肝细胞癌患者接受桥接性局部治疗后移植后的长期生存结果:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.7 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
JGH Open Pub Date : 2024-07-08 DOI:10.1002/jgh3.13111
Alan Chuncharunee, Songporn Oranratnachai, Lancharat Chuncharunee, Pongphob Intaraprasong, Ammarin Thakkinstian, Abhasnee Sobhonslidsuk
{"title":"肝细胞癌患者接受桥接性局部治疗后移植后的长期生存结果:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Alan Chuncharunee,&nbsp;Songporn Oranratnachai,&nbsp;Lancharat Chuncharunee,&nbsp;Pongphob Intaraprasong,&nbsp;Ammarin Thakkinstian,&nbsp;Abhasnee Sobhonslidsuk","doi":"10.1002/jgh3.13111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>Liver transplantation (LT) is essential due to its curative efficacy, but liver-graft shortages have limited its widespread application. Bridging locoregional therapy (LRT) before LT has been performed to prevent tumor progression, and a recent literature review revealed that it is associated with a nonsignificant trend toward better survival outcomes. However, much more information on bridging therapy has become available since then. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the posttransplant survival and HCC recurrence between patients with and without pretransplant bridging LRT.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Studies were identified in MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library. Two independent researchers screened titles and full articles, extracted relevant data, and conducted a parametric survival analysis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Out of 4794 studies, 18 cohort studies were eligible. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 93.1%, 85.0%, and 79.1% for those in the bridging LRT group, while they were 91.8%, 81.1%, and 75.5% for those who did not receive LRT, respectively. There were no differences in overall survival between these groups (HR 0.90; 0.78–1.05, P = 0.17). Interestingly, we discovered that bridging therapy helped prolong survival significantly in a high-risk population with a long waiting time (HR 0.76; 0.60–0.96, P = 0.02). Unfortunately, bridging LRT did not improve disease-free survival (HR 0.98; 0.86–1.11, P = 0.70).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The results indicate that bridging LRT does not generally change post-LT outcomes. However, bridging LRT can significantly improve survival in patients with a long waiting time for LT.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":45861,"journal":{"name":"JGH Open","volume":"8 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11228543/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Long-term posttransplant survival outcome following bridging locoregional therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Alan Chuncharunee,&nbsp;Songporn Oranratnachai,&nbsp;Lancharat Chuncharunee,&nbsp;Pongphob Intaraprasong,&nbsp;Ammarin Thakkinstian,&nbsp;Abhasnee Sobhonslidsuk\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jgh3.13111\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>Liver transplantation (LT) is essential due to its curative efficacy, but liver-graft shortages have limited its widespread application. Bridging locoregional therapy (LRT) before LT has been performed to prevent tumor progression, and a recent literature review revealed that it is associated with a nonsignificant trend toward better survival outcomes. However, much more information on bridging therapy has become available since then. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the posttransplant survival and HCC recurrence between patients with and without pretransplant bridging LRT.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Studies were identified in MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library. Two independent researchers screened titles and full articles, extracted relevant data, and conducted a parametric survival analysis.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Out of 4794 studies, 18 cohort studies were eligible. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 93.1%, 85.0%, and 79.1% for those in the bridging LRT group, while they were 91.8%, 81.1%, and 75.5% for those who did not receive LRT, respectively. There were no differences in overall survival between these groups (HR 0.90; 0.78–1.05, P = 0.17). Interestingly, we discovered that bridging therapy helped prolong survival significantly in a high-risk population with a long waiting time (HR 0.76; 0.60–0.96, P = 0.02). Unfortunately, bridging LRT did not improve disease-free survival (HR 0.98; 0.86–1.11, P = 0.70).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The results indicate that bridging LRT does not generally change post-LT outcomes. However, bridging LRT can significantly improve survival in patients with a long waiting time for LT.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JGH Open\",\"volume\":\"8 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11228543/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JGH Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgh3.13111\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JGH Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgh3.13111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:肝移植(LT)因其疗效显著而必不可少,但肝移植的短缺限制了其广泛应用。在肝移植前进行桥接局部治疗(LRT)是为了防止肿瘤进展,最近的一篇文献综述显示,桥接治疗与改善生存预后的趋势无明显关联。然而,从那时起,有关桥接疗法的信息越来越多。本荟萃分析旨在比较接受和未接受移植前桥接 LRT 患者的移植后生存率和 HCC 复发率:方法:在 MEDLINE、SCOPUS 和 Cochrane 图书馆中查找相关研究。两名独立研究人员筛选了文章标题和全文,提取了相关数据,并进行了参数生存分析:在 4794 项研究中,有 18 项队列研究符合条件。桥接 LRT 组患者的 1 年、3 年和 5 年总生存率(OS)分别为 93.1%、85.0% 和 79.1%,而未接受 LRT 组患者的 1 年、3 年和 5 年总生存率分别为 91.8%、81.1% 和 75.5%。这两组患者的总生存率没有差异(HR 0.90; 0.78-1.05, P = 0.17)。有趣的是,我们发现在等待时间较长的高危人群中,桥接疗法有助于显著延长生存期(HR 0.76;0.60-0.96,P = 0.02)。遗憾的是,桥接 LRT 并未提高无病生存率(HR 0.98;0.86-1.11,P = 0.70):结果表明,桥接 LRT 一般不会改变 LT 后的预后。结论:研究结果表明,LRT桥接一般不会改变LT后的预后,但对于LT等待时间较长的患者,LRT桥接可显著提高其生存率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Long-term posttransplant survival outcome following bridging locoregional therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Long-term posttransplant survival outcome following bridging locoregional therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

Liver transplantation (LT) is essential due to its curative efficacy, but liver-graft shortages have limited its widespread application. Bridging locoregional therapy (LRT) before LT has been performed to prevent tumor progression, and a recent literature review revealed that it is associated with a nonsignificant trend toward better survival outcomes. However, much more information on bridging therapy has become available since then. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the posttransplant survival and HCC recurrence between patients with and without pretransplant bridging LRT.

Methods

Studies were identified in MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library. Two independent researchers screened titles and full articles, extracted relevant data, and conducted a parametric survival analysis.

Results

Out of 4794 studies, 18 cohort studies were eligible. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 93.1%, 85.0%, and 79.1% for those in the bridging LRT group, while they were 91.8%, 81.1%, and 75.5% for those who did not receive LRT, respectively. There were no differences in overall survival between these groups (HR 0.90; 0.78–1.05, P = 0.17). Interestingly, we discovered that bridging therapy helped prolong survival significantly in a high-risk population with a long waiting time (HR 0.76; 0.60–0.96, P = 0.02). Unfortunately, bridging LRT did not improve disease-free survival (HR 0.98; 0.86–1.11, P = 0.70).

Conclusions

The results indicate that bridging LRT does not generally change post-LT outcomes. However, bridging LRT can significantly improve survival in patients with a long waiting time for LT.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JGH Open
JGH Open GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
143
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信