Ren Xiaohan, Wei Xiyi, Ding Yichao, Qi Feng, Zhang Yundi, Hu Xin, Qin Chao, Li Xiao
Department of First Clinical Medical College of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210009, China.
Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210009, China,
Onco Targets Ther. 2019 Jan 22;12:733-744. doi: 10.2147/OTT.S190810. eCollection 2019.
The role of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in resectable pancreatic cancer (RPC) remains controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical differences between NAT and upfront surgery in RPC.
A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials databases. Only patients with RPC who underwent tumor resection and received adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment were enrolled. The OR or HR and 95% CIs were calculated employing fixed-effects or random-effects models. The HR and its 95% CI were extracted from each article that provided survival curve. Publication bias was estimated using funnel plots and Egger's regression test.
In total, eleven studies were included with 9,386 patients. Of these patients, 2,508 (26.7%) received NAT. For patients with RPC, NAT resulted in an increased R0 resection rate (OR=1.89; 95% CI=1.26-2.83) and a reduced positive lymph node rate (OR=0.34; 95% CI=0.31-0.37) compared with upfront surgery. Nevertheless, patients receiving NAT did not exhibit a significantly increased overall survival (OS) time (HR=0.91; 95% CI=0.79-1.05).
In patients with RPC, R0 resection rate and positive lymph node rate after NAT were superior to those of patients with upfront surgery. The NAT group exhibited no significant effect on OS time when compared with the upfront surgery group. However, this conclusion requires more clinical evidence to improve its credibility.
新辅助治疗(NAT)在可切除胰腺癌(RPC)中的作用仍存在争议。因此,进行了这项荟萃分析,以比较RPC中NAT与直接手术的临床差异。
在PubMed、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane对照试验注册数据库中进行了系统的文献检索。仅纳入接受肿瘤切除并接受辅助或新辅助治疗的RPC患者。采用固定效应或随机效应模型计算OR或HR及95%CI。从提供生存曲线的每篇文章中提取HR及其95%CI。使用漏斗图和Egger回归检验评估发表偏倚。
共纳入11项研究,9386例患者。其中,2508例(26.7%)接受了NAT。对于RPC患者,与直接手术相比,NAT导致R0切除率增加(OR=1.89;95%CI=1.26-2.83),阳性淋巴结率降低(OR=0.34;95%CI=0.31-0.37)。然而,接受NAT的患者总生存期(OS)时间并未显著延长(HR=0.91;95%CI=0.79-1.05)。
在RPC患者中,NAT后的R0切除率和阳性淋巴结率优于直接手术患者。与直接手术组相比,NAT组对OS时间无显著影响。然而,这一结论需要更多临床证据来提高其可信度。