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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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