Effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy in the treatment of esophageal adenocarcinoma:A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Neoadjuvant therapy is an essential modality for reducing the clinical stage of esophageal cancer;however,the superiority of neoadjuvant chemotherapy(nCT)or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy(nCRT)is unclear.Therefore,a discussion of these two modalities is necessary.AIM To investigate the benefits and complications of neoadjuvant modalities.METHODS To address this concern,predefined criteria were established using the PICO protocol.Two independent authors performed comprehensive searches using predetermined keywords.Statistical analyses were performed to identify significant differences between groups.Potential publication bias was visualized using funnel plots.The quality of the data was evaluated using the Risk of Bias Tool 2(RoB2)and the GRADE approach.RESULTS Ten articles,including 1928 patients,were included for the analysis.Significant difference was detected in pathological complete response(pCR)[P<0.001;odds ratio(OR):0.27;95%CI:0.16-0.46],30-d mortality(P=0.015;OR:0.4;95%CI:0.22-0.71)favoring the nCRT,and renal failure(P=0.039;OR:1.04;95%CI:0.66-1.64)favoring the nCT.No significant differences were observed in terms of survival,local or distal recurrence,or other clinical or surgical complications.The result of RoB2 was moderate,and that of the GRADE approach was low or very low in almost all cases.CONCLUSION Although nCRT may have a higher pCR rate,it does not translate to greater long-term survival.Moreover,nCRT is associated with higher 30-d mortality,although the specific cause for postoperative complications could not be identified.In the case of nCT,toxic side effects are suspected,which can reduce the quality of life.Given the quality of available studies,further randomized trials are required.

Body-mass index correlates with severity and mortality in acute pancreatitis: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Obesity rates have increased sharply in recent decades. As there is a growing number of cases in which acute pancreatitis(AP) is accompanied by obesity, we found it clinically relevant to investigate how body-mass index(BMI) affects the outcome of the disease.AIM To quantify the association between subgroups of BMI and the severity and mortality of AP.METHODS A meta-analysis was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis(PRISMA) Protocols. Three databases(PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) were searched for articles containing data on BMI, disease severity and mortality rate for AP. Englishlanguage studies from inception to 19 June 2017 were checked against our predetermined eligibility criteria. The included articles reported all AP cases with no restriction on the etiology of the disease. Only studies that classified AP cases according to the Atlanta Criteria were involved in the severity analyses. Odds ratios(OR) and mean differences(MD) were pooled using the random effects model with the DerSimonian-Laird estimation and displayed on forest plots. The meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO under number CRD42017077890.RESULTS A total of 19 articles were included in our meta-analysis containing data on 9997 patients. As regards severity, a subgroup analysis showed a direct association between AP severity and BMI. BMI < 18.5 had no significant effect on severity;however, BMI > 25 had an almost three-fold increased risk for severe AP in comparison to normal BMI(OR = 2.87, 95%CI: 1.90-4.35, P < 0.001). Importantly,the mean BMI of patients with severe AP is higher than that of the non-severe group(MD = 1.79, 95%CI: 0.89-2.70, P < 0.001). As regards mortality, death rates among AP patients are the highest in the underweight and obese subgroups. A BMI < 18.5 carries an almost two-fold increase in risk of mortality compared to normal BMI(OR = 1.82, 95%CI: 1.32-2.50, P < 0.001). However, the chance of mortality is almost equal in the normal BMI and BMI 25-30 subgroups. A BMI >30 results in a three times higher risk of mortality in comparison to a BMI < 30(OR = 2.89, 95%CI: 1.10-7.36, P = 0.026).CONCLUSION Our findings confirm that a BMI above 25 increases the risk of severe AP, while a BMI > 30 raises the risk of mortality. A BMI < 18.5 carries an almost two times higher risk of mortality in AP.

Intralesional steroid is beneficial in benign refractory esophageal strictures:A meta-analysis

AIM To analyze the effect of intralesional steroid injections in addition to endoscopic dilation of benign refractory esophageal strictures.METHODS A comprehensive search was performed in three databases from inception to 10 April 2017 to identify trials, comparing the efficacy of endoscopic dilation to dilation combined with intralesional steroid injections. Following the data extraction, meta-analytical calculations were performed on measures of outcome by the randomeffects method of Der Simonian and Laird. Heterogeneity of the studies was tested by Cochrane's Q and I^2 statistics. Risk of quality and bias was assessed by the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and JADAD assessment tools.RESULTS Eleven articles were identified suitable for analyses, involving 343 patients, 235 cases and 229 controls in total. Four studies used crossover design with 121 subjects enrolled. The periodic dilation index(PDI) was comparable in 4 studies, where the pooled result showed a significant improvement of PDI in the steroid group(MD:-1.12 dilation/month, 95% CI:-1.99 to -0.25 P = 0.012; I^2 = 74.4%). The total number of repeat dilations(TNRD) was comparable in 5 studies and showed a non-significant decrease(MD:-1.17, 95%CI:-0.24-0.05, P = 0.057; I^2 = 0), while the dysphagia score(DS) was comparable in 5 studies and did not improve(SMD: 0.35, 95%CI:-0.38, 1.08, P = 0.351; I^2 = 83.98%) after intralesional steroid injection.CONCLUSION Intralesional steroid injection increases the time between endoscopic dilations of benign refractory esophageal strictures. However, its potential role needs further research.

Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on esophagectomies in esophageal cancer:The superiority of minimally invasive surgery

BACKGROUND Previous meta-analyses,with many limitations,have described the beneficial nature of minimal invasive procedures.AIM To compare all modalities of esophagectomies to each other from the results of randomized controlled trials(RCTs)in a network meta-analysis(NMA).METHODS We conducted a systematic search of the MEDLINE,EMBASE,Reference Citation Analysis(https://www.referencecitationanalysis.com/)and CENTRAL databases to identify RCTs according to the following population,intervention,control,outcome(commonly known as PICO):P:Patients with resectable esophageal cancer;I/C:Transthoracic,transhiatal,minimally invasive(thoracolaparoscopic),hybrid,and robot-assisted esophagectomy;O:Survival,total adverse events,adverse events in subgroups,length of hospital stay,and blood loss.We used the Bayesian approach and the random effects model.We presented the geometry of the network,results with probabilistic statements,estimated intervention effects and their 95% confidence interval(CI),and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve to rank the interventions.RESULTS We included 11 studies in our analysis.We found a significant difference in postoperative pulmonary infection,which favored the minimally invasive intervention compared to transthoracic surgery(risk ratio 0.49;95%CI:0.23 to 0.99).The operation time was significantly shorter for the transhiatal approach compared to transthoracic surgery(mean difference-85 min;95%CI:-150 to-29),hybrid intervention(mean difference-98 min;95%CI:-190 to-9.4),minimally invasive technique(mean difference-130 min;95%CI:-210 to-50),and robot-assisted esophagectomy(mean difference-150 min;95%CI:-240 to-53).Other comparisons did not yield significant differences.CONCLUSION Based on our results,the implication of minimally invasive esophagectomy should be favored.