10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Adjuvant Therapy for Resectable Biliary Tract Cancer: A Bayesian Network Analysis

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: Selecting proper postoperative adjuvant therapy is of great importance for prolonging overall survival (OS) of patients with biliary tract cancer (BTC). OS is commonly affected by high rate of postoperative recurrence and metastasis.

          Purpose: The present study aimed to identify the optimal adjuvant therapy for BTC patients.

          Method: A comprehensive search was carried out on Pubmed, Web of science, and Embase databases to acquire articles regarding BTC therapy approaches. Subsequently, the hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were applied to evaluate the efficacy of different adjuvant therapy regimens. The GemTc (GemTc.0.8-2) and R (R.3.6.0) software were employed to perform statistical analyses.

          Result: Data from 22 articles, including 14,646 patients, were quantitatively analyzed. The results showed that in terms of 5-year OS, gemcitabine (GEM) was considered as the optimal adjuvant therapy for BTC compared with chemoradiotherapy (CRT; HR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.34-0.97), observation (OB; HR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.33-0.73), and radiotherapy (RT; HR = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.22-0.71). Additionally, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) exhibited improved efficacy compared with RT (HR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.29-0.91) and OB (HR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.43-0.92). When the efficacy of 5-FU was compared with that of GEM, the results showed that 5-FU (HR = 1.29) was more effective than GEM. Furthermore, CRT and RT prolonged positive resection margin (R +)-OS (HR = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.49-1.00) and positive lymph node-(N +)-OS (HR = 0.22; 95% CI = 0.074-0.66) in BTC patients. In terms of median recurrence-free survival (RFS) and 1-year OS, the differences were not statistically significant among different therapeutic interventions.

          Conclusion: The present study suggested that GEM could be used as a first-line adjuvant therapy for resected BTC patients. Additionally, CRT could be the optimal treatment approach for R + and N + patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

          Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

            The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Oncol
                Front Oncol
                Front. Oncol.
                Frontiers in Oncology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2234-943X
                11 March 2021
                2021
                : 11
                : 600027
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology , Wuhan, China
                [2] 2Department of Hematology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital , Tianjin, China
                Author notes

                Edited by: Alex Nicolas Gordon-Weeks, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

                Reviewed by: Carlo Ceresa, University of Oxford, United Kingdom; Benedetto Ielpo, Parc de Salut Mar, Spain

                *Correspondence: Yanmei Zou zouyanmei0101@ 123456126.com

                This article was submitted to Surgical Oncology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Oncology

                Article
                10.3389/fonc.2021.600027
                7991284
                4449bd59-4fc7-4fc7-84d7-e6cb8bff295b
                Copyright © 2021 Chen, Meng, Xiong and Zou.

                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.

                History
                : 16 October 2020
                : 17 February 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 8, Tables: 3, Equations: 0, References: 52, Pages: 13, Words: 7209
                Funding
                Funded by: Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province 10.13039/501100003819
                Award ID: 2018CFB611
                Categories
                Oncology
                Systematic Review

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                biliary tract cancer (btc),adjuvant therapy (at),gemcitabine,fluorouracil,chemo-radiotherapy,radiotherapy,observation

                Comments

                Comment on this article