Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable esophageal carcinoma: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

17Citations
Citations of this article
35Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable esophageal carcinoma has been a focus of study, but no agreement has been reached on clinical randomized controlled trials and relevant systematic evaluation. The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis on published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery with surgery alone for resectable esophageal carcinoma. Medline and manual searches was conducted in PubMed, ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) meeting summary, Embase, the Cochrane Library (up to October 2010), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database, Wanfang Database. The selection contents were to identify all published and unpublished RCTs that compared neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery with surgery alone for resectable esophageal carcinoma. Sixteen RCTs which included 2,594 patients were selected. The risk ratio (RR) (95% confidence interval [CI]; P value), expressed as neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery versus surgery alone (treatment versus control), was 1.02 (0.95, 1.10; P=0.54) for 1-year survival, 1.29 (1.13, 1.47; P=0.0001) for 3-year survival, 1.31 (1.13, 1.51; P=0.0003) for 5-year survival, 1.00 (0.95, 1.04; P= 0.85) for rate of resection and 0.89 (0.64, 1.23; P=0.48) for operative mortality. The results showed that neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable esophageal carcinoma can raise the overall survival rate of patients with esophageal carcinoma, but it does not affect treatment-related mortality.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Xu, X. H., Peng, X. H., Yu, P., Xu, X. Y., Cai, E. H., Guo, P., & Li, K. (2012). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable esophageal carcinoma: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 13(1), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.1.103

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free