老年局部晚期食管癌患者的治疗策略:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Jiacheng Yao, Xinyu Zhao, Jun Chen, Tingting Liu, Yaowen Song, Jun Dang
{"title":"老年局部晚期食管癌患者的治疗策略:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Jiacheng Yao, Xinyu Zhao, Jun Chen, Tingting Liu, Yaowen Song, Jun Dang","doi":"10.1186/s12885-024-12853-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery remains a standard of care for resectable esophageal cancer (EC), and definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is an alternative for unresectable diseases. However, it is controversial for the use of the two aggressive regimens in elderly patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched multiple databases for studies comparing overall survival (OS) and/or progression-free survival (PFS) between dCRT and surgery (nCRT + surgery or surgery alone) or between dCRT and radiotherapy (RT) alone in elderly patients (age ≥ 65 years) until March 28, 2024. Statistical analysis was performed using random-effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourty-five studies with 33,729 patients were included. dCRT significantly prolonged OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-0.70) and PFS (HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.60-0.76) compared to RT alone for unresectable EC, and resulted in a worse OS compared to surgery for resectable cases (HR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.23-1.45). Similar results of OS were also observed when the multivariate-adjusted HRs were used as the measure of effect (dCRT vs. RT alone: HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.58-0.73; dCRT vs. surgery: HR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.28-1.74). Subgroup analyses according to age group (≥ 70, ≥ 75, or ≥ 80 years), study design, study region, histological type, radiation field, chemotherapy regimen revealed comparable results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>nCRT + surgery is likely a preferred strategy for elderly patients with good physiological conditions; and dCRT is a better alternative for unresectable cases. Advanced age alone does not appear to be a key predictor for the tolerability of the two aggressive treatments.</p>","PeriodicalId":9131,"journal":{"name":"BMC Cancer","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11373433/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treatment strategies for elderly patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Jiacheng Yao, Xinyu Zhao, Jun Chen, Tingting Liu, Yaowen Song, Jun Dang\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12885-024-12853-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery remains a standard of care for resectable esophageal cancer (EC), and definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is an alternative for unresectable diseases. However, it is controversial for the use of the two aggressive regimens in elderly patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched multiple databases for studies comparing overall survival (OS) and/or progression-free survival (PFS) between dCRT and surgery (nCRT + surgery or surgery alone) or between dCRT and radiotherapy (RT) alone in elderly patients (age ≥ 65 years) until March 28, 2024. Statistical analysis was performed using random-effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourty-five studies with 33,729 patients were included. dCRT significantly prolonged OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-0.70) and PFS (HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.60-0.76) compared to RT alone for unresectable EC, and resulted in a worse OS compared to surgery for resectable cases (HR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.23-1.45). Similar results of OS were also observed when the multivariate-adjusted HRs were used as the measure of effect (dCRT vs. RT alone: HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.58-0.73; dCRT vs. surgery: HR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.28-1.74). Subgroup analyses according to age group (≥ 70, ≥ 75, or ≥ 80 years), study design, study region, histological type, radiation field, chemotherapy regimen revealed comparable results.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>nCRT + surgery is likely a preferred strategy for elderly patients with good physiological conditions; and dCRT is a better alternative for unresectable cases. Advanced age alone does not appear to be a key predictor for the tolerability of the two aggressive treatments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9131,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Cancer\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11373433/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12853-y\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12853-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:新辅助化放疗(nCRT)后手术仍然是可切除食管癌(EC)的标准治疗方法,而确定性化放疗(dCRT)是不可切除疾病的替代治疗方法。然而,在老年患者中使用这两种积极的治疗方案还存在争议:截至 2024 年 3 月 28 日,我们在多个数据库中系统检索了老年患者(年龄≥65 岁)中比较 dCRT 与手术(nCRT + 手术或单纯手术)或 dCRT 与单纯放疗(RT)之间的总生存期(OS)和/或无进展生存期(PFS)的研究。统计分析采用随机效应模型:与单纯RT相比,dCRT可显著延长不可切除EC的OS(危险比[HR] = 0.64,95%置信区间[CI]:0.58-0.70)和PFS(HR = 0.67,95% CI:0.60-0.76),与手术相比,可切除病例的OS更差(HR = 1.34,95% CI:1.23-1.45)。当使用多变量调整后的HRs作为效果衡量标准时,也观察到了类似的OS结果(dCRT与单纯RT相比:HR = 0.65,95% CI:0.58-0.73;dCRT与手术相比:HR = 1.49,95% CI:0.58-0.73):HR = 1.49,95% CI:1.28-1.74)。根据年龄组(≥70岁、≥75岁或≥80岁)、研究设计、研究地区、组织学类型、放射野、化疗方案进行的亚组分析显示结果相当。高龄似乎并不是预测这两种积极治疗方法耐受性的关键因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Treatment strategies for elderly patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery remains a standard of care for resectable esophageal cancer (EC), and definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is an alternative for unresectable diseases. However, it is controversial for the use of the two aggressive regimens in elderly patients.

Methods: We systematically searched multiple databases for studies comparing overall survival (OS) and/or progression-free survival (PFS) between dCRT and surgery (nCRT + surgery or surgery alone) or between dCRT and radiotherapy (RT) alone in elderly patients (age ≥ 65 years) until March 28, 2024. Statistical analysis was performed using random-effects model.

Results: Fourty-five studies with 33,729 patients were included. dCRT significantly prolonged OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-0.70) and PFS (HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.60-0.76) compared to RT alone for unresectable EC, and resulted in a worse OS compared to surgery for resectable cases (HR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.23-1.45). Similar results of OS were also observed when the multivariate-adjusted HRs were used as the measure of effect (dCRT vs. RT alone: HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.58-0.73; dCRT vs. surgery: HR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.28-1.74). Subgroup analyses according to age group (≥ 70, ≥ 75, or ≥ 80 years), study design, study region, histological type, radiation field, chemotherapy regimen revealed comparable results.

Conclusions: nCRT + surgery is likely a preferred strategy for elderly patients with good physiological conditions; and dCRT is a better alternative for unresectable cases. Advanced age alone does not appear to be a key predictor for the tolerability of the two aggressive treatments.

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
BMC Cancer
BMC Cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
2.60%
发文量
1204
审稿时长
6.8 months
期刊介绍: BMC Cancer is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of cancer research, including the pathophysiology, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancers. The journal welcomes submissions concerning molecular and cellular biology, genetics, epidemiology, and clinical trials.
×
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