Cargando…
Prognostic relevance of the revised R status definition in pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: The prognostic impact of margin status is reported with conflicting results after pancreatic cancer resection. While some studies validated an uninvolved resection margin (R0) 1 mm or more of tumour clearance, others have failed to show benefit. This systematic review and meta-analysis a...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8931487/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35301513 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrac010 |
_version_ | 1784671276436029440 |
---|---|
author | Leonhardt, Carl Stephan Niesen, Willem Kalkum, Eva Klotz, Rosa Hank, Thomas Büchler, Markus Wolfgang Strobel, Oliver Probst, Pascal |
author_facet | Leonhardt, Carl Stephan Niesen, Willem Kalkum, Eva Klotz, Rosa Hank, Thomas Büchler, Markus Wolfgang Strobel, Oliver Probst, Pascal |
author_sort | Leonhardt, Carl Stephan |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The prognostic impact of margin status is reported with conflicting results after pancreatic cancer resection. While some studies validated an uninvolved resection margin (R0) 1 mm or more of tumour clearance, others have failed to show benefit. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of margin definitions on median overall survival (OS). METHODS: MEDLINE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies reporting associations between resection margins and OS between 2010 and 2021. Data regarding margin status (R0 circumferential resection margin (CRM) negative (CRM–), R0 CRM positive (CRM+), R0 direct, and R1 and OS were extracted. Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled with a random-effects model. The risk of bias was evaluated with the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. RESULTS: The full texts of 774 studies were screened. In total, 21 studies compromising 6056 patients were included in the final synthesis. In total, 188 (24 per cent) studies were excluded due to missing margin definitions. The R0 (CRM+) rate was 50 per cent (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.40 to 0.61) and the R0 (CRM−) rate was 38 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 0.29 to 0.47). R0 (CRM−) resection was independently associated with improved OS compared to combined R1 and R0 (CRM+; HR 1.36, 95 per cent c.i. 1.23 to 1.56). CONCLUSION: The revised R status was confirmed as an independent prognosticator compared to combined R0 (CRM+) and R1. The limited number of studies, non-standardized pathology protocols, and the varying number of margins assessed hamper comparability. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8931487 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89314872022-03-18 Prognostic relevance of the revised R status definition in pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis Leonhardt, Carl Stephan Niesen, Willem Kalkum, Eva Klotz, Rosa Hank, Thomas Büchler, Markus Wolfgang Strobel, Oliver Probst, Pascal BJS Open Systematic Review BACKGROUND: The prognostic impact of margin status is reported with conflicting results after pancreatic cancer resection. While some studies validated an uninvolved resection margin (R0) 1 mm or more of tumour clearance, others have failed to show benefit. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of margin definitions on median overall survival (OS). METHODS: MEDLINE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies reporting associations between resection margins and OS between 2010 and 2021. Data regarding margin status (R0 circumferential resection margin (CRM) negative (CRM–), R0 CRM positive (CRM+), R0 direct, and R1 and OS were extracted. Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled with a random-effects model. The risk of bias was evaluated with the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. RESULTS: The full texts of 774 studies were screened. In total, 21 studies compromising 6056 patients were included in the final synthesis. In total, 188 (24 per cent) studies were excluded due to missing margin definitions. The R0 (CRM+) rate was 50 per cent (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.40 to 0.61) and the R0 (CRM−) rate was 38 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 0.29 to 0.47). R0 (CRM−) resection was independently associated with improved OS compared to combined R1 and R0 (CRM+; HR 1.36, 95 per cent c.i. 1.23 to 1.56). CONCLUSION: The revised R status was confirmed as an independent prognosticator compared to combined R0 (CRM+) and R1. The limited number of studies, non-standardized pathology protocols, and the varying number of margins assessed hamper comparability. Oxford University Press 2022-03-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8931487/ /pubmed/35301513 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrac010 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review Leonhardt, Carl Stephan Niesen, Willem Kalkum, Eva Klotz, Rosa Hank, Thomas Büchler, Markus Wolfgang Strobel, Oliver Probst, Pascal Prognostic relevance of the revised R status definition in pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis |
title | Prognostic relevance of the revised R status definition in pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis |
title_full | Prognostic relevance of the revised R status definition in pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Prognostic relevance of the revised R status definition in pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Prognostic relevance of the revised R status definition in pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis |
title_short | Prognostic relevance of the revised R status definition in pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis |
title_sort | prognostic relevance of the revised r status definition in pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis |
topic | Systematic Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8931487/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35301513 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrac010 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT leonhardtcarlstephan prognosticrelevanceoftherevisedrstatusdefinitioninpancreaticcancermetaanalysis AT niesenwillem prognosticrelevanceoftherevisedrstatusdefinitioninpancreaticcancermetaanalysis AT kalkumeva prognosticrelevanceoftherevisedrstatusdefinitioninpancreaticcancermetaanalysis AT klotzrosa prognosticrelevanceoftherevisedrstatusdefinitioninpancreaticcancermetaanalysis AT hankthomas prognosticrelevanceoftherevisedrstatusdefinitioninpancreaticcancermetaanalysis AT buchlermarkuswolfgang prognosticrelevanceoftherevisedrstatusdefinitioninpancreaticcancermetaanalysis AT strobeloliver prognosticrelevanceoftherevisedrstatusdefinitioninpancreaticcancermetaanalysis AT probstpascal prognosticrelevanceoftherevisedrstatusdefinitioninpancreaticcancermetaanalysis |