Cargando…
Bursectomy for advanced gastric cancer: an update meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: The present meta-analysis was to explore the surgical and oncological outcomes of bursectomy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). METHODS: Relevant studies that evaluated the role of bursectomy for AGC were comprehensively examined to perform a meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were over...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5872552/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29592807 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12957-018-1354-1 |
_version_ | 1783309861962907648 |
---|---|
author | Nie, Run-Cong Yuan, Shu-Qiang Chen, Shi Yan, Shu-Mei Chen, Yong-Ming Chen, Xiao-Jiang Chen, Guo-Ming Zhou, Zhi-Wei Chen, Ying-Bo Li, Yuan-Fang |
author_facet | Nie, Run-Cong Yuan, Shu-Qiang Chen, Shi Yan, Shu-Mei Chen, Yong-Ming Chen, Xiao-Jiang Chen, Guo-Ming Zhou, Zhi-Wei Chen, Ying-Bo Li, Yuan-Fang |
author_sort | Nie, Run-Cong |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The present meta-analysis was to explore the surgical and oncological outcomes of bursectomy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). METHODS: Relevant studies that evaluated the role of bursectomy for AGC were comprehensively examined to perform a meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary outcomes were the number of harvested lymph nodes (LNs), operation time, operative bleeding, hospital stay, postoperative complication and mortality. RESULTS: A total of seven studies comprising 2633 cases (1176 cases in the bursectomy group and 1457 cases in the non-bursectomy group) were finally included. There was no significant difference in OS (HR 0.95, P = 0.647) and DFS (HR 0.99, P = 0.936) between the two groups. Even for patients with serosa-penetrating tumours, OS was comparable between the two groups (HR 0.87, P = 0.356). The operation time of the bursectomy group was longer (weighted mean difference, WMD 32.76 min, P = 0.002). No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the number of dissected LNs (WMD 5.86, P = 0.157), operative bleeding (WMD 66.99 ml, P = 0.192) and hospital stay (WMD − 0.15 days, P = 0.766). The overall postoperative complication (relative risk, RR 1.08, P = 0.421) and mortality (RR 0.44, P = 0.195) were similar between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis indicated that bursectomy is time-consuming without increasing the number of harvested LNs. Although bursectomy can be safely performed without increasing complications and mortality, it does not prolong the OS and DFS of AGC patients, including patients with serosa-penetrating tumours. Therefore, bursectomy should not be recommended as a standard procedure for AGC. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12957-018-1354-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5872552 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58725522018-04-02 Bursectomy for advanced gastric cancer: an update meta-analysis Nie, Run-Cong Yuan, Shu-Qiang Chen, Shi Yan, Shu-Mei Chen, Yong-Ming Chen, Xiao-Jiang Chen, Guo-Ming Zhou, Zhi-Wei Chen, Ying-Bo Li, Yuan-Fang World J Surg Oncol Review BACKGROUND: The present meta-analysis was to explore the surgical and oncological outcomes of bursectomy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). METHODS: Relevant studies that evaluated the role of bursectomy for AGC were comprehensively examined to perform a meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary outcomes were the number of harvested lymph nodes (LNs), operation time, operative bleeding, hospital stay, postoperative complication and mortality. RESULTS: A total of seven studies comprising 2633 cases (1176 cases in the bursectomy group and 1457 cases in the non-bursectomy group) were finally included. There was no significant difference in OS (HR 0.95, P = 0.647) and DFS (HR 0.99, P = 0.936) between the two groups. Even for patients with serosa-penetrating tumours, OS was comparable between the two groups (HR 0.87, P = 0.356). The operation time of the bursectomy group was longer (weighted mean difference, WMD 32.76 min, P = 0.002). No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the number of dissected LNs (WMD 5.86, P = 0.157), operative bleeding (WMD 66.99 ml, P = 0.192) and hospital stay (WMD − 0.15 days, P = 0.766). The overall postoperative complication (relative risk, RR 1.08, P = 0.421) and mortality (RR 0.44, P = 0.195) were similar between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis indicated that bursectomy is time-consuming without increasing the number of harvested LNs. Although bursectomy can be safely performed without increasing complications and mortality, it does not prolong the OS and DFS of AGC patients, including patients with serosa-penetrating tumours. Therefore, bursectomy should not be recommended as a standard procedure for AGC. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12957-018-1354-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-03-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5872552/ /pubmed/29592807 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12957-018-1354-1 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 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 | Review Nie, Run-Cong Yuan, Shu-Qiang Chen, Shi Yan, Shu-Mei Chen, Yong-Ming Chen, Xiao-Jiang Chen, Guo-Ming Zhou, Zhi-Wei Chen, Ying-Bo Li, Yuan-Fang Bursectomy for advanced gastric cancer: an update meta-analysis |
title | Bursectomy for advanced gastric cancer: an update meta-analysis |
title_full | Bursectomy for advanced gastric cancer: an update meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Bursectomy for advanced gastric cancer: an update meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Bursectomy for advanced gastric cancer: an update meta-analysis |
title_short | Bursectomy for advanced gastric cancer: an update meta-analysis |
title_sort | bursectomy for advanced gastric cancer: an update meta-analysis |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5872552/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29592807 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12957-018-1354-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nieruncong bursectomyforadvancedgastriccanceranupdatemetaanalysis AT yuanshuqiang bursectomyforadvancedgastriccanceranupdatemetaanalysis AT chenshi bursectomyforadvancedgastriccanceranupdatemetaanalysis AT yanshumei bursectomyforadvancedgastriccanceranupdatemetaanalysis AT chenyongming bursectomyforadvancedgastriccanceranupdatemetaanalysis AT chenxiaojiang bursectomyforadvancedgastriccanceranupdatemetaanalysis AT chenguoming bursectomyforadvancedgastriccanceranupdatemetaanalysis AT zhouzhiwei bursectomyforadvancedgastriccanceranupdatemetaanalysis AT chenyingbo bursectomyforadvancedgastriccanceranupdatemetaanalysis AT liyuanfang bursectomyforadvancedgastriccanceranupdatemetaanalysis |