The optimal strategy of multimodality therapies for resectable gastric cancer: evidence from a network meta-analysis.
ABSTRACT: Background: Controversy continues regarding the optimal strategy of multimodality therapies for resectable gastric cancer. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of surgery combined with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy (CT), radiotherapy (RT), and chemoradiotherapy (CRT) by integrating the direct and indirect method. Methods: A systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed through Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and PMC databases. Overall survival (OS) was the primary outcome of interest. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted and treatments were ranked based on their effectiveness for improving survival. Results: Fifty-six RCTs involving 12,435 patients were included. Overall analysis showed that neoadjuvant CRT resulted in a statistically significantly better OS compared with adjuvant CT, adjuvant RT, adjuvant CRT, neoadjuvant CT, neoadjuvant RT, and surgery alone. Moreover, subgroup analysis of D2 lymphadenectomy revealed that neoadjuvant CRT was not significant superior to neoadjuvant CT (HR = 0.67, 95% CrI 0.41-1.08), adjuvant CRT (HR = 0.67, 95% CrI 0.37-1.21), and adjuvant CT (HR = 0.60, 95% CrI 0.35-1.04). With a tendency to survival benefit, neoadjuvant CRT had an 89% probability of being the best selection. Conclusions: Our study showed no significant survival advantage for neoadjuvant CRT, though the highest probability of being the best treatment was observed. Further clinical trials are essential to determine the value of neoadjuvant CRT, especially in D2 lymphadenectomy subgroup.
Project description:This network meta-analysis was conducted to assess whether the efficacy of surgery with adjuvant therapies, including radiotherapy (RT+S), chemotherapy (CT+S), and chemoradiotherapy (CRT+S) have better performance in esophageal cancer treatment and management. PubMed and EMBASE were used to search for relevant trials. Both conventional pair-wise and network meta-analyses were carried out. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to rank interventions based on the efficacy of the treatment method. As for 3-year overall survival (OS), CRT+S showed the highest efficacy (CRT+S vs.HR=0.81, 95% CrI =0.73-0.90; CRT+S vs. CT+S: HR=0.82, 95% CrI =0.70-0.95; CRT+S vs. RT+S: HR=0.77, 95% CrI =0.62-0.95). For disease-free survival, CRT+S showed efficacy over CT+S ((HR =0.70, 95% CrI =0. 59-0.83). In conclusion, CRT+S showed a better performance for survival outcomes and ranks best among all therapies. The results of our study can provide guidance for medical decisions and treatment options that may help clinical practitioners improve the efficacy of EC treatment.
Project description:This meta-analysis aims to provide more evidence on the role of postoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for gastric cancer (GC) patients in Asian countries where D2 lymphadenectomy is prevalent.We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), extracted data of survival and toxicities, and pooled data to evaluate the efficacy and toxicities of CRT compared with chemotherapy (CT) after D2 lymphadenectomy.A total of 960 patients from four RCTs were selected. The results showed that postoperative CRT significantly reduced loco-regional recurrence rate (LRRR: RR?=?0.50, 95 % CI?=?0.34-0.74, P?=?0.0005) and improved disease-free survival (DFS: HR?=?0.73, 95 % CI?=?0.60-0.89, P?=?0.002). However, CRT did not affect distant metastasis rate (DMR: RR?=?0.81, 95 % CI?=?0.60-1.08, P?=?0.15) and overall survival (OS: HR?=?0.91, 95 % CI?=?0.74-1.11, P?=?0.34). The main grade 3-4 toxicities manifested no significant differences between the two groups.Overall, CRT after D2 lymphadenectomy may reduce LRRR and prolong DFS. The role of postoperative CRT should be further investigated in the population with high risk of loco-regional recurrence.
Project description:Different neoadjuvant therapy regimens are available for rectal cancer, but the relative effects are controversial. The aim of the present network meta-analysis (NMA) was to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant therapies for resectable rectal cancer. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials were searched for publications dated from 1946 up to June 2018. The present study included randomized clinical trials that compared treatments for resected rectal cancer: Surgery alone, surgery preceded by neoadjuvant radiotherapy (RT), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Direct pairwise comparisons and NMA were conducted. A total of 23 randomized controlled trials were included in the present study. RT had an overall survival (OS) benefit when compared with surgery alone [HR (hazard ratio), 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82-0.97; quality of evidence, high]. All three neoadjuvant regimens were associated with lower local recurrence (LR) when compared with surgery alone [RT: odds ratio (OR), 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35-0.65; quality of evidence, high; CRT: OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.23-0.56; quality of evidence, low and CT: OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11-1.00; quality of evidence, low]. There were no significant differences in OS and LR between CRT and RT (OS: OR, 1.10); 95% CI, 0.93-1.20; LR: OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.10). Ranking probabilities indicated that CRT was the best strategy for local control, with a surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) of 78.78%. Patients treated with RT had improved disease-free survival compared with those treated with surgery alone (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.64-1.00; quality of evidence, low). Neoadjuvant RT or CRT did not significantly improve distant metastases compared with surgery alone (RT: OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69-1.10 and CRT: OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.47-1.10). CRT had an improved pathological complete response rate compared with RT (OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 21.80-17.00; quality of evidence, low). No significant difference for the risk of anastomotic leak between each treatment was observed in the NMA. In conclusion, RT decreased the LR and improved OS compared with surgery alone for resected rectal cancer. CRT was the best neoadjuvant therapy analyzed and CT was likely the second best for all outcomes based on SUCRA. However, these findings were limited by overall low quality of evidence.
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is no consistent evidence about the appropriate treatment strategies for gastric signet ring cell carcinoma (GSRC) to improve prognosis. We conducted a population-based study to examine the effects of combined modality therapies on survival outcomes using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data. METHODS:Analyses included stage II-III primary GSRC patients who were diagnosed between 2006 and 2016. Therapies were categorized as gastrectomy group, adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) group, neoadjuvant radiotherapy (RT) group, and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) group. Survival analyses were conducted by Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models and subgrouped by gender, tumor site, stage at diagnosis, and number of lymph nodes removed. RESULTS:Of the 1717 cases of stage II-III primary GSRC, the mean (SD) age was 59.6 (13.3) years, and over a half were male (52.8%). A total of 39.9% patients received adjuvant CRT and the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 34.6%. The median OS of patients treated with adjuvant CRT was significantly longer than that of the gastrectomy group (33 months vs 24 months, aHR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.59, 0.84). Although the crude model showed a significant association between adjuvant CT and total survival (cHR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.68, 0.96), the effect measure turned null in the multivariable and sub-group analysis. We did not find the significant effect of neoadjuvant RT. CONCLUSIONS:In this study, GSRC patients with stage II-III experienced improved overall survival after receiving adjuvant CRT, which provides several treatment implications. More clinical trials will be needed to verify the conclusion derived from this study.
Project description:BACKGROUND:This study aimed at applying the restricted mean survival time difference (rmstD) as an absolute outcome measure in a network meta-analysis and comparing the results with those obtained using hazard ratios (HR) from the individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) on the role of chemotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) recently published by the MAC-NPC collaborative group (Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy [CT] in NPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS:Twenty trials (5144 patients) comparing radiotherapy (RT) with or without CT in non-metastatic NPC were included. Treatments were grouped in seven categories: RT alone (RT), induction CT followed by RT (IC-RT), RT followed by adjuvant CT (RT-AC), IC followed by RT followed by AC (IC-RT-AC), concomitant chemoradiotherapy (CRT), IC followed by CRT (IC-CRT), and CRT followed by AC (CRT-AC). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival and locoregional control. The rmstD was estimated at t* = 10 years in each trial. Random-effect frequentist NMA models were applied. P score was used to rank treatments. Heterogeneity and inconsistency were evaluated. RESULTS:The three treatments that had the highest effect on OS with rmstD were CRT-AC, IC-CRT, and CRT (respective P scores of 92%, 72%, and 64%) compared to CRT-AC, CRT, and IC-CRT when using HR (respective P scores of 96%, 71%, and 63%). Of the 32 HR and rmstD analyzed, 5 had a different interpretation, 3 with a direction change (different direction of treatment effect) and 2 with a change in significance (same direction but a change in statistical significance). Results for secondary endpoints were overall in agreement. CONCLUSION:The use of either HR or rmstD impacts the results of NMA. Given the sensitivity of HR to non-proportional hazards, this finding could have implications in terms of meta-analysis methodology.
Project description:Cancer of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) has been rising in incidence in recent years. The role of radiation therapy (RT) in the treatment of GEJ cancer remains unclear, as the largest prospective trials advocating for either adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) combine GEJ cancer with either gastric or esophageal cancer. The aim of the present study is to examine the association of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant treatment with overall and disease-specific survival (DSS) for patients with surgically resected cancer of the true GEJ (Siewert type II).The surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) registry database (2001-2011) was queried for cases of surgically resected Siewert type II GEJ cancer. A total of 1,497 patients with resectable GEJ cancer were identified, with 746 receiving adjuvant RT and 751 receiving neoadjuvant RT. Retrospective analysis was performed with the endpoints of overall and DSS.Using cox regression and controlling for independent covariates (age, sex, race, stage, grade, histology, and year of diagnosis), we showed that adjuvant RT was associated with a significantly lower death risk [hazard ratio (HR), 0.84; 95% confidence interval 0.73-0.97; P value=0.0168] and significantly lower disease-specific death risk (HR, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.97; P value=0.0211) as compared to neoadjuvant RT.This analysis of SEER data showed that adjuvant RT was associated with a survival benefit as compared to neoadjuvant RT for the treatment of Siewert type II GEJ cancer. We suggest future prospective studies to compare outcomes of adjuvant versus neoadjuvant treatment for true GEJ cancer.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Neoadjuvant therapy improves survival of patients with clinical stage II and III rectal cancer in clinical trials. In this study, we investigated the administration of neoadjuvant radiotherapy (neo-RT) and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (neo-CRT) and its association with survival in resected patients in 2 European countries (The Netherlands and Sweden) and at 3 specialist centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Administration of neoadjuvant treatment (all registries) and overall survival after surgery in The Netherlands and Sweden were assessed. Hazard ratios (HRs) were obtained using Cox regression adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS:A total of 16,095 rectal cancer patients with clinical stage II and III were eligible for analyses. Large variations in administration of neo-RT and neo-CRT were observed. Elderly patients less often received neo-RT and neo-CRT. Patients with stage III disease received neo-CRT more frequently than neo-RT. Administration of neo-RT versus surgery without neoadjuvant treatment was significantly associated with improved survival in The Netherlands (HR, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.73) as well as in Sweden (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.90). Administration of neo-CRT was associated with enhanced survival in The Netherlands (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50-0.78) but not in Sweden (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.80-1.18). The mortality of patients treated with neo-CRT compared with neo-RT showed inconsistent results in population-based centers. CONCLUSIONS:Our results support an association of neo-RT with enhanced survival among stage II and III rectal cancer patients. Comparing neo-CRT with neo-RT, larger variations and inconsistent results with respect to survival were observed across centers.
Project description:Purpose:The role of chemotherapy has evolved greatly in advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). We undertook this network meta-analysis to establish the optimal chemotherapy strategy in advanced NPC. Materials and methods:This network meta-analysis recruited randomized clinical trials involving patients with advanced NPC randomly allocated to induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT; induction + CRT), CRT plus adjuvant chemotherapy (CRT + adjuvant), CRT or radiotherapy (RT) alone. Pairwise meta-analysis was first conducted, then network meta-analysis was performed using the frequentist approach. Effect size was expressed as HR and 95% CI. Results:In total, we analyzed 15 studies involving 4,067 patients with 880 (21.6%) patients receiving induction + CRT, 897 (22.1%) receiving CRT + adjuvant, 1,421 (34.9%) receiving CRT, and 869 (21.4%) receiving RT alone. Induction + CRT achieved significantly better distant failure-free survival (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.53-0.86) and locoregional failure-free survival (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.89) than CRT, and CRT + adjuvant achieved better overall survival than CRT (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.67-1.00). However, no significant survival difference was found between the induction + CRT and CRT + adjuvant groups. Additionally, RT alone is always worse than the other three treatments. In terms of P-score, induction + CRT ranked best for distant and locoregional failure-free survival, while CRT + adjuvant ranked best for overall survival. Conclusion:Both induction + CRT and CRT + adjuvant were equally effective and feasible choices for patients with advanced NPC.
Project description:Background: Several neoadjuvant treatments are available for patients with resectable gastroesophageal cancer. We did a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare available treatments, summarizing the direct and indirect evidence. Method: We searched relevant databases for randomized controlled trials of neoadjuvant treatments for resectable gastroesophageal cancer which compared two or more of the following treatments: surgery alone, perioperative docetaxel, oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (FLOT), and neoadjuvant treatments listed in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline. Then we performed a NMA to summarize the direct and indirect evidence to estimate the relative efficacy for outcomes including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival and R0 resection rate. We calculated odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) for dichotomous data and time-to-event data, respectively. We also calculated the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value of each intervention to obtain a hierarchy of treatments. Result: Eight eligible trials (2434 patients) were included in our NMA. The treatment with the highest probability of benefit on OS as compared with surgery alone was perioperative FLOT [HR = 0.58 with 95% CrI: (0.43, 0.78), SUCRA = 93%], followed by preoperative radiotherapy, paclitaxel, and carboplatin (RT/PC) [HR = 0.68 with 95% CrI: (0.53, 0.87), SUCRA = 72%], perioperative cisplatin with fluorouracil (CF) [HR = 0.70 with 95% CrI: (0.51, 0.95), SUCRA = 68%], and perioperative epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil or capecitabine (ECF/ECX) [HR = 0.75 with 95% CrI: (0.60, 0.94), SUCRA = 56%]. Conclusion: Compared with surgery alone, perioperative CF, perioperative ECF/ECX, perioperative FLOT, and preoperative RT/PC significantly improved survival. Perioperative FLOT is likely to be the most effective neoadjuvant treatment for the disease. Further clinical studies are needed and justified.
Project description:<b>Purpose:</b> Gastric cancer is mainly treated by gastrectomy, the results of which were unsatisfactory without any adjuvant treatments. This study aimed to examine the performance of radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and chemoradiotherapy after surgery in order to acquire the optimal adjuvant treatment. <b>Method:</b> Embase and PubMed were retrieved to conduct a systematic research. Hazard ratios (HR) of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as outcomes were calculated by synthesizing direct and indirect evidence to evaluate the efficacy of three treatments against surgery alone. The <i>P</i>-score ranking was utilized to rank the therapies. Consistency was assessed by heat plot. Begg's test was performed to evaluate publication bias. <b>Results:</b> A total of 35 randomized controlled studies (RCTs) with 8973 patients were included in our network meta-analysis (NMA). As for efficacy outcomes, OS and PFS of 1, 2, 3, and 5 years, all revealed chemoradiotherapy (CRT) as the best of three adjuvant therapies. Meanwhile, <i>P</i>-score ranking results also displayed that CRT was the optimal regimen. Additionally, radiotherapy (RT) and chemotherapy (CT) were two alternative options following CRT since RT performed well in short-term survival while CT could improve the long-term survival. <b>Conclusion:</b> CRT was the most recommended therapy to accompany surgery according to our results. However, no analysis about the safety of these three treatments was mentioned in our study. Further studies including safety outcomes were required to draw a more comprehensive conclusion.