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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Leonhardt, Carl Stephan, Niesen, Willem, Kalkum, Eva, Klotz, Rosa, Hank, Thomas, Büchler, Markus Wolfgang, Strobel, Oliver, Probst, Pascal
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