Cargando…

Comparison of Prognosis Between Microscopically Positive and Negative Surgical Margins for Primary Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis aimed to determine the prognostic impact of microscopically positive margins (R1) on primary gastrointestinal stromal tumors. METHODS: A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for studies up to 23 November 2020. The p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Zhen, Zhang, Yichunzi, Yin, Han, Geng, Xiuzhu, Li, Sishang, Zhao, Jinrong, Zeng, Ziyang, Ye, Xin, Yu, Jianchun, Feng, Fan, Kang, Weiming
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9062001/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35515109
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.679115
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis aimed to determine the prognostic impact of microscopically positive margins (R1) on primary gastrointestinal stromal tumors. METHODS: A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for studies up to 23 November 2020. The pooled disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between R1 and negative margins (R0) were estimated using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Twenty studies with 6,465 patients were included. Compared with R0 resection, R1 was associated with poor DFS in patients who did not receive adjuvant Imatinib (HR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.26–2.09; P = 0.48, I(2) = 0%; reference: R0). This negative impact of R1 disappeared with the use of adjuvant Imatinib (HR: 1.23, 95% CI: 0.95–1.60; P = 0.38, I2 = 6%; reference: R0). R1 was related to poor DFS in gastric GISTs (HR: 2.15, 95% CI: 1.15–5.02, I(2) = 0%; reference: R0), which was attenuated in the subgroup of adjuvant Imatinib (HR: 2.24, 95% CI: 0.32–15.60; P = 0.84, I(2) = 0%; reference: R0). Rectal GIST with R1 margin who even received adjuvant Imatinib still had poor DFS (HR: 3.79, 95% CI: 1.27–11.31; P = 0.54, I(2) = 0%; reference: R0). Patients who underwent R1 resection had similar OS compared with those underwent R0 resection regardless of the use of adjuvant Imatinib. CONCLUSION: R1 was associated with poor DFS for primary GISTs, which was attenuated by adjuvant therapy with Imatinib. Similar result was observed in the gastric GISTs subgroup. Rectal GIST patients with R1 resection had poor DFS even when they received adjuvant Imatinib. The R1 margin did not influence the OS of GISTs.