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
_version_ 1784698834955272192
author Liu, Zhen
Zhang, Yichunzi
Yin, Han
Geng, Xiuzhu
Li, Sishang
Zhao, Jinrong
Zeng, Ziyang
Ye, Xin
Yu, Jianchun
Feng, Fan
Kang, Weiming
author_facet Liu, Zhen
Zhang, Yichunzi
Yin, Han
Geng, Xiuzhu
Li, Sishang
Zhao, Jinrong
Zeng, Ziyang
Ye, Xin
Yu, Jianchun
Feng, Fan
Kang, Weiming
author_sort Liu, Zhen
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9062001
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90620012022-05-04 Comparison of Prognosis Between Microscopically Positive and Negative Surgical Margins for Primary Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Liu, Zhen Zhang, Yichunzi Yin, Han Geng, Xiuzhu Li, Sishang Zhao, Jinrong Zeng, Ziyang Ye, Xin Yu, Jianchun Feng, Fan Kang, Weiming Front Oncol Oncology 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. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-04-19 /pmc/articles/PMC9062001/ /pubmed/35515109 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.679115 Text en Copyright © 2022 Liu, Zhang, Yin, Geng, Li, Zhao, Zeng, Ye, Yu, Feng and Kang https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Oncology
Liu, Zhen
Zhang, Yichunzi
Yin, Han
Geng, Xiuzhu
Li, Sishang
Zhao, Jinrong
Zeng, Ziyang
Ye, Xin
Yu, Jianchun
Feng, Fan
Kang, Weiming
Comparison of Prognosis Between Microscopically Positive and Negative Surgical Margins for Primary Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Comparison of Prognosis Between Microscopically Positive and Negative Surgical Margins for Primary Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Comparison of Prognosis Between Microscopically Positive and Negative Surgical Margins for Primary Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of Prognosis Between Microscopically Positive and Negative Surgical Margins for Primary Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Prognosis Between Microscopically Positive and Negative Surgical Margins for Primary Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Comparison of Prognosis Between Microscopically Positive and Negative Surgical Margins for Primary Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort comparison of prognosis between microscopically positive and negative surgical margins for primary gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Oncology
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT liuzhen comparisonofprognosisbetweenmicroscopicallypositiveandnegativesurgicalmarginsforprimarygastrointestinalstromaltumorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhangyichunzi comparisonofprognosisbetweenmicroscopicallypositiveandnegativesurgicalmarginsforprimarygastrointestinalstromaltumorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yinhan comparisonofprognosisbetweenmicroscopicallypositiveandnegativesurgicalmarginsforprimarygastrointestinalstromaltumorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT gengxiuzhu comparisonofprognosisbetweenmicroscopicallypositiveandnegativesurgicalmarginsforprimarygastrointestinalstromaltumorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lisishang comparisonofprognosisbetweenmicroscopicallypositiveandnegativesurgicalmarginsforprimarygastrointestinalstromaltumorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhaojinrong comparisonofprognosisbetweenmicroscopicallypositiveandnegativesurgicalmarginsforprimarygastrointestinalstromaltumorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zengziyang comparisonofprognosisbetweenmicroscopicallypositiveandnegativesurgicalmarginsforprimarygastrointestinalstromaltumorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yexin comparisonofprognosisbetweenmicroscopicallypositiveandnegativesurgicalmarginsforprimarygastrointestinalstromaltumorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yujianchun comparisonofprognosisbetweenmicroscopicallypositiveandnegativesurgicalmarginsforprimarygastrointestinalstromaltumorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT fengfan comparisonofprognosisbetweenmicroscopicallypositiveandnegativesurgicalmarginsforprimarygastrointestinalstromaltumorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kangweiming comparisonofprognosisbetweenmicroscopicallypositiveandnegativesurgicalmarginsforprimarygastrointestinalstromaltumorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis