Meta‐analysis comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 946-958.
Published: 30th April 2018
Authors: E. Versteijne, J. A. Vogel, M. G. Besselink, O. R. C. Busch, J. W. Wilmink, J. G. Daams et al.
Studies comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in pancreatic cancer may report only patients who underwent resection and so survival will be skewed. The aim of this study was to report survival by intention to treat in a comparison of upfront surgery
MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting median overall survival by intention to treat in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer treated with or without neoadjuvant treatment. Secondary outcomes included overall and R0 resection rate, pathological lymph node rate, reasons for unresectability and toxicity of neoadjuvant treatment.
In total, 38 studies were included with 3484 patients, of whom 1738 (49·9 per cent) had neoadjuvant treatment. The weighted median overall survival by intention to treat was 18·8 months for neoadjuvant treatment and 14·8 months for upfront surgery; the difference was larger among patients whose tumours were resected (26·1
Neoadjuvant treatment appears to improve overall survival by intention to treat, despite lower overall resection rates for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.Full text
You may also be interested in
Meta‐analysis of in‐hospital delay before surgery as a risk factor for complications in patients with acute appendicitis. BJS 2018; 105: 933-945.
Authors: S. T. van Dijk, A. H. van Dijk, M. G. Dijkgraaf, M. A. Boermeester
Notes: Delay is safe
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy response influences outcomes in non‐colorectal, non‐neuroendocrine liver metastases.
Authors: A. M. Lucchese, A. N. Kalil, A. Ruiz, V. Karam, O. Ciacio, G. Pittau et al.
Notes: Multimodal therapy works
Authors: T. G. Weiser, A. B. Haynes
Authors: B. Groot Koerkamp, W. R. Jarnagin
Development and validation of a difficulty score to predict intraoperative complications during laparoscopic liver resection.
Authors: M. C. Halls, G. Berardi, F. Cipriani, L. Barkhatov, P. Lainas, S. Harris et al.
Notes: Helps improve selection for laparoscopic liver resection
Validation of at least 1 mm as cut‐off for resection margins for pancreatic adenocarcinoma of the body and tail.
Authors: T. Hank, U. Hinz, I. Tarantino, J. Kaiser, W. Niesen, F. Bergmann et al.
Notes: Validating 1mm for R0
Authors: G. A. Margonis, K. Sasaki, S. Gholami, Y. Kim, N. Andreatos, N. Rezaee et al.
Notes: Predicts survival
Reappraisal of classification of distal cholangiocarcinoma based on tumour depth. BJS 2018; 105: 867-875.
Authors: H. Aoyama, T. Ebata, M. Hattori, M. Takano, H. Yamamoto, M. Inoue et al.
Notes: Better for T staging
Prediction of major complications after hepatectomy using liver stiffness values determined by magnetic resonance elastography.
Authors: N. Sato, A. Kenjo, T. Kimura, R. Okada, T. Ishigame, Y. Kofunato et al.
Notes: liver stiffness predicts complications
Prognostic significance of gross extrathyroidal extension invading only strap muscles in differentiated thyroid carcinoma.
Authors: S. Y. Park, H. I. Kim, J.‐H. Kim, J. S. Kim, Y. L. Oh, S. W. Kim et al.
Notes: None for survival
Authors: M. Almquist, K. Ivarsson, E. Nordenström, A. Bergenfelz
Notes: Higher than expected