study groups. Nine studies were multicentered or national studies while nine were unicentral.There was no difference in risk ratio (RR) between OS: RR 0.95, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [0.91, 0.99] and DFS: RR 0.93, 95% CI [0.87, 1.01]. There were lower hazards ratios in OS: RR 1.41, 95% CI [1.14, 1.74] and DFS: RR 1.95, 95% CI [1.36, 2.78] with radical, as compared to LE. Lower recurrence rate was associated with RE. Random effect model was used due to clinical heterogeneity between studies (different surgical procedures, tumor staging, adjuvant chemo or radiotherapy).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LE for early-stage rectal cancer has lower 5-year OS and DFS than RE, with higher local recurrence rate. However, LE is associated with lower early postoperative mortality, morbidity and length of stay as compared to RE.</p>","PeriodicalId":519871,"journal":{"name":"Archives of internal medicine research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11008054/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Radical versus Local Surgical Excision for Early Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah El-Nakeep, Samragnyi Madala, Anusha Chidharla, Balarama Krishna Surapaneni, Subhrajit Saha, Benjamin Martin, Anup Kasi\",\"doi\":\"10.26502/aimr.0160\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Radical excision (RE) for rectal cancer carries a higher risk of mortality and morbidity, while local excision (LE) could decrease these postoperative risks. However, the long-term benefit of LE is still debatable.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To study the effectiveness of LE versus RE in T1 and T2 rectal cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using key databases like PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. Only cohort studies and randomized controlled trials were included. RevMan 5.4 tool was used for data analysis. Both clinical and statistical heterogeneity of the studies were assessed, and I<sup>2</sup> >75% was considered as highly heterogeneous. The primary outcomes being measured were 5-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year disease free survival (DFS). A subgroup analysis of patients with T1-only was also conducted, without adjuvant chemo/radiotherapy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 18 studies were included for final meta-analysis. Four were RCTs, while the other 15 were retrospective cohort studies. One included study had data from both RCT and non-RCT study groups. Nine studies were multicentered or national studies while nine were unicentral.There was no difference in risk ratio (RR) between OS: RR 0.95, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [0.91, 0.99] and DFS: RR 0.93, 95% CI [0.87, 1.01]. There were lower hazards ratios in OS: RR 1.41, 95% CI [1.14, 1.74] and DFS: RR 1.95, 95% CI [1.36, 2.78] with radical, as compared to LE. Lower recurrence rate was associated with RE. Random effect model was used due to clinical heterogeneity between studies (different surgical procedures, tumor staging, adjuvant chemo or radiotherapy).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LE for early-stage rectal cancer has lower 5-year OS and DFS than RE, with higher local recurrence rate. However, LE is associated with lower early postoperative mortality, morbidity and length of stay as compared to RE.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":519871,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of internal medicine research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11008054/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of internal medicine research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26502/aimr.0160\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of internal medicine research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26502/aimr.0160","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:直肠癌根治性切除术(RE)具有较高的死亡率和发病率风险,而局部切除术(LE)可降低这些术后风险。目的:研究在 T1 和 T2 直肠癌中局部切除术与根治术的有效性:方法:利用PubMed和ClinicalTrials.gov等主要数据库进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。仅纳入了队列研究和随机对照试验。数据分析使用 RevMan 5.4 工具。对研究的临床和统计异质性进行了评估,I2>75%被视为高度异质性。衡量的主要结果是5年总生存期(OS)和5年无病生存期(DFS)。此外,还对未进行辅助化疗/放疗的纯T1患者进行了亚组分析:最终荟萃分析共纳入了 18 项研究。其中 4 项为研究性临床试验,另外 15 项为回顾性队列研究。其中一项研究同时包含了研究性临床试验组和非研究性临床试验组的数据。9项研究为多中心或全国性研究,9项为单中心研究:OS: RR 0.95, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [0.91, 0.99] 和 DFS: RR 0.93, 95% CI [0.87, 1.01]之间的风险比(RR)没有差异。OS 的危险比较低:与 LE 相比,根治术的危险比更低:OS:RR 1.41,95% CI [1.14,1.74] DFS:RR 1.95,95% CI [1.36,2.78]。RE的复发率较低。由于不同研究之间存在临床异质性(不同的手术方法、肿瘤分期、辅助化疗或放疗),因此采用了随机效应模型:结论:与RE相比,LE治疗早期直肠癌的5年OS和DFS较低,局部复发率较高。然而,与RE相比,LE的术后早期死亡率、发病率和住院时间较低。
Radical versus Local Surgical Excision for Early Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Background: Radical excision (RE) for rectal cancer carries a higher risk of mortality and morbidity, while local excision (LE) could decrease these postoperative risks. However, the long-term benefit of LE is still debatable.
Aim: To study the effectiveness of LE versus RE in T1 and T2 rectal cancer.
Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using key databases like PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. Only cohort studies and randomized controlled trials were included. RevMan 5.4 tool was used for data analysis. Both clinical and statistical heterogeneity of the studies were assessed, and I2 >75% was considered as highly heterogeneous. The primary outcomes being measured were 5-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year disease free survival (DFS). A subgroup analysis of patients with T1-only was also conducted, without adjuvant chemo/radiotherapy.
Results: A total of 18 studies were included for final meta-analysis. Four were RCTs, while the other 15 were retrospective cohort studies. One included study had data from both RCT and non-RCT study groups. Nine studies were multicentered or national studies while nine were unicentral.There was no difference in risk ratio (RR) between OS: RR 0.95, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [0.91, 0.99] and DFS: RR 0.93, 95% CI [0.87, 1.01]. There were lower hazards ratios in OS: RR 1.41, 95% CI [1.14, 1.74] and DFS: RR 1.95, 95% CI [1.36, 2.78] with radical, as compared to LE. Lower recurrence rate was associated with RE. Random effect model was used due to clinical heterogeneity between studies (different surgical procedures, tumor staging, adjuvant chemo or radiotherapy).
Conclusions: LE for early-stage rectal cancer has lower 5-year OS and DFS than RE, with higher local recurrence rate. However, LE is associated with lower early postoperative mortality, morbidity and length of stay as compared to RE.