辅助化疗治疗胆道切除癌的疗效:随机临床试验的系统回顾和网络荟萃分析。

IF 12.5 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Yishan Peng, Aijun Liang, Zhi Chen, Bin Yang, Wenke Yu, Jingduo Deng, Yu Fu, Yu Nie, Yuan Cheng
{"title":"辅助化疗治疗胆道切除癌的疗效:随机临床试验的系统回顾和网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Yishan Peng, Aijun Liang, Zhi Chen, Bin Yang, Wenke Yu, Jingduo Deng, Yu Fu, Yu Nie, Yuan Cheng","doi":"10.1097/JS9.0000000000002161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite complete resection, the recurrence rate of biliary tract cancer (BTC) remains high, leading to poor prognosis. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) following radical resection may substantially reduce the recurrence risk by eradicating micrometastatic lesions. However, the benefits of postoperative ACT and the optimal ACT strategy are still unclear for BTC. The objectives of this study are to evaluate the prognostic value of ACT and compare the effectiveness of different ACTs among BTC patients after curative resection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the benefits of ACT versus no intervention or other ACTs in BTC patients after curative resection. A random-effects network meta-analysis was performed to compare overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). The quality of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight RCTs comprising 1803 patients were included in the meta-analysis. ACT was associated with significant improvements in 5-year all-cause mortality [four RCTs, hazard rate (HR) 0.93; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.87-1.00, marginally significant; low-certainty evidence], RFS (five RCTs, HR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98; moderate-certainty evidence), and OS (7 studies, HR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96; low-certainty evidence) compared with observation. ACT had significantly better survival benefits on patients with negative margins (R0), lymph node-positive (N+), and tumor node metastasis classification (TNM) stage I/II ( P < 0.05). Further network meta-analysis demonstrated that fluorouracil-based ACT was significantly inferior to gemcitabine-based ACT (HR 1.20; 95% CI, 1.10-1.25) in improving RFS. However, both were superior to observation ( P < 0.05). No statistical difference in OS was observed between gemcitabine-based and fluorouracil-based chemotherapy (HR 1.00; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20). In subgroup analysis, fluorouracil-based ACT but not gemcitabine-based ACT achieved significantly better OS benefits on patients with N+ (HR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.86) and R0 (HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.88).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with observation, ACT should be routinely recommended to improve survival outcomes in BTC patients after curative resection, especially for those with R0, N+, and TNM stage I/II. Gemcitabine-based ACT performed better than other chemotherapies in improving RFS. This network meta-analysis provides precise information for determining the best adjuvant treatment for resected BTC. Further thorough and high-quality RCTs are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":14401,"journal":{"name":"International journal of surgery","volume":" ","pages":"2182-2194"},"PeriodicalIF":12.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy for curative resected biliary tract cancers: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.\",\"authors\":\"Yishan Peng, Aijun Liang, Zhi Chen, Bin Yang, Wenke Yu, Jingduo Deng, Yu Fu, Yu Nie, Yuan Cheng\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/JS9.0000000000002161\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite complete resection, the recurrence rate of biliary tract cancer (BTC) remains high, leading to poor prognosis. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) following radical resection may substantially reduce the recurrence risk by eradicating micrometastatic lesions. However, the benefits of postoperative ACT and the optimal ACT strategy are still unclear for BTC. The objectives of this study are to evaluate the prognostic value of ACT and compare the effectiveness of different ACTs among BTC patients after curative resection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the benefits of ACT versus no intervention or other ACTs in BTC patients after curative resection. A random-effects network meta-analysis was performed to compare overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). The quality of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight RCTs comprising 1803 patients were included in the meta-analysis. ACT was associated with significant improvements in 5-year all-cause mortality [four RCTs, hazard rate (HR) 0.93; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.87-1.00, marginally significant; low-certainty evidence], RFS (five RCTs, HR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98; moderate-certainty evidence), and OS (7 studies, HR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96; low-certainty evidence) compared with observation. ACT had significantly better survival benefits on patients with negative margins (R0), lymph node-positive (N+), and tumor node metastasis classification (TNM) stage I/II ( P < 0.05). Further network meta-analysis demonstrated that fluorouracil-based ACT was significantly inferior to gemcitabine-based ACT (HR 1.20; 95% CI, 1.10-1.25) in improving RFS. However, both were superior to observation ( P < 0.05). No statistical difference in OS was observed between gemcitabine-based and fluorouracil-based chemotherapy (HR 1.00; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20). In subgroup analysis, fluorouracil-based ACT but not gemcitabine-based ACT achieved significantly better OS benefits on patients with N+ (HR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.86) and R0 (HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.88).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with observation, ACT should be routinely recommended to improve survival outcomes in BTC patients after curative resection, especially for those with R0, N+, and TNM stage I/II. Gemcitabine-based ACT performed better than other chemotherapies in improving RFS. This network meta-analysis provides precise information for determining the best adjuvant treatment for resected BTC. Further thorough and high-quality RCTs are needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14401,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2182-2194\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000002161\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000002161","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:胆管癌虽经完全切除,复发率仍然很高,预后较差。根治性切除后的术后辅助化疗(ACT)可以通过根除微转移病灶而大大降低复发风险。然而,术后ACT的益处和最佳ACT策略对于BTC仍不清楚。本研究的目的是评估ACT的预后价值,并比较不同ACT在BTC患者治愈性切除后的疗效。方法:在PubMed、Cochrane图书馆、Web of Science和EMBASE数据库中进行全面的文献检索,以确定随机对照试验(rct),比较ACT与不干预或其他ACT对治愈性切除后BTC患者的益处。随机效应网络荟萃分析比较总生存期(OS)和无复发生存期(RFS)。使用grade -框架对证据质量进行评级。结果:8项随机对照试验包括1803例患者纳入meta分析。ACT与5年全因死亡率显著改善相关(4项rct, HR 0.93;95%CI 0.87-1.00,边际显著;低确定性证据),RFS(5个rct, HR 0.87;95%可信区间0.78 - -0.98;中等确定性证据)和OS(7项研究,HR 0.85;95%可信区间0.75 - -0.96;低确定性证据)与观察相比较。ACT对切缘阴性(R0)、淋巴结阳性(N +)和TNM期I/II (P)患者的生存获益明显更好。结论:与观察结果相比,应常规推荐ACT改善BTC患者根治性切除后的生存结局,特别是对于R0、N +和TNM期I/II患者。吉西他滨为基础的ACT在改善RFS方面优于其他化疗。该网络荟萃分析为确定切除BTC的最佳辅助治疗提供了精确的信息。需要进一步深入和高质量的随机对照试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy for curative resected biliary tract cancers: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Background: Despite complete resection, the recurrence rate of biliary tract cancer (BTC) remains high, leading to poor prognosis. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) following radical resection may substantially reduce the recurrence risk by eradicating micrometastatic lesions. However, the benefits of postoperative ACT and the optimal ACT strategy are still unclear for BTC. The objectives of this study are to evaluate the prognostic value of ACT and compare the effectiveness of different ACTs among BTC patients after curative resection.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the benefits of ACT versus no intervention or other ACTs in BTC patients after curative resection. A random-effects network meta-analysis was performed to compare overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). The quality of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.

Results: Eight RCTs comprising 1803 patients were included in the meta-analysis. ACT was associated with significant improvements in 5-year all-cause mortality [four RCTs, hazard rate (HR) 0.93; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.87-1.00, marginally significant; low-certainty evidence], RFS (five RCTs, HR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98; moderate-certainty evidence), and OS (7 studies, HR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96; low-certainty evidence) compared with observation. ACT had significantly better survival benefits on patients with negative margins (R0), lymph node-positive (N+), and tumor node metastasis classification (TNM) stage I/II ( P < 0.05). Further network meta-analysis demonstrated that fluorouracil-based ACT was significantly inferior to gemcitabine-based ACT (HR 1.20; 95% CI, 1.10-1.25) in improving RFS. However, both were superior to observation ( P < 0.05). No statistical difference in OS was observed between gemcitabine-based and fluorouracil-based chemotherapy (HR 1.00; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20). In subgroup analysis, fluorouracil-based ACT but not gemcitabine-based ACT achieved significantly better OS benefits on patients with N+ (HR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.86) and R0 (HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.88).

Conclusion: Compared with observation, ACT should be routinely recommended to improve survival outcomes in BTC patients after curative resection, especially for those with R0, N+, and TNM stage I/II. Gemcitabine-based ACT performed better than other chemotherapies in improving RFS. This network meta-analysis provides precise information for determining the best adjuvant treatment for resected BTC. Further thorough and high-quality RCTs are needed.

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
CiteScore
17.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Surgery (IJS) has a broad scope, encompassing all surgical specialties. Its primary objective is to facilitate the exchange of crucial ideas and lines of thought between and across these specialties.By doing so, the journal aims to counter the growing trend of increasing sub-specialization, which can result in "tunnel-vision" and the isolation of significant surgical advancements within specific specialties.
×
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