B Xiong1, L Ma2, Y Cheng3, C Zhang4. 1. Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, No. 1, Youyi Road, Yuanjiagang, Yuzhong District, Chongqing 400016, PR China. Electronic address: xbh791220@163.com. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Chongqing Huaxi Hospital, Banan District, Chongqing 400054, PR China. 3. Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, No. 1, Youyi Road, Yuanjiagang, Yuzhong District, Chongqing 400016, PR China. Electronic address: 351893768@qq.com. 4. Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, No. 1, Youyi Road, Yuanjiagang, Yuzhong District, Chongqing 400016, PR China. Electronic address: 280343115@qq.com.
Abstract
AIMS: To assess the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). METHODS: By searching electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library) and ASCO proceedings from 1990 to 2012, all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the effect of NAC-combined surgery versus surgery alone in AGC were included. All calculations and statistical tests were performed using RevMan 5.0 software. RESULTS: 12 RCTs with a total of 1820 patients were included. All patients had locally advanced but resectable gastric cancer and received NAC. NAC can slightly improve the survival rate (OR = 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07-1.64, P = 0.01), with little or no significant benefits in subgroup analyses between either different population or regimens. NAC can significantly improve the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) (OR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.39-2.46, p < 0.0001), tumor down-staging rate (OR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.26, 2.33, p = 0.0006) and R0 resection rate (OR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.08-1.78, P = 0.01) of patients with AGC. There was no difference between the two arms, in terms of relapse rates (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.60-1.78, p = 0.92), operative complications (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.90-1.58, p = 0.21), perioperative mortality (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.64-2.05, p = 0.65) and grade 3/4 adverse effects: gastrointestinal problem (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.25-1.30, p = 0.18), leukopenia (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.41-1.91, p = 0.75), thrombocytopenia (OR: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.27-5.93, p = 0.76). CONCLUSION: NAC is effective and safe. However, further prospective multi-national and multi-center RCTs are still needed in order to investigate the long-term oncological and functional outcomes to define the clinical benefits of NAC and the most effective strategies for AGC.
AIMS: To assess the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). METHODS: By searching electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library) and ASCO proceedings from 1990 to 2012, all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the effect of NAC-combined surgery versus surgery alone in AGC were included. All calculations and statistical tests were performed using RevMan 5.0 software. RESULTS: 12 RCTs with a total of 1820 patients were included. All patients had locally advanced but resectable gastric cancer and received NAC. NAC can slightly improve the survival rate (OR = 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07-1.64, P = 0.01), with little or no significant benefits in subgroup analyses between either different population or regimens. NAC can significantly improve the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) (OR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.39-2.46, p < 0.0001), tumor down-staging rate (OR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.26, 2.33, p = 0.0006) and R0 resection rate (OR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.08-1.78, P = 0.01) of patients with AGC. There was no difference between the two arms, in terms of relapse rates (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.60-1.78, p = 0.92), operative complications (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.90-1.58, p = 0.21), perioperative mortality (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.64-2.05, p = 0.65) and grade 3/4 adverse effects: gastrointestinal problem (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.25-1.30, p = 0.18), leukopenia (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.41-1.91, p = 0.75), thrombocytopenia (OR: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.27-5.93, p = 0.76). CONCLUSION:NAC is effective and safe. However, further prospective multi-national and multi-center RCTs are still needed in order to investigate the long-term oncological and functional outcomes to define the clinical benefits of NAC and the most effective strategies for AGC.
Authors: Alberto Biondi; Maria C Lirosi; Domenico D'Ugo; Valeria Fico; Riccardo Ricci; Francesco Santullo; Antonia Rizzuto; Ferdinando Cm Cananzi; Roberto Persiani Journal: World J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2015-12-15