Herng, Seow Chee, Htet, Norah Htet, and Naing, Cho Min (2022) A comparison of neoadjuvant therapies for gastroesophageal and gastric cancer on tumour resection rate: A network meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 17 (9). e0275186.

Preview

PDF (Published Version) - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (1MB) | Preview

 

471

Abstract

Background: Gastric cancer is one of the most common malignancies around the world, and a variety of neoadjuvant chemotherapies with different drug combinations are available for the treatment. R0 resection refers to a microscopically negative margin on resection, where no gross or microscopic tumour remains in the primary tumour. We aimed to find evidence on the relative effectiveness of neoadjuvant therapies for patients with advanced gastroesophageal and gastric cancer on the R0 resection rate.

Methods: Relevant randomised controlled trials were searched using appropriate keywords in health-related databases. We performed network meta-analysis within a frequentist framework. The endpoint assessed was the R0 resection rate. We assessed consistency and transitivity assumptions that are necessary for network meta-analysis. This study only used data from published studies. The need for consent from participants was waived by the Ethics Review Committee of the International Medical University in Malaysia.

Results: Six randomised controlled trials involving 1700 patients were identified. A network plot was formed with five neoadjuvant regimens [DLX (pyrimidine analogue + platinum compounds + chemoradiotherapy), DELX (pyrimidine analogue + epipodophylllotoxins/etoposide + platinum compounds + chemoradiotherapy), ADL (anthracycline + pyrimidine analogue + platinum compounds), ADM (anthracycline+ pyrimidine analogue + anti-folate compounds) and LTX (platinum compounds + taxane + chemoradiotherapy)] and surgery alone for management of patients with advanced gastroesophageal and gastric cancer. Assumptions required for a network meta-analysis such as consistency ((global test: Chi2 (1): 3.71; p:0.054)), and the transitivity in accord to the characteristics of interventions considered in this review were not violated. In the network comparison, surgery alone has a lower R0 resection rate compared with LTX (OR 0.2, 95%CI:0.01, 0.38) or DLX (OR 0.48, 95%CI: 0.29, 0.79). LTX has higher resection rate compared with DLX (OR 2.47, 95%CI: 1.08 to 5.63), DELX (OR 106.0, 95%CI: 25.29 to 444.21), ADM (OR 5.41, 95%CI: 1.56 to 18.78) or ADL (OR 3.12, 95%CI: 1.27 to 7.67). There were wide or very wide CIs in many of these comparisons. Overall certainty of the evidence was low or very low. Further research in this field is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the R0 resection rates between LTX versus other neoadjuvant chemotherapy is likely to change the estimate.

Conclusions: Findings suggest that overall quality of evidence on the relative effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapies was low to very low level. Therefore, we are very uncertain about the true effect of neoadjuvant therapies in the R0 resection rate in patients with gastroesophageal and gastric cancer. Future well-designed large trials are needed. To recruit large samples in this field, multicountry trials are recommended. Future trials also need to assess treatment-related adverse events, and patients-centered outcomes such as health‐related quality of life.

Actions (Repository Staff Only)

Item Control Page