Nicholas L Syn1,2,3, Tousif Kabir1, Ye Xin Koh1, Hwee Leong Tan1, Louis Z Wang3, Brian Zhaojie Chin4, Ian Wee1,3, Jin Yao Teo1,5, Bee Choo Tai2,3,6,7, Brian K P Goh1,5. 1. Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. 2. Biostatistics & Modelling Domain, Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, Singapore, Singapore. 3. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore. 4. Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 5. Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore. 6. Biostatistics Core, Investigational Medicine Unit, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore. 7. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform an individual participant data meta-analysis using randomized trials and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies which compared laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM). BACKGROUND: Randomized trials and PSM studies constitute the highest level of evidence in addressing the long-term oncologic efficacy of laparoscopic versus open resection for CLM. However, individual studies are limited by the reporting of overall survival in ways not amenable to traditional methods of meta-analysis, and violation of the proportional hazards assumption. METHODS: Survival information of individual patients was reconstructed from the published Kaplan-Meier curves with the aid of a computer vision program. Frequentist and Bayesian survival models (taking into account random-effects and nonproportional hazards) were fitted to compare overall survival of patients who underwent laparoscopic versus open surgery. To handle long plateaus in the tails of survival curves, we also exploited "cure models" to estimate the fraction of patients effectively "cured" of disease. RESULTS: Individual patient data from 2 randomized trials and 13 PSM studies involving 3148 participants were reconstructed. Laparoscopic resection was associated with a lower hazard rate of death (stratified hazard ratio = 0.853, 95% confidence interval: 0.754-0.965, P = 0.0114), and there was evidence of time-varying effects (P = 0.0324) in which the magnitude of hazard ratios increased over time. The fractions of long-term cancer survivors were estimated to be 47.4% and 18.0% in the laparoscopy and open surgery groups, respectively. At 10-year follow-up, the restricted mean survival time was 8.6 months (or 12.1%) longer in the laparoscopy arm (P < 0.0001). In a subgroup analysis, elderly patients (≥65 years old) treated with laparoscopy experienced longer 3-year average life expectancy (+6.2%, P = 0.018), and those who live past the 5-year milestone (46.1%) seem to be cured of disease. CONCLUSIONS: This patient-level meta-analysis of high-quality studies demonstrated an unexpected survival benefit in favor of laparoscopic over open resection for CLM in the long-term. From a conservative viewpoint, these results can be interpreted to indicate that laparoscopy is at least not inferior to the standard open approach.
OBJECTIVE: To perform an individual participant data meta-analysis using randomized trials and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies which compared laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM). BACKGROUND: Randomized trials and PSM studies constitute the highest level of evidence in addressing the long-term oncologic efficacy of laparoscopic versus open resection for CLM. However, individual studies are limited by the reporting of overall survival in ways not amenable to traditional methods of meta-analysis, and violation of the proportional hazards assumption. METHODS: Survival information of individual patients was reconstructed from the published Kaplan-Meier curves with the aid of a computer vision program. Frequentist and Bayesian survival models (taking into account random-effects and nonproportional hazards) were fitted to compare overall survival of patients who underwent laparoscopic versus open surgery. To handle long plateaus in the tails of survival curves, we also exploited "cure models" to estimate the fraction of patients effectively "cured" of disease. RESULTS: Individual patient data from 2 randomized trials and 13 PSM studies involving 3148 participants were reconstructed. Laparoscopic resection was associated with a lower hazard rate of death (stratified hazard ratio = 0.853, 95% confidence interval: 0.754-0.965, P = 0.0114), and there was evidence of time-varying effects (P = 0.0324) in which the magnitude of hazard ratios increased over time. The fractions of long-term cancer survivors were estimated to be 47.4% and 18.0% in the laparoscopy and open surgery groups, respectively. At 10-year follow-up, the restricted mean survival time was 8.6 months (or 12.1%) longer in the laparoscopy arm (P < 0.0001). In a subgroup analysis, elderly patients (≥65 years old) treated with laparoscopy experienced longer 3-year average life expectancy (+6.2%, P = 0.018), and those who live past the 5-year milestone (46.1%) seem to be cured of disease. CONCLUSIONS: This patient-level meta-analysis of high-quality studies demonstrated an unexpected survival benefit in favor of laparoscopic over open resection for CLM in the long-term. From a conservative viewpoint, these results can be interpreted to indicate that laparoscopy is at least not inferior to the standard open approach.
Authors: Christoph Kuemmerli; Robert S Fichtinger; Alma Moekotte; Luca A Aldrighetti; Somaiah Aroori; Marc G H Besselink; Mathieu D'Hondt; Rafael Díaz-Nieto; Bjørn Edwin; Mikhail Efanov; Giuseppe M Ettorre; Krishna V Menon; Aali J Sheen; Zahir Soonawalla; Robert Sutcliffe; Roberto I Troisi; Steven A White; Lloyd Brandts; Gerard J P van Breukelen; Jasper Sijberden; Siân A Pugh; Zina Eminton; John N Primrose; Ronald van Dam; Mohammed Abu Hilal Journal: Trials Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Furkan Dursun; Ahmed Elshabrawy; Hanzhang Wang; Ronald Rodriguez; Michael A Liss; Dharam Kaushik; Jonathan Gelfond; Ahmed M Mansour Journal: Int J Clin Oncol Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Darren W Chua; Nicholas Syn; Ye-Xin Koh; Jin-Yao Teo; Peng-Chung Cheow; Alexander Y F Chung; Chung-Yip Chan; Brian K P Goh Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-08-23 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: Mauro Podda; Patricia Sylla; Gianluca Baiocchi; Michel Adamina; Vanni Agnoletti; Ferdinando Agresta; Luca Ansaloni; Alberto Arezzo; Nicola Avenia; Walter Biffl; Antonio Biondi; Simona Bui; Fabio C Campanile; Paolo Carcoforo; Claudia Commisso; Antonio Crucitti; Nicola De'Angelis; Gian Luigi De'Angelis; Massimo De Filippo; Belinda De Simone; Salomone Di Saverio; Giorgio Ercolani; Gustavo P Fraga; Francesco Gabrielli; Federica Gaiani; Mario Guerrieri; Angelo Guttadauro; Yoram Kluger; Ari K Leppaniemi; Andrea Loffredo; Tiziana Meschi; Ernest E Moore; Monica Ortenzi; Francesco Pata; Dario Parini; Adolfo Pisanu; Gilberto Poggioli; Andrea Polistena; Alessandro Puzziello; Fabio Rondelli; Massimo Sartelli; Neil Smart; Michael E Sugrue; Patricia Tejedor; Marco Vacante; Federico Coccolini; Justin Davies; Fausto Catena Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: Ken Min Chin; Yun-Le Linn; Chin Kai Cheong; Ye-Xin Koh; Jin-Yao Teo; Alexander Y F Chung; Chung Yip Chan; Brian K P Goh Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 3.452