OBJECTIVE: Controversy remains existed whether chemoradiotherapy (CRT), especially neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (neoadjuvant CRT) achieves a significant benefit in resectable pancreatic cancer (PC) treatment. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to clarify the benefits of CRT and neoadjuvant CRT in resectable PC. METHODS: Eligible trials were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane center, China National Knowledge Internet and Wanfang database since their inception to July 31, 2013. Only patients with resectable PC, who underwent tumor resection and received CRT and/or neoadjuvant CRT, were enrolled. The treatment outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to measure the pooled effect according to a fixed-effects model. The statistical heterogeneity between trials was detected by χ(2) and I (2) test. Sensitivity analyses were also carried out. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies were identified as relevant, but only 17 studies with a total of 3,088 patients were included in the comparison between CRT versus non-CRT, and a total number of three studies with 189 patients included in the comparison between neoadjuvant CRT versus postoperative CRT. The comparison between CRT and non-CRT showed that the overall pooled HR for death was 0.96 (95% CI 0.89-1.03; P = 0.28). The HR for progress was 0.83 (95% CI 0.68-1.03, P = 0.09). Comparison between neoadjuvant CRT and adjuvant CRT revealed a pooled HR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.69-1.25; P = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that CRT showed no significant effect on OS and PFS when compared to non-CRT. Neoadjuvant CRT showed no significant effect over postoperative adjuvant CRT.
OBJECTIVE: Controversy remains existed whether chemoradiotherapy (CRT), especially neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (neoadjuvant CRT) achieves a significant benefit in resectable pancreatic cancer (PC) treatment. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to clarify the benefits of CRT and neoadjuvant CRT in resectable PC. METHODS: Eligible trials were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane center, China National Knowledge Internet and Wanfang database since their inception to July 31, 2013. Only patients with resectable PC, who underwent tumor resection and received CRT and/or neoadjuvant CRT, were enrolled. The treatment outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to measure the pooled effect according to a fixed-effects model. The statistical heterogeneity between trials was detected by χ(2) and I (2) test. Sensitivity analyses were also carried out. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies were identified as relevant, but only 17 studies with a total of 3,088 patients were included in the comparison between CRT versus non-CRT, and a total number of three studies with 189 patients included in the comparison between neoadjuvant CRT versus postoperative CRT. The comparison between CRT and non-CRT showed that the overall pooled HR for death was 0.96 (95% CI 0.89-1.03; P = 0.28). The HR for progress was 0.83 (95% CI 0.68-1.03, P = 0.09). Comparison between neoadjuvant CRT and adjuvant CRT revealed a pooled HR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.69-1.25; P = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that CRT showed no significant effect on OS and PFS when compared to non-CRT. Neoadjuvant CRT showed no significant effect over postoperative adjuvant CRT.
Authors: Helmut Oettle; Stefan Post; Peter Neuhaus; Klaus Gellert; Jan Langrehr; Karsten Ridwelski; Harald Schramm; Joerg Fahlke; Carl Zuelke; Christof Burkart; Klaus Gutberlet; Erika Kettner; Harald Schmalenberg; Karin Weigang-Koehler; Wolf-Otto Bechstein; Marco Niedergethmann; Ingo Schmidt-Wolf; Lars Roll; Bernd Doerken; Hanno Riess Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-01-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Katia T Papalezova; Douglas S Tyler; Dan G Blazer; Bryan M Clary; Brian G Czito; Herbert I Hurwitz; Hope E Uronis; Theodore N Pappas; Christopher G Willett; Rebekah R White Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2012-02-06 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: May Piperdi; Theodore P McDade; Joon K Shim; Bilal Piperdi; Sidney P Kadish; Mary E Sullivan; Giles F Whalen; Jennifer F Tseng Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: R R White; H I Hurwitz; M A Morse; C Lee; M S Anscher; E K Paulson; M R Gottfried; J Baillie; M S Branch; P S Jowell; K M McGrath; B M Clary; T N Pappas; D S Tyler Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Axel Richter; Marco Niedergethmann; Jörg W Sturm; Dietmar Lorenz; Stefan Post; Michael Trede Journal: World J Surg Date: 2003-02-27 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: H Golcher; T Brunner; G Grabenbauer; S Merkel; T Papadopoulos; W Hohenberger; T Meyer Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2008-01-10 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Michele M Corsini; Robert C Miller; Michael G Haddock; John H Donohue; Michael B Farnell; David M Nagorney; Aminah Jatoi; Robert R McWilliams; George P Kim; Sumita Bhatia; Matthew J Iott; Leonard L Gunderson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Francesco A D'Angelo; Laura Antolino; Mara La Rocca; Niccolò Petrucciani; Paolo Magistri; Paolo Aurello; Giovanni Ramacciato Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Jayasree Chakraborty; Liana Langdon-Embry; Kristen M Cunanan; Joanna G Escalon; Peter J Allen; Maeve A Lowery; Eileen M O'Reilly; Mithat Gönen; Richard G Do; Amber L Simpson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 3.240