Cargando…
Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy versus standard procedure in the treatment of left-sided pancreatic cancer: A systemic review and meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS), first reported by Strasberg in 2003, has attracted increasing attention in the treatment of left-sided pancreatic cancer. The limited number of cases eligible for RAMPS makes it difficult to perform any prospective randomized trial...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5460359/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28583142 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-017-0259-1 |
_version_ | 1783242155266932736 |
---|---|
author | Cao, Feng Li, Jia Li, Ang Li, Fei |
author_facet | Cao, Feng Li, Jia Li, Ang Li, Fei |
author_sort | Cao, Feng |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS), first reported by Strasberg in 2003, has attracted increasing attention in the treatment of left-sided pancreatic cancer. The limited number of cases eligible for RAMPS makes it difficult to perform any prospective randomized trial of RAMPS versus the standard procedure. Therefore, we performed this systemic review and meta-analysis of the current data to clarify the role of the RAMPS procedure. METHODS: A literature search was performed in electronic databases, including PubMed, Medline, Embase, CNKI and the Cochrane Library. Studies comparing RAMPS with the standard procedure were included in this meta-analysis. R0 resection rate, recurrence rate at the end of the follow-up, overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were measured as primary outcomes. Revman 5.3 was used to perform the analysis. RESULTS: Six retrospective cohort studies with a total number of 378 patients were included in our analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that RAMPS was correlated with higher R0 resection rates [Odds Ratio (OR) 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.19 (1.16 ~ 4.13); P = 0.02] and successful harvest of more lymph nodes [weighted mean difference (WMD) 95% CI, 7.06 (4.52 ~ 9.60); P < 0.01] compared with the standard procedure. However, no statistically significant difference was found between the procedures with respect to recurrence rates [OR 95% CI, 0.66 (0.40 ~ 1.09); P = 0.10], OS [Hazard ratio (HR) 95% CI, 0.65 (0.42 ~ 1.00); P = 0.05] or DFS [HR 95% CI, 1.02 (0.62 ~ 1.68); P = 0.93]. CONCLUSIONS: RAMPS is safe and oncologically superior to the standard procedure for the treatment of left-sided pancreatic cancer. However, high-grade evidence will be necessary to confirm the potential survival benefits of RAMPS. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12893-017-0259-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5460359 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54603592017-06-07 Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy versus standard procedure in the treatment of left-sided pancreatic cancer: A systemic review and meta-analysis Cao, Feng Li, Jia Li, Ang Li, Fei BMC Surg Research Article BACKGROUND: Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS), first reported by Strasberg in 2003, has attracted increasing attention in the treatment of left-sided pancreatic cancer. The limited number of cases eligible for RAMPS makes it difficult to perform any prospective randomized trial of RAMPS versus the standard procedure. Therefore, we performed this systemic review and meta-analysis of the current data to clarify the role of the RAMPS procedure. METHODS: A literature search was performed in electronic databases, including PubMed, Medline, Embase, CNKI and the Cochrane Library. Studies comparing RAMPS with the standard procedure were included in this meta-analysis. R0 resection rate, recurrence rate at the end of the follow-up, overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were measured as primary outcomes. Revman 5.3 was used to perform the analysis. RESULTS: Six retrospective cohort studies with a total number of 378 patients were included in our analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that RAMPS was correlated with higher R0 resection rates [Odds Ratio (OR) 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.19 (1.16 ~ 4.13); P = 0.02] and successful harvest of more lymph nodes [weighted mean difference (WMD) 95% CI, 7.06 (4.52 ~ 9.60); P < 0.01] compared with the standard procedure. However, no statistically significant difference was found between the procedures with respect to recurrence rates [OR 95% CI, 0.66 (0.40 ~ 1.09); P = 0.10], OS [Hazard ratio (HR) 95% CI, 0.65 (0.42 ~ 1.00); P = 0.05] or DFS [HR 95% CI, 1.02 (0.62 ~ 1.68); P = 0.93]. CONCLUSIONS: RAMPS is safe and oncologically superior to the standard procedure for the treatment of left-sided pancreatic cancer. However, high-grade evidence will be necessary to confirm the potential survival benefits of RAMPS. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12893-017-0259-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-06-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5460359/ /pubmed/28583142 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-017-0259-1 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Cao, Feng Li, Jia Li, Ang Li, Fei Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy versus standard procedure in the treatment of left-sided pancreatic cancer: A systemic review and meta-analysis |
title | Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy versus standard procedure in the treatment of left-sided pancreatic cancer: A systemic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy versus standard procedure in the treatment of left-sided pancreatic cancer: A systemic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy versus standard procedure in the treatment of left-sided pancreatic cancer: A systemic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy versus standard procedure in the treatment of left-sided pancreatic cancer: A systemic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy versus standard procedure in the treatment of left-sided pancreatic cancer: A systemic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy versus standard procedure in the treatment of left-sided pancreatic cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5460359/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28583142 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-017-0259-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT caofeng radicalantegrademodularpancreatosplenectomyversusstandardprocedureinthetreatmentofleftsidedpancreaticcancerasystemicreviewandmetaanalysis AT lijia radicalantegrademodularpancreatosplenectomyversusstandardprocedureinthetreatmentofleftsidedpancreaticcancerasystemicreviewandmetaanalysis AT liang radicalantegrademodularpancreatosplenectomyversusstandardprocedureinthetreatmentofleftsidedpancreaticcancerasystemicreviewandmetaanalysis AT lifei radicalantegrademodularpancreatosplenectomyversusstandardprocedureinthetreatmentofleftsidedpancreaticcancerasystemicreviewandmetaanalysis |