Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints

Outcomes of liver resection in hepatitis C virus-related intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cholangiocarcinoma is the second most common primary liver malignancy. Its incidence and mortality rates have been increasing in recent years. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a risk factor for development of cirrhosis and cholangiocarcinoma. Currently, surgical resection remains the only curative treatment option for cholangiocarcinoma. We aim to study the impact of HCV infection on outcomes of liver resection (LR) in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC).

AIM

To study the outcomes of curative resection of ICC in patients with HCV (i.e., HCV+) compared to patients without HCV (i.e., HCV-).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies to assess the outcomes of LR in ICC in HCV+ patients compared to HCV- patients in tertiary care hospitals. PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Scopus were systematically searched from inception till August 2023. Included studies were RCTs and non-RCTs on patients ≥ 18 years old with a diagnosis of ICC who underwent LR, and compared outcomes between patients with HCV+ vs HCV-. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival. Secondary outcomes include perioperative mortality, operation duration, blood loss, intrahepatic and extrahepatic recurrence.

RESULTS

Seven articles, published between 2004 and 2021, fulfilled the selection criteria. All of the studies were retrospective studies. Age, incidence of male patients, albumin, bilirubin, platelets, tumor size, incidence of multiple tumors, vascular invasion, bile duct invasion, lymph node metastases, and stage 4 disease were comparable between HCV+ and HCV- group. Alanine transaminase [MD 22.20, 95%confidence interval (CI): 13.75, 30.65, P < 0.00001] and aspartate transaminase levels (MD 27.27, 95%CI: 20.20, 34.34, P < 0.00001) were significantly higher in HCV+ group compared to HCV- group. Incidence of cirrhosis was significantly higher in HCV+ group [odds ratio (OR) 5.78, 95%CI: 1.38, 24.14, P = 0.02] compared to HCV- group. Incidence of poorly differentiated disease was significantly higher in HCV+ group (OR 2.55, 95%CI: 1.34, 4.82, P = 0.004) compared to HCV- group. Incidence of simultaneous hepatocellular carcinoma lesions was significantly higher in HCV+ group (OR 8.31, 95%CI: 2.36, 29.26, P = 0.001) compared to HCV- group. OS was significantly worse in the HCV+ group (hazard ratio 2.05, 95%CI: 1.46, 2.88, P < 0.0001) compared to HCV- group.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated significantly worse OS in HCV+ patients with ICC who underwent curative resection compared to HCV- patients.

The impact of waiting time and delayed treatment on the outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most diagnosed cancer worldwide. Healthcare resource constraints may predispose treatment delays. We aim to review existing literature on whether delayed treatment results in worse outcomes in HCC. PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception till December 2022. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary outcomes included post-treatment mortality, readmission rates, and complications. Fourteen studies with a total of 135,389 patients (delayed n = 25,516, no delay n = 109,873) were included. Age, incidence of male patients, Child-Pugh B cirrhosis, and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage 0/A HCC were comparable between delayed and no delay groups. Tumor size was significantly smaller in delayed versus no delay group (mean difference, -0.70 cm; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.14, 0.26; p = 0.002). More patients received radiofrequency ablation in delayed versus no delay group (OR, 1.22; 95% CI: 1.16, 1.27; p < 0.0001). OS was comparable between delayed and no delay in HCC treatment (hazard ratio [HR], 1.13; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.29; p = 0.07). Comparable DFS between delayed and no delay groups (HR, 0.99; 95% CI: 0.75, 1.30; p = 0.95) was observed. Subgroup analysis of studies that defined treatment delay as > 90 days showed comparable OS in the delayed group (HR, 1.04; 95% CI: 0.93, 1.16; p = 0.51). OS and DFS for delayed treatment were non-inferior compared to no delay, but might be due to better tumor biology/smaller tumor size in the delayed group.

Comparative effectiveness of several adjuvant therapies after hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma patients with microvascular invasion

BACKGROUND

For resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), radical hepatectomy is commonly used as a curative treatment. However, postoperative recurrence significantly diminishes the overall survival (OS) of HCC patients, especially with microvascular invasion (MVI) as an independent high-risk factor for recurrence. While some studies suggest that postoperative adjuvant therapy may decrease the risk of recurrence following liver resection in HCC patients, the specific role of adjuvant therapies in those with MVI remains unclear.

AIM

To conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the efficacy of various adjuvant therapies and determine the optimal adjuvant regimen.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science until April 6, 2023. Studies comparing different adjuvant therapies or comparing adjuvant therapy with hepatectomy alone were included. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals were used to combine data on recurrence free survival and OS in both pairwise meta-analyses and NMA.

RESULTS

Fourteen eligible trials (2268 patients) reporting five different therapies were included. In terms of reducing the risk of recurrence, radiotherapy (RT) [HR = 0.34 (0.23, 0.5); surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) = 97.7%] was found to be the most effective adjuvant therapy, followed by hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy [HR = 0.52 (0.35, 0.76); SUCRA = 65.1%]. Regarding OS improvement, RT [HR: 0.35 (0.2, 0.61); SUCRA = 93.1%] demonstrated the highest effectiveness, followed by sorafenib [HR = 0.48 (0.32, 0.69); SUCRA = 70.9%].

CONCLUSION

Adjuvant therapy following hepatectomy may reduce the risk of recurrence and provide a survival benefit for HCC patients with MVI. RT appears to be the most effective adjuvant regimen.

Prognostic role of serum carcinoembryonic antigen in patients receiving liver resection for colorectal cancer liver metastasis: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is a broad-spectrum tumor marker for differential diagnosis, monitoring, and response assessment of a variety of malignancies.

AIM

To evaluate whether serum CEA could predict the prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRCLM) before and after liver resection (LR).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science were systematically searched to retrieve literature, with a search cut-off date of February 27, 2023. Articles were strictly screened for inclusion according to pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were pooled and analyzed using Stata 16.0.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 36 studies involving a total of 11143 CRCLM patients. The results showed that a high pre-LR serum CEA level was correlated with poor overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.49-1.75, P < 0.001] and recurrence-free survival (HR = 1.27, 95%CI: 1.11-1.45, P < 0.001) in CRCLM patients. A high post-LR serum CEA level predicted poor OS (HR = 2.66, 95%CI: 2.10-3.38, P < 0.001). A comparison by treatment modality, analysis modality, patient source, and cutoff-value showed that overall, high preoperative and postoperative serum CEA levels remained correlated with a poor prognosis.

CONCLUSION

This study concluded that high pre-LR and post-LR serum CEA levels were significantly correlated with a poor prognosis in CRCLM patients.

Nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir for preventing and treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care (SoC) compared to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 or preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 15 May 2023. This is a LSR. We conduct update searches every two months and make them publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in postexposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from low-income countries and low- to middle-income countries, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds.

MAIN RESULTS

As of 15 May 2023, we included two RCTs with 2510 participants with mild and mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo. All trial participants were without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at high risk for progression to severe disease. Randomization coincided with the Delta wave for outpatients and Omicron wave for inpatients. Outpatient trial participants and 73% of inpatients were unvaccinated. Symptom onset in outpatients was no more than five days before randomisation and prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 were not allowed. We excluded two studies due to concerns with research integrity. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Three studies are currently awaiting classification. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 in outpatient settings Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence) and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement of clinical status, quality of life, or viral clearance. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with moderate to severe COVID-19 in inpatient settings We are uncertain whether nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC reduces all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.86; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.58; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 14 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement or worsening of clinical status and quality of life. We did not include data for safety outcomes due to insufficient and inconsistent information. Subgroup analyses for equity For outpatients, the outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity regarding age (less than 65 years versus 65 years or greater) and ethnicity. There were no subgroup differences for age or ethnicity. For inpatients, the outcome 'all-cause mortality' was investigated for equity regarding age (65 years or less versus greater than 65 years). There was no difference between subgroups of age. No further equity-related subgroups were reported, and no subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence suggests nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death in high-risk, unvaccinated COVID-19 outpatients infected with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence of the safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Very low-certainty evidence exists regarding the effects of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on all-cause mortality and viral clearance in mildly to moderately affected, mostly unvaccinated COVID-19 inpatients infected with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Insufficient and inconsistent information prevents the assessment of safety outcomes. No reliable differences in effect size and direction were found regarding equity aspects. There is no available evidence supporting the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are continually updating our search and making search results available on the OSF platform.

Meta-analysis of outcomes from drug-eluting stent implantation in infrapopliteal arteries

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous drug-eluting stent implantation (DESI) is an emerging and promising treatment modality for infrapopliteal artery diseases (IPADs). This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes and quantitatively analyzes the outcomes of DESI in IPADs considering the hazard ratio (HR), which is a more accurate and appropriate outcome measure than the more commonly used relative risk and odds ratio.

AIM

To explore the superiority of drug-eluting stents (DESs) vs traditional treatment modalities for IPADs.

METHODS

The following postoperative indicators were the outcomes of interest: All-cause death (ACD)-free survival, major amputation (MA)-free survival, target lesion revascularization (TLR)-free survival, adverse event (AE)-free survival, and primary patency (PP) survival. The outcome measures were then compared according to their respective HRs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The participants were human IPAD patients who underwent treatments for infrapopliteal lesions. DESI was set as the intervention arm, and traditional percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with or without bare metal stent implantation (BMSI) was set as the control arm. A systematic search in the Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was performed on November 29, 2022. All controlled studies published in English with sufficient data on outcomes of interest for extraction or conversion were included. When studies did not directly report the HRs but gave a corresponding survival curve, we utilized Engauge Digitizer software and standard formulas to convert the information and derive HRs. Then, meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials and three cohort studies involving 2639 participants were included. The ACD-free and MA-free survival HR values for DESI were not statistically significant from those of the control treatment (P > 0.05); however, the HR values for TLR-free, AE-free, and PP-survival differed significantly [2.65 (95%CI: 1.56-4.50), 1.57 (95%CI: 1.23-2.01), and 5.67 (95%CI: 3.56-9.03), respectively].

CONCLUSION

Compared with traditional treatment modalities (i.e., PTA with or without BMSI), DESI for IPADs is superior in avoiding TLR and AEs and maintaining PP but shows no superiority or inferiority in avoiding ACD and MA.

Meta-analysis of outcomes from drug-eluting stent implantation in infrapopliteal arteries

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous drug-eluting stent implantation (DESI) is an emerging and promising treatment modality for infrapopliteal artery diseases (IPADs). This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes and quantitatively analyzes the outcomes of DESI in IPADs considering the hazard ratio (HR), which is a more accurate and appropriate outcome measure than the more commonly used relative risk and odds ratio.

AIM

To explore the superiority of drug-eluting stents (DESs) vs traditional treatment modalities for IPADs.

METHODS

The following postoperative indicators were the outcomes of interest: All-cause death (ACD)-free survival, major amputation (MA)-free survival, target lesion revascularization (TLR)-free survival, adverse event (AE)-free survival, and primary patency (PP) survival. The outcome measures were then compared according to their respective HRs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The participants were human IPAD patients who underwent treatments for infrapopliteal lesions. DESI was set as the intervention arm, and traditional percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with or without bare metal stent implantation (BMSI) was set as the control arm. A systematic search in the Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was performed on November 29, 2022. All controlled studies published in English with sufficient data on outcomes of interest for extraction or conversion were included. When studies did not directly report the HRs but gave a corresponding survival curve, we utilized Engauge Digitizer software and standard formulas to convert the information and derive HRs. Then, meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials and three cohort studies involving 2639 participants were included. The ACD-free and MA-free survival HR values for DESI were not statistically significant from those of the control treatment (P > 0.05); however, the HR values for TLR-free, AE-free, and PP-survival differed significantly [2.65 (95%CI: 1.56-4.50), 1.57 (95%CI: 1.23-2.01), and 5.67 (95%CI: 3.56-9.03), respectively].

CONCLUSION

Compared with traditional treatment modalities (i.e., PTA with or without BMSI), DESI for IPADs is superior in avoiding TLR and AEs and maintaining PP but shows no superiority or inferiority in avoiding ACD and MA.

Outcomes of arteriovenous graft vs. fistula for haemodialysis access in the elderly: A systematic review and meta‑analysis

The impact of the type of vascular access on the outcomes in the elderly haemodialysis patients is still unclear. The goal of the present study was to compare survival outcomes in elderly haemodialysis patients who received either arteriovenous graft (AVG) or arteriovenous fistula (AVF). A systematic literature search was performed in EMBASE, Cochrane, MEDLINE, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar databases for papers published from January 1954 until January 2022. Risk of bias in the selected publications was assessed by Newcastle Ottawa scale or Cochrane risk of bias tool depending on the study design. Meta-analysis was carried out using the random-effects model. Data were reported as pooled odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 12 studies were included in the analysis. The majority of the studies had poor quality. Elderly patients receiving AVG had significantly worse survival rate compared with patients that received AVF for the haemodialysis access, with a pooled HR of 1.38 (95% CI, 1.24-1.53; I²=79.9%). Pooled HR for access survival was 1.60 (95% CI, 1.54-1.66; I²=0%). Pooled OR for primary patency rate, maturation failure and infections were 1.81 (95% CI, 0.73-4.49; I²=79.2%), 0.33 (95% CI, 0.12-0.91; I²=70.4%) and 9.74 (95% CI, 2.60-36.49; I²=52.4%), respectively. These results suggested that in elderly patients undergoing haemodialysis, AVG was associated with reduced overall survival and access survival, and higher infection rate, compared with AVF. Notably, AVG was also associated with a lower risk of maturation failure, presenting a potential advantage in specific patient populations (study registration: PROSPERO, no. CRD42022313199).

Antiplatelet agents for the treatment of adults with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause thrombotic events that lead to severe complications or death. Antiplatelet agents, such as acetylsalicylic acid, have been shown to effectively reduce thrombotic events in other diseases: they could influence the course of COVID-19 in general.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of antiplatelets given with standard care compared to no treatment or standard care (with/without placebo) for adults with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antiplatelet agents for the treatment of COVID-19 in adults with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, gender or ethnicity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Antiplatelets plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19 We included four studies (17,541 participants) that recruited hospitalised people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19. A total of 8964 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (either with cyclooxygenase inhibitors or P2Y12 inhibitors) and 8577 participants in the control arm. Most people were older than 50 years and had comorbidities such as hypertension, lung disease or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05; 3 studies, 17,249 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every 177 deaths per 1000 people not receiving antiplatelets, there were 168 deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 151 to 186 per 1000 people); - probably result in little to no difference in worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.01; 2 studies, 15,266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in little to no difference in improvement (participants discharged alive up to day 28) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; 2 studies, 15,454 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in a slight reduction of thrombotic events at longest follow-up (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; 4 studies, 17,518 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events at longest follow-up (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 5.14; 1 study, 1815 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events during study treatment were not reported; - probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events at longest follow-up (Peto OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.19; 4 studies, 17,527 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 We included two RCTs allocating participants, of whom 4209 had confirmed mild COVID-19 and were not hospitalised. A total of 2109 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (treated with acetylsalicylic acid) and 2100 participants in the control arm. No study included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality at day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.22; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may slightly decrease the incidence of new thrombotic events up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may make little or no difference to the incidence of serious adverse events up to day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.64; 1 study, 3881 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events were not reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antiplatelets on the following outcomes (compared to standard care plus placebo): - admission to hospital or death up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10; 2 studies, 4209 participants; very low-certainty evidence); - major bleeding events up to longest follow-up (no event occurred in 328 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life and adverse events during study treatment were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease, we found moderate-certainty evidence that antiplatelets probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, but probably result in a slight reduction in thrombotic events. They probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events. Low-certainty evidence suggests that antiplatelets may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events. In people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms, we found low-certainty evidence that antiplatelets may result in little to no difference in 45-day mortality and serious adverse events, and may slightly reduce thrombotic events. The effects on the combined outcome admission to hospital or death up to day 45 and major bleeding events are very uncertain. Quality of life was not reported. Included studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income settings using antiplatelets prior to vaccination roll-outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, adverse events and people with asymptomatic infection. The 14 ongoing and three completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review.

Microvessel density in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are considered the most common mesenchymal tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. Microvessel density (MVD) constitutes a direct method of vascularity quantification and has been associated with survival rates in multiple malignancies.

AIM

To appraise the effect of MVD on the survival of patients with GIST.

METHODS

This study adhered to Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Electronic scholar databases and grey literature repositories were systematically screened. The Fixed Effects or Random Effects models were used according to the Cochran Q test.

RESULTS

In total, 6 eligible studies were identified. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) for disease free survival (DFS) was 8.52 (95%CI: 1.69-42.84, P = 0.009). The odds ratios of disease-free survival between high and low MVD groups at 12 and 60 mo did not reach statistical significance. Significant superiority of the low MVD group in terms of DFS was documented at 36 and 120 mo (OR: 8.46, P < 0.0001 and OR: 22.71, P = 0.0003, respectively) as well as at metastases rate (OR: 0.11, P = 0.0003).

CONCLUSION

MVD significantly correlates with the HR of DFS and overall survival rates at 36 and 120 mo. Further prospective studies of higher methodological quality are required.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This led to widespread implementation, although the available evidence remains inconsistent. This update aims to fill current knowledge gaps by identifying, describing, evaluating, and synthesising all evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of remdesivir on clinical outcomes in COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of remdesivir and standard care compared to standard care plus/minus placebo on clinical outcomes in patients treated for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv) as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies, without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 31 May 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included RCTs evaluating remdesivir and standard care for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to standard care plus/minus placebo irrespective of disease severity, gender, ethnicity, or setting. We excluded studies that evaluated remdesivir for the treatment of other coronavirus diseases.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for outcomes that were reported according to our prioritised categories: all-cause mortality, in-hospital mortality, clinical improvement (being alive and ready for discharge up to day 28) or worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28), quality of life, serious adverse events, and adverse events (any grade). We differentiated between non-hospitalised individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 and hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs with 11,218 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and a mean age of 53.6 years, of whom 5982 participants were randomised to receive remdesivir. Most participants required low-flow oxygen at baseline. Studies were mainly conducted in high- and upper-middle-income countries. We identified two studies that are awaiting classification and five ongoing studies. Effects of remdesivir in hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19 With moderate-certainty evidence, remdesivir probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.06; risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 6 more; 4 studies, 7142 participants), day 60 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; RD 35 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 73 fewer to 12 more; 1 study, 1281 participants), or in-hospital mortality at up to day 150 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03; RD 11 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 25 fewer to 5 more; 1 study, 8275 participants). Remdesivir probably increases the chance of clinical improvement at up to day 28 slightly (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.17; RD 68 more per 1000, 95% CI 37 more to 105 more; 4 studies, 2514 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening within 28 days (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.82; RD 135 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 198 fewer to 69 fewer; 2 studies, 1734 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Remdesivir may make little or no difference to the rate of adverse events of any grade (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.18; RD 23 more per 1000, 95% CI 46 fewer to 104 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.07; RD 44 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 96 fewer to 19 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low, with some concerns for mortality and clinical course. We had some concerns for safety outcomes because participants who had died did not contribute information. Without adjustment, this leads to an uncertain amount of missing values and the potential for bias due to missing data. Effects of remdesivir in non-hospitalised individuals with mild COVID-19 One of the nine RCTs was conducted in the outpatient setting and included symptomatic people with a risk of progression. No deaths occurred within the 28 days observation period. We are uncertain about clinical improvement due to very low-certainty evidence. Remdesivir probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening (hospitalisation) at up to day 28 (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.75; RD 46 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 57 fewer to 16 fewer; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not find any data for quality of life. Remdesivir may decrease the rate of serious adverse events at up to 28 days (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.70; RD 49 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 60 fewer to 20 fewer; 562 participants; low-certainty evidence), but it probably makes little or no difference to the risk of adverse events of any grade (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.10; RD 42 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 111 fewer to 46 more; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low for mortality, clinical improvement, and safety outcomes. We identified a high risk of bias for clinical worsening.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence up to 31 May 2022, remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality or in-hospital mortality of individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19. The hospitalisation rate was reduced with remdesivir in one study including participants with mild to moderate COVID-19. It may be beneficial in the clinical course for both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients, but certainty remains limited. The applicability of the evidence to current practice may be limited by the recruitment of participants from mostly unvaccinated populations exposed to early variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus at the time the studies were undertaken.  Future studies should provide additional data on the efficacy and safety of remdesivir for defined core outcomes in COVID-19 research, especially for different population subgroups.

Statin use improves the prognosis of ovarian cancer: An updated and comprehensive meta-analysis

Statins are lipid-lowering agents that have also been found to have anticancer effects. The relationship between statin use and clinical outcomes in ovarian cancer (OC) remains controversial, as previous assessments of the relationship between statin use and OC prognosis have yielded inconsistent results. Therefore, a comprehensive meta-analysis was performed in the present study to investigate this association. Studies were systematically retrieved by searching the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases, and consulting reference lists of the related studies. The search timeframe was from database creation to September 1, 2022. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the association. In the present meta-analysis, 16 studies with 37,660 patients with OC were included, of which 11,296 patients had been prescribed statins. The results showed that statin use markedly improved the overall survival time (OS; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73-0.85; P<0.00001) and OC-specific survival time (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.80-0.89; P<0.00001), especially the OS time in patients with serous OC (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.89; P<0.0001) and endometrioid OC (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98; P=0.03). In addition, survival rate was higher in patients who used statins after OC diagnosis (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73-0.85; P<0.00001). However, there was no statistically significant association between statin use and the prognosis of mucinous and clear cell OC. The results suggested that statin use markedly improved the OS in patients with OC, including in those with serous and endometrioid OC. Statins were also found to improve the prognosis of patients of both Asian and non-Asian ethnicities. In addition, both lipophilic and hydrophilic statins improved the survival in patients with OC, especially in patients using statins after OC diagnosis. However, the effect may vary depending on the statin type, duration of use and cancer type, and more well-designed studies are needed to further evaluate this.

Association of CYP24A1 with survival and drug resistance in clinical cancer patients: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acquired chemo-drug resistance constantly led to the failure of chemotherapy for malignant cancers, consequently causing cancer relapse. Hence, identifying the biomarker of drug resistance is vital to improve the treatment efficacy in cancer. The clinical prognostic value of CYP24A1 remains inconclusive, hence we aim to evaluate the association between CYP24A1 and the drug resistance in cancer patients through a meta-analysis approach.

METHOD

Relevant studies detecting the expression or SNP of CYP24A1 in cancer patients up till May 2022 were systematically searched in four common scientific databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library and ISI Web of Science. The pooled hazard ratios (HRs) indicating the ratio of hazard rate of survival time between CYP24A1^high population vs CYP24A1^low population were calculated. The pooled HRs and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to explore the association between CYP24A1's expression or SNP with survival, metastasis, recurrence, and drug resistance in cancer patients.

RESULT

Fifteen studies were included in the meta-analysis after an initial screening according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. There was a total of 3784 patients pooled from all the included studies. Results indicated that higher expression or SNP of CYP24A1 was significantly correlated with shorter survival time with pooled HRs (95% CI) of 1.21 (1.12, 1.31), metastasis with pooled ORs (95% CI) of 1.81 (1.11, 2.96), recurrence with pooled ORs (95% CI) of 2.14 (1.45, 3.18) and drug resistance with pooled HRs (95% CI) of 1.42 (1.17, 1.68). In the subgroup analysis, cancer type, treatment, ethnicity, and detection approach for CYP24A1 did not affect the significance of the association between CYP24A1 expression and poor prognosis.

CONCLUSION

Findings from our meta-analysis demonstrated that CYP24A1's expression or SNP was correlated with cancer progression and drug resistance. Therefore, CYP24A1 could be a potential molecular marker for cancer resistance.

Potential clinical utility of liquid biopsy in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Liquid biopsy has been widely researched for early diagnosis, prognostication and disease monitoring in lung cancer, but there is a need to investigate its clinical utility for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis and systematic review to evaluate diagnostic and prognostic values of liquid biopsy for early-stage NSCLC, regarding the common biomarkers, circulating tumor cells, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), methylation signatures, and microRNAs. Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE databases, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists were searched for eligible studies since inception to 17 May 2022. Sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) were assessed for diagnostic values. Hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was extracted from the recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) plots for prognostic analysis. Also, potential predictive values and treatment response evaluation were further investigated.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis, there were 34 studies eligible for diagnostic assessment and 21 for prognostic analysis. The estimated diagnostic values of biomarkers for early-stage NSCLC with AUCs ranged from 0.84 to 0.87. The factors TNM stage I, T1 stage, N0 stage, adenocarcinoma, young age, and nonsmoking contributed to a lower tumor burden, with a median cell-free DNA concentration of 8.64 ng/ml. For prognostic analysis, the presence of molecular residual disease (MRD) detection was a strong predictor of disease relapse (RFS, HR, 4.95; 95% CI, 3.06-8.02; p < 0.001) and inferior OS (HR, 3.93; 95% CI, 1.97-7.83; p < 0.001), with average lead time of 179 ± 74 days between molecular recurrence and radiographic progression. Predictive values analysis showed adjuvant therapy significantly benefited the RFS of MRD + patients (HR, 0.27; p < 0.001), while an opposite tendency was detected for MRD - patients (HR, 1.51; p = 0.19). For treatment response evaluation, a strong correlation between pathological response and ctDNA clearance was detected, and both were associated with longer survival after neoadjuvant therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, our study indicated liquid biopsy could reliably facilitate more precision and effective management of early-stage NSCLC. Improvement of liquid biopsy techniques and detection approaches and platforms is still needed, and higher-quality trials are required to provide more rigorous evidence prior to their routine clinical application.

CT Scans and Cancer Risks: A Systematic Review and Dose-response Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is still uncertainty on whether ionizing radiation from CT scans can increase the risks of cancer. This study aimed to identify the association of cumulative ionizing radiation from CT scans with pertaining cancer risks in adults.

METHODS

Five databases were searched from their inception to November 15, 2020. Observational studies reporting cancer risks from CT scans in adults were included. The main outcome included quantified cancer risks as cancer case numbers in exposed/unexposed adult participants with unified converted measures to odds ratio (OR) for relative risk, hazard ratio. Global background radiation (2.4 mSv per year) was used as control for lifetime attribution risk (LAR), with the same period from incubation after exposure until survival to 100 years.

RESULTS

25 studies were included with a sum of 111,649,943 participants (mean age: 45.37 years, 83.4% women), comprising 2,049,943 actual participants from 6 studies with an average follow-up period as 30.1 years (range, 5 to 80 years); 109,600,000 participants from 19 studies using LAR. The cancer risks for adults following CT scans were inordinately increased (LAR adults, OR, 10.00 [95% CI, 5.87 to 17.05]; actual adults, OR, 1.17 [95%CI, 0.89 to 1.55]; combined, OR, 5.89 [95%CI, 3.46 to 10.35]). Moreover, cancer risks elevated with increase of radiation dose (OR, 33.31 [95% CI, 21.33 to 52.02]), and multiple CT scan sites (OR, 14.08 [95% CI, 6.60 to 30.05]). The risk of solid malignancy was higher than leukemia. Notably, there were no significant differences for age, gender, country, continent, study quality and studying time phrases.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on 111.6 million adult participants from 3 continents (Asia, Europe and America), this meta-analysis identifies an inordinately increase in cancer risks from CT scans for adults. Moreover, the cancer risks were positively correlated with radiation dose and CT sites. The meta-analysis highlights the awareness of potential cancer risks of CT scans as well as more reasonable methodology to quantify cancer risks in terms of life expectancy as 100 years for LAR.

PROSPERO TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019133487.

Lymphadenectomy in ovarian cancers: a meta-analysis of hazard ratios from randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The debate surrounding systematic lymphadenectomy in the epithelial cancers of the ovary (EOC) was temporarily put to rest by the LION trial. However, there was a glaring disparity between the number of patients registered and the number of patients randomized suggesting inadvertent selection. A subsequent meta-analysis after this trial included all types of studies in the literature (randomized, non-randomized, case series, and, retrospective cohort), thus diluting the results.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis of hazard ratios of randomized controlled trials, to study the role of systematic para-aortic and pelvic lymph node dissection in the EOC. A detailed search of MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase databases was done to look for the published randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing lymphadenectomy versus no lymphadenectomy in EOC. A meta-analysis of hazard ratios (HR) was performed for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) using fixed and random effect models. The quality of the RCTs was evaluated on Jadad's score, and the risk of bias was estimated by the Cochrane tool.

RESULTS

A total of 1342 patients with EOC were included for quantitative analysis. On meta-analysis, HR for PFS was 0.9 (95% CI 0.79-1.04) favoring lymphadenectomy. HR for OS was 1 (95% CI 0.84-1.18) signifying no benefit of systematic lymphadenectomy.

CONCLUSION

The results show a trend towards increased PFS which did not reach statistical significance nor translate into any meaningful benefit in OS. There is still a need for a greater number of well-conducted, suitably powered trials to convincingly answer this question.

Microvessel density in differentiated thyroid carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Microvessel density (MVD) has been proposed as a direct quantification method of tumor neovascularization. However, the current literature regarding the role of MVD in differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC) remains inconclusive.

AIM

To appraise the effect of tumoral MVD on the survival of patients with DTC.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was based on the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The electronic databases Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus were systematically screened. A fixed-effects or random-effects model was used, according to the Cochran Q test. The data were then extracted and assessed on the basis of the Reference Citation Analysis (https://www.referencecitationanalysis.com/).

RESULTS

A total of nine studies were included in the present study. Superiority of low MVD tumors in terms of 10-year disease free survival (OR: 0.21, 95%CI: 0.08–0.53) was recorded. Lowly vascularized thyroid cancers had a lower recurrence rate (OR: 13.66, 95%CI: 3.03–61.48). Moreover, relapsing tumors [weighed mean difference (WMD): 11.92, 95%CI: 6.32–17.52] or malignancies with regional lymph node involvement (WMD: 8.53, 95%CI: 0.04–17.02) presented with higher tumoral MVD values.

CONCLUSION

MVD significantly correlates with the survival outcomes of thyroid cancer patients. However, considering several study limitations, further prospective studies of higher methodological and quality level are required.

Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. They may modulate the exuberant immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, a direct antiviral effect has been described. An understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) on clinical outcomes in individuals (outpatient or in-hospital) with any severity of COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) Covid-19 Evidence Reviews to identify studies up to February 2022. We monitor newly published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) weekly using the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and have incorporated all new trials from this source until the first week of April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) for the treatment of individuals with COVID-19. We used the WHO definitions of illness severity for COVID-19.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (up to day 28), all-cause mortality (up to day 60), improvement in clinical status: alive and without need for in-hospital medical care (up to day 28), worsening of clinical status: new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (up to day 28), adverse events (any grade), serious adverse events, secondary infections.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs with 11,145 participants investigating systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo). Standard of care followed local protocols and included the application of glucocorticoids (five studies reported their use in a range of 70% to 95% of their participants; one study restricted glucocorticoid use to non-COVID-19 specific indications), antibiotic agents, anticoagulants, and antiviral agents, as well as non-pharmaceutical procedures. At study entry, about 65% of participants required low-flow oxygen, about 23% required high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, about 8% did not need any respiratory support, and only about 4% were intubated. We also identified 13 ongoing studies, and 9 studies that are completed or terminated and where classification is pending. Individuals with moderate to severe disease Four studies investigated the single agent baricitinib (10,815 participants), one tofacitinib (289 participants), and one ruxolitinib (41 participants). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (95 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 131 of 1000 participants in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.91; 6 studies, 11,145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 60 (125 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 181 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1626 participants; high-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status (discharged alive or hospitalised, but no longer requiring ongoing medical care) (801 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 778 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; 4 studies, 10,802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28) (154 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 172 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; 2 studies, 9417 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events (any grade) (427 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 441 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1885 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events (160 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 202 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 4 studies, 2901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference to the rate of secondary infection (111 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 113 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 4 studies, 10,041 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 disease or type of JAK inhibitor did not identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease We did not identify any trial for this population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19, moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality. Baricitinib was the most often evaluated JAK inhibitor. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that they probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status and make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events of any grade, whilst they probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events. Based on low-certainty evidence, JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference in the rate of secondary infection. Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 or type of agent failed to identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Currently, there is no evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised individuals).

Does Chronic Kidney Disease Really Affect the Complications and Prognosis After Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma? A Meta-Analysis

Purpose

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to analyze whether chronic kidney disease (CKD) affected the complications and prognosis after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to 22 February 2022 to find eligible studies. Complications, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were collected, and this meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3.

Results

A total of nine studies including 6,541 patients were included in this meta-analysis. After pooling all baseline information, the CKD group had a higher rate of Child-Pugh grade B than the Non-CKD group (OR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.3 to 1.93, P < 0.00001). As for surgery-related information, the CKD group had larger blood loss (MD = −404.79, 95% CI = −509.70 to −299.88, P < 0.00001), and higher rate of blood transfusion (OR = 2.47, 95% CI = 1.85 to 3.3, P < 0.00001). In terms of complications, the CKD group had a higher rate of overall complications (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.57 to 2.81, P < 0.00001) and a higher rate of ≥ grade III complications (OR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.57 to 2.81, P = 0.0002). The CKD group had poor OS compared with the non-CKD group (HR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.1 to 1.49, P = 0.001). However, in terms of DFS, no significant difference was found (HR = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.28, P = 0.16).

Conclusion

Preexisting CKD was associated with higher ratio of complications and poor OS.

Associated mortality risk of atypical antipsychotic medication in individuals with dementia

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic medications such as risperidone, olanzapine and aripiprazole are used to treat psychological and behavioural symptoms among dementia patients. Current evidence indicate prescription rates for antipsychotics vary and wider consensus to evaluate clinical epidemiological outcomes is limited.

AIM

To investigate the potential impact of atypical antipsychotics on the mortality of patients with dementia.

METHODS

A retrospective clinical cohort study was developed to review United Kingdom Clinical Record Interactive Search system based data between January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017. A descriptive statistical method was used to analyse the data. Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores were used to assess the severity and stage of disease progression. A cox proportional hazards model was developed to evaluate the relationship between survival following diagnosis and other variables.

RESULTS

A total of 1692 patients were identified using natural language processing of which, 587 were prescribed olanzapine, quetiapine or risperidone (common group) whilst 893 (control group) were not prescribed any antipsychotics. Patients prescribed olanzapine showed an increased risk of death [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.32; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08-1.60; P < 0.01], as did those with risperidone (HR = 1.35; 95%CI: 1.18-1.54; P < 0.001). Patients prescribed quetiapine showed no significant association (HR = 1.09; 95%CI: 0.90-1.34; P = 0.38). Factors associated with a lower risk of death were: High MMSE score at diagnosis (HR = 0.72; 95%CI: 0.62-0.83; P < 0.001), identifying as female (HR = 0.73; 95%CI: 0.64-0.82; P < 0.001), and being of a White-British ethnic group (HR = 0.82; 95%CI: 0.72-0.94; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

A significant mortality risk was identified among those prescribed olanzapine and risperidone which contradicts previous findings although the study designs used were different. Comprehensive research should be conducted to better assess clinical epidemiological outcomes associated with diagnosis and therapies to improve clinical management of these patients.

Colchicine for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The development of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and poor clinical outcomes are associated with hyperinflammation and a complex dysregulation of the immune response. Colchicine is an anti-inflammatory medicine and is thought to improve disease outcomes in COVID-19 through a wide range of anti-inflammatory mechanisms. Patients and healthcare systems need more and better treatment options for COVID-19 and a thorough understanding of the current body of evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of Colchicine as a treatment option for COVID-19 in comparison to an active comparator, placebo, or standard care alone in any setting, and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index), and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 21 May 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials evaluating colchicine for the treatment of people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, sex, or ethnicity. We excluded studies investigating the prophylactic effects of colchicine for people without severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection but at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) to assess bias in included studies and GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following prioritised outcome categories considering people with moderate or severe COVID-19: all-cause mortality, worsening and improvement of clinical status, quality of life, adverse events, and serious adverse events and for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease: all-cause mortality, admission to hospital or death, symptom resolution, duration to symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs with 11,525 hospitalised participants (8002 male) and one RCT with 4488 (2067 male) non-hospitalised participants. Mean age of people treated in hospital was about 64 years, and was 55 years in the study with non-hospitalised participants. Further, we identified 17 ongoing studies and 11 studies completed or terminated, but without published results. Colchicine plus standard care versus standard care (plus/minus placebo) Treatment of hospitalised people with moderate to severe COVID-19 All-cause mortality: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality up to 28 days compared to standard care alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 11,445 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Worsening of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in worsening of clinical status assessed as new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death compared to standard care alone (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 10,916 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in improvement of clinical status, assessed as number of participants discharged alive up to day 28 without clinical deterioration or death compared to standard care alone (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.01; 1 RCT, 11,340 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Adverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.78; 1 RCT, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine plus standard care on serious adverse events compared to standard care alone (0 events observed in 1 RCT of 105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment of non-hospitalised people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 All-cause mortality: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality at 28 days (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.62; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; low-certainty evidence). Admission to hospital or death within 28 days: colchicine probably slightly reduces the need for hospitalisation or death within 28 days compared to placebo (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.03; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Symptom resolution: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Quality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Adverse events: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo . Results are from one RCT reporting treatment-related events only in 4412 participants (low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events: colchicine probably slightly reduces serious adverse events (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.00; 1 RCT, 4412 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Colchicine versus another active treatment (e.g. corticosteroids, anti-viral drugs, monoclonal antibodies) No studies evaluated this comparison. Different formulations, doses, or schedules of colchicine No studies assessed this.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current evidence, in people hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19 the use of colchicine probably has little to no influence on mortality or clinical progression in comparison to placebo or standard care alone. We do not know whether colchicine increases the risk of (serious) adverse events. We are uncertain about the evidence of the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease. However, colchicine probably results in a slight reduction of hospital admissions or deaths within 28 days, and the rate of serious adverse events compared with placebo. None of the studies reported data on quality of life or compared the benefits and harms of colchicine versus other drugs, or different dosages of colchicine. We identified 17 ongoing and 11 completed but not published RCTs, which we expect to incorporate in future versions of this review as their results become available. Editorial note: due to the living approach of this work, we monitor newly published results of RCTs on colchicine on a weekly basis and will update the review when the evidence or our certainty in the evidence changes.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for people with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

BACKGROUND

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is an aggressive cancer of the lymphatic system. About 30% to 40% of people with DLBCL experience relapse and 10% are refractory to first-line treatment usually consisting of R-CHOP chemotherapy. Of those eligible for second-line treatment, commonly consisting of salvage chemotherapy followed by autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT), around 50% experience relapse. With a median overall survival of less than six to 12 months, the prognosis of individuals who relapse or are refractory (r/r) to advanced lines of treatment or of those who are ineligible for ASCT, is very poor. With the introduction of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, a novel treatment option for these people is available.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for people with relapsed or refractory (r/r) DLBCL.

SEARCH METHODS

An experienced information specialist performed a systematic database search for relevant articles on CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase until September 11th, 2020. We also searched trial registries and reference lists of identified studies up to this date. All search results were screened by two authors independently and a third author was involved in case of discrepancies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospectively planned trials evaluating CAR T-cell therapy for people with r/r DLBCL. We had planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and we flexibly adapted eligibility criteria to the most reliable study designs available. We excluded studies involving fewer than 10 participants with r/r DLBCL and studies with a proportion of participants with r/r DLBCL below 70%, unless data were reported separately for this subgroup.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data and performed risk of bias ratings independently. A third author was involved in case of disagreements. As our search did not yield any completed RCTs, prospective controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) or prospective observational studies with a control group, we did not meta-analyse data and reported all results narratively. We adopted the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for prioritised outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 13 eligible uncontrolled studies evaluating a single or multiple arms of CAR T-cell therapies. We also identified 38 ongoing studies, including three RCTs. Ten studies are awaiting classification due to completion with no retrievable results data or insufficient data to justify inclusion. The mean number of participants enrolled, treated with CAR T-cell therapy and evaluated in the included studies were 79 (range 12 to 344; data unavailable for two studies), 61 (range 12 to 294; data unavailable for one study) and 52 (range 11 to 256), respectively. Most studies included people with r/r DLBCL among people with other haematological B-cell malignancies. Participants had received at least a median of three prior treatment lines (data unavailable for four studies), 5% to 50% had undergone ASCT (data unavailable for five studies) and, except for two studies, 3% to 18% had undergone allogenic stem-cell transplantation (data unavailable for eight studies). The overall risk of bias was high for all studies, in particular, due to incomplete follow-up and the absence of blinding. None of the included studies had a control group so that no adequate comparative effect measures could be calculated. The duration of follow-up varied substantially between studies, in particular, for harms. Our certainty in the evidence is very low for all outcomes. Overall survival was reported by eight studies (567 participants). Four studies reported survival rates at 12 months which ranged between 48% and 59%, and one study reported an overall survival rate of 50.5% at 24 months. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CAR T-cell therapy on overall survival. Two studies including 294 participants at baseline and 59 participants at the longest follow-up (12 months or 18 months) described improvements of quality of life measured with the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level visual analogue scale (EQ-5D-5L VAS) or Function Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma (FACT-Lym). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CAR T-cell therapy on quality of life. None of the studies reported treatment-related mortality. Five studies (550 participants) reported the occurrence of adverse events among participants, ranging between 99% and 100% for any grade adverse events and 68% to 98% for adverse events grade ≥ 3. In three studies (253 participants), 56% to 68% of participants experienced serious adverse events, while in one study (28 participants), no serious adverse events occurred. CAR T-cell therapy may increase the risk of adverse events and serious adverse events but the evidence is very uncertain about the exact risk. The occurrence of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was reported in 11 studies (675 participants) under use of various grading criteria. Five studies reported between 42% and 100% of participants experiencing CRS according to criteria described in Lee 2014. CAR T-cell therapy may increase the risk of CRS but the evidence is very uncertain about the exact risk. Nine studies (575 participants) reported results on progression-free survival, disease-free survival or relapse-free survival. Twelve-month progression-free survival rates were reported by four studies and ranged between 44% and 75%. In one study, relapse-free survival remained at a rate of 64% at both 12 and 18 months. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CAR T-cell therapy on progression-free survival. Thirteen studies (620 participants) provided data on complete response rates. At six months, three studies reported complete response rates between 40% and 45%. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CAR T-cell therapy on complete response rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence on the benefits and harms of CAR T-cell therapy for people with r/r DLBCL is limited, mainly because of the absence of comparative clinical trials. The results we present should be regarded in light of this limitation and conclusions should be drawn very carefully. Due to the uncertainty in the current evidence, a large number of ongoing investigations and a risk of substantial and potentially life-threatening complications requiring supplementary treatment, it is critical to continue evaluating the evidence on this new therapy.

SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibodies for treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are laboratory-produced molecules derived from the B cells of an infected host. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs for treating patients with COVID-19, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention. To maintain the currency of the evidence, we will use a living systematic review approach. A secondary objective is to track newly developed SARS-CoV-2-targeting mAbs from first tests in humans onwards.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and three other databases on 17 June 2021. We also checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. Between submission and publication, we conducted a shortened randomised controlled trial (RCT)-only search on 30 July 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that evaluated SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs, alone or combined, compared to an active comparator, placebo, or no intervention, to treat people with COVID-19. We excluded studies on prophylactic use of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). Prioritised outcomes were all-cause mortality by days 30 and 60, clinical progression, quality of life, admission to hospital, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six RCTs that provided results from 17,495 participants with planned completion dates between July 2021 and December 2031. Target sample sizes varied from 1020 to 10,000 participants. Average age was 42 to 53 years across four studies of non-hospitalised participants, and 61 years in two studies of hospitalised participants. Non-hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 Four studies evaluated single agents bamlanivimab (N = 465), sotrovimab (N = 868), regdanvimab (N = 307), and combinations of bamlanivimab/etesevimab (N = 1035), and casirivimab/imdevimab (N = 799). We did not identify data for mortality at 60 days or quality of life. Our certainty of the evidence is low for all outcomes due to too few events (very serious imprecision).  Bamlanivimab compared to placebo No deaths occurred in the study by day 29. There were nine people admitted to hospital by day 29 out of 156 in the placebo group compared with one out of 101 in the group treated with 0.7 g bamlanivimab (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.33), 2 from 107 in the group treated with 2.8 g (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.47) and 2 from 101 in the group treated with 7.0 g (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.56). Treatment with 0.7 g, 2.8 g and 7.0 g bamlanivimab may have similar rates of AEs as placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.50; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.38; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.27). The effect on SAEs is uncertain. Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Bamlanivimab/etesevimab compared to placebo There were 10 deaths in the placebo group and none in bamlanivimab/etesevimab group by day 30 (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.81). Bamlanivimab/etesevimab may decrease hospital admission by day 29 (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.59), may result in a slight increase in any grade AEs (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.59) and may increase SAEs (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.37). Clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Casirivimab/imdevimab compared to placebo Casirivimab/imdevimab may reduce hospital admissions or death (2.4 g: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.19; 8.0 g: RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.79). We are uncertain of the effect on grades 3-4 AEs (2.4 g: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.73) and SAEs (2.4 g: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.37; 8.0 g: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.65). Mortality by day 30 and clinical progression/improvement of symptoms or development of severe symptoms were not reported. Sotrovimab compared to placebo We are uncertain whether sotrovimab has an effect on mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.18) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) requirement or death (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.76). Treatment with sotrovimab may reduce the number of participants with oxygen requirement (RR 0.11, 95 % CI 0.02 to 0.45), hospital admission or death by day 30 (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.48), grades 3-4 AEs (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.60), SAEs (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63) and may have little or no effect on any grade AEs (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.16).  Regdanvimab compared to placebo Treatment with either dose (40 or 80 mg/kg) compared with placebo may decrease hospital admissions or death (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.60, 206 participants), but may increase grades 3-4 AEs (RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.52 to 13.12; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.37 to 10.70). 80 mg/kg may reduce any grade AEs (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.22) but 40 mg/kg may have little to no effect (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.43). There were too few events to allow meaningful judgment for the outcomes mortality by 30 days, IMV requirement, and SAEs.  Hospitalised individuals with COVID-19 Two studies evaluating bamlanivimab as a single agent (N = 314) and casirivimab/imdevimab as a combination therapy (N = 9785) were included.   Bamlanivimab compared to placebo  We are uncertain whether bamlanivimab has an effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.83) and SAEs by day 28 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.14). Bamlanivimab may have little to no effect on time to hospital discharge (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.20) and mortality by day 90 (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.43). The effect of bamlanivimab on the development of severe symptoms at day 5 (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85) is uncertain. Bamlanivimab may increase grades 3-4 AEs at day 28 (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.98). We assessed the evidence as low certainty for all outcomes due to serious imprecision, and very low certainty for severe symptoms because of additional concerns about indirectness. Casirivimab/imdevimab with usual care compared to usual care alone Treatment with casirivimab/imdevimab compared to usual care probably has little or no effect on mortality by day 30 (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.02), IMV requirement or death (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04), nor alive at hospital discharge by day 30 (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04). We assessed the evidence as moderate certainty due to study limitations (lack of blinding). AEs and SAEs were not reported.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for each comparison is based on single studies. None of these measured quality of life. Our certainty in the evidence for all non-hospitalised individuals is low, and for hospitalised individuals is very low to moderate. We consider the current evidence insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding treatment with SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. Further studies and long-term data from the existing studies are needed to confirm or refute these initial findings, and to understand how the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants may impact the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs. Publication of the 36 ongoing studies may resolve uncertainties about the effectiveness and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising mAbs for the treatment of COVID-19 and possible subgroup differences.

Timing of surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy affects oncologic outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

The optimal time interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and esophagectomy in esophageal cancer has not been defined.

AIM

To evaluate whether a prolonged time interval between the end of nCRT and surgery has an effect on survival outcome in esophageal cancer patients.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Wanfang and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases for relevant articles published before November 16, 2019, to identify potential studies that evaluated the prognostic role of different time intervals between nCRT and surgery in esophageal cancer. The hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were merged to estimate the correlation between the time intervals and survival outcomes in esophageal cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma using fixed- and random-effect models.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 12621 patients from 16 studies. The results demonstrated that esophageal cancer patients with a prolonged time interval between the end of nCRT and surgery had significantly worse overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR): 1.107, 95%CI: 1.014-1.208, P = 0.023] than those with a shorter time interval. Subgroup analysis showed that poor OS with a prolonged interval was observed based on both the sample size and HRs. There was also significant association between a prolonged time interval and decreased OS in Asian, but not Caucasian patients. In addition, a longer wait time indicated worse OS (HR: 1.385, 95%CI: 1.186-1.616, P < 0.001) in patients with adenocarcinoma.

CONCLUSION

A prolonged time interval from the completion of nCRT to surgery is associated with a significant decrease in OS. Thus, esophagectomy should be performed within 7-8 wk after nCRT.

Laparoscopic surgery for early gallbladder carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is a controversy as to whether laparoscopic surgery leads to a poor prognosis compared to the open approach for early gallbladder carcinoma (GBC). We hypothesized that the laparoscopic approach is an alternative for early GBC.

AIM

To identify and evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of early GBC.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of online databases, including MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane libraries, and Web of Science, was performed to identify non-comparative studies reporting the outcomes of laparoscopic surgery and comparative studies involving laparoscopic surgery and open surgery in early GBC from January 2009 to October 2019. A fixed-effects meta-analysis was performed for 1- and 5-year overall survival and postoperative complications, while 3-year overall survival, operation time, blood loss, the number of lymph node dissected, and postoperative hospital stay were analyzed by random-effects models.

RESULTS

The review identified 7 comparative studies and 8 non-comparative studies. 1068 patients (laparoscopic surgery: 613; open surgery: 455) were included in the meta-analysis of 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival with no significant differences observed [(HR = 0.54; 95%CI: 0.29-1.00; I² = 0.0%; P = 0.051), (HR = 0.75; 95%CI: 0.34-1.65; I² = 60.7%; P = 0.474), (HR = 0.71; 95%CI: 0.47-1.08; I² = 49.6%; P = 0.107), respectively]. There were no significant differences in operation time [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 18.69; 95%CI: −19.98-57.36; I² = 81.4%; P = 0.343], intraoperative blood loss (WMD = −169.14; 95%CI: −377.86-39.57; I² = 89.5%; P = 0.112), the number of lymph nodes resected (WMD = 0.12; 95%CI: −2.95-3.18; I² = 73.4%; P = 0.940), and the complication rate (OR = 0.69; 95%CI: 0.30-1.58; I² = 0.0%; P = 0.377 ) between the two groups, while patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery had a reduced length of hospital stay (WMD = −5.09; 95%CI: −8.74- −1.45; I² = 91.0%; P= 0.006).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis confirms that laparoscopic surgery is a safe and feasible alternative to open surgery with comparable survival and operation-related outcomes for early GBC.

Prognostic significance of malignant ascites in gastric cancer patients with peritoneal metastasis: A systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence indicates that malignant ascites may be associated with the high malignancy and poor prognosis of gastric cancer (GC) with peritoneal metastasis (PM), but no robust consensus has been reached until now.

AIM

To evaluate the prognostic significance of malignant ascites in GC patients with PM.

METHODS

Two independent authors conducted database searches. The searches were performed in the EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases, and the terms used to search included stomach neoplasms, GC, ascites, peritoneal effusion, survival, and survival analysis. Outcomes included overall survival and hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Three pairs of comparisons for measuring survival were made: (1) Patients with ascites vs those without ascites; (2) Patients with massive ascites vs those with mild to moderate ascites; and (3) Patients with massive ascites vs those with no to moderate ascites.

RESULTS

Fourteen articles including fifteen studies were considered in the final analysis. Among them, nine studies assessed the difference in prognosis between patients with and without malignant ascites. A pooled HR of 1.63 (95%CI: 1.47-1.82, P < 0.00001) indicated that GC patients with malignant ascites had a relatively poor prognosis compared to patients without ascites. We also found that the prognosis of GC patients with malignant ascites was related to the volume of ascites in the six other studies.

CONCLUSION

GC patients with malignant ascites tend to have a worse prognosis, and the volume of ascites has an impact on GC outcomes.

Prognostic and pathological impact of tumor budding in gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Tumor budding, is a promising prognostic hallmark in many cancers, and can help us better assess the degree of malignancy in gastric cancer (GC) and in colorectal cancer. In the past few years, several articles on the relationship between tumor budding and GC have been published, but different results have been observed. As the relationship between tumor budding and GC remains controversial, we integrated the data from 7 eligible studies to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM

To systematically evaluate the prognostic and pathological impact of tumor budding in GC.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Web of Science databases, and 7 cohort studies involving 2178 patients met our criteria and included in the analysis. The patients were divided into those with high-grade tumor budding and those with low-grade tumor budding, and the cut-off values for tumor budding varied across the included studies. The hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to estimate the impact of tumor budding on overall survival (OS) in GC patients. The odds ratios (ORs) with 95%CIs were used to determine the correlation between tumor budding and pathological parameters (tumor stage, tumor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, lymph node metastasis) of GC.

RESULTS

Seven studies involving 2178 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The combined ORs suggested that high-grade tumor budding was significantly associated with tumor stage (OR = 6.63, 95%CI: 4.01-10.98, P < 0.01), tumor differentiation (OR = 3.74, 95%CI: 2.68-5.22, P < 0.01), lymphovascular invasion (OR = 7.85, 95%CI: 5.04-12.21, P < 0.01), and lymph node metastasis (OR = 5.75, 95%CI: 3.20-10.32, P < 0.01). Moreover, high-grade tumor budding predicted a poor 5-year OS (HR = 1.79, 95%CI: 1.53-2.05, P < 0.01) in patients with GC and an adverse 5-year OS (HR = 1.93, 95%CI: 1.45-2.42, P < 0.01) in patients with intestinal-type GC.

CONCLUSION

High-grade tumor budding suggested a poor prognosis in patients with GC or intestinal-type GC.

Anterior vs conventional approach right hepatic resection for large hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To compare the clinical outcomes of right hepatectomy for large hepatocellular carcinoma via the anterior and conventional approach.

METHODS

We comprehensively performed an electronic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) published between January 2000 and May 2017 concerning the anterior approach (AA) and the conventional approach (CA) to right hepatectomy. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were included, and their outcome analyses were further assessed using a fixed or random effects model.

RESULTS

This analysis included 2297 patients enrolled in 16 studies (3 RCTs and 13 CTTs). Intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference = -255.21; 95% confidence interval (95%CI): -371.3 to -139.12; P < 0.0001], intraoperative blood transfusion [odds ratio (OR) = 0.42; 95%CI: 0.29-0.61; P < 0.0001], mortality (OR = 0.59; 95%CI: 0.38-0.92; P = 0.02), morbidity (OR = 0.77; 95%CI: 0.62-0.95; P = 0.01), and recurrence rate (OR = 0.62; 95%CI: 0.47-0.83; P = 0.001) were significantly reduced in the AA group. Patients in the AA group had better overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.71; 95%CI: 0.50-1.00; P = 0.05) and disease-free survival (HR = 0.67; 95%CI: 0.58-0.79; P < 0.0001) than those in the CA group.

CONCLUSION

The AA is safe and effective for right hepatectomy for large hepatocellular carcinoma and could accelerate postoperative recovery and achieve better survival outcomes than the CA.

Prognostic value of KRAS mutations in colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM: To evaluate the prognostic significance of KRAS mutations among Chinese colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS: Clinical studies on the correlation between KRAS mutations and the prognosis of colorectal cancer patients were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Wan Fang database and CNKI. The latest search was done in April, 2015. Both case-control studies and cohort studies were included. Hazard ratios (HRs) were used to evaluate the outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed with Stata 12.0.

RESULTS: A total of 19 clinical studies with 2938 patients were qualified to this meta-analysis. Patients with KRAS mutations were associated with shorter overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.71, 95%CI: 1.28-2.29) and progression free survival (PFS) (HR = 2.36, 95%CI: 1.24-4.50). In addition, codons 12 and 13 mutations of KRAS were related with prognosis of colorectal cancer patients.

CONCLUSION: KRAS mutations are a possible risk factor for prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer. Patients with KRAS mutations show an increased risk of mortality and progression of disease. More clinical studies need to be performed to confirm our conclusion.

3D conformal radiotherapy combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma

AIM: To compare transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) and 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with TACE monotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS: We searched all the eligible studies from the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, Embase, and CNKI. The meta-analysis was performed to assess the survival benefit, tumor response, and the decline in α-fetoprotein (AFP) level. According to the heterogeneity of the studies, pooled OR with 95%CI were calculated using the fixed-effects or random-effects model. An observed OR > 1 indicated that the addition of 3D-CRT to TACE offered survival benefits to patients that could be considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager Software.

RESULTS: Ten studies met the criteria to perform a meta-analysis including 908 HCC participants, with 400 patients in the TACE/3D-CRT combination group and 508 in the TACE alone group. TACE combined with 3D-CRT significantly improved 1-, 2- and 3-year overall survival compared with TACE monotherapy (OR = 1.87, 95%CI: 1.37-2.55, P < 0.0001), (OR = 2.38, 95%CI: 1.78-3.17, P < 0.00001) and (OR = 2.97, 95%CI: 2.10-4.21, P < 0.00001). In addition, TACE plus 3D-CRT was associated with a higher tumor response (complete remission and partial remission) (OR = 3.81; 95%CI: 2.70-5.37; P < 0.00001), and decline rates of AFP level (OR = 3.24, 95%CI: 2.09-5.02, P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrated that TACE combined with 3D-CRT was better than TACE monotherapy for patients with HCC, which needs to be confirmed by large multicenter trials．

Synchronous and metachronous breast malignancies: a cross-sectional retrospective study and review of the literature

Objective. There is increasing interest in patients with metachronous (MBC) and synchronous breast cancer (SBC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the occurrence and outcome of MBCs and SBCs. Methods. A retrospective study on women operated in our department for breast cancer between 2002 and 2005 was carried out. Patients were divided into three groups: women with MBC, SBC, and unilateral breast cancer (UBC). Moreover, we performed a meta-analysis of the English literature about multiple breast cancers between 2000 and 2011 taking into consideration their prevalence and overall survival (OS). Results. We identified 584 breast cancer patients: 16 women (3%) presented SBC and 40 MBC (7%, second cancer after 72-month follow-up IQR 40–145). Although the meta-analysis showed significant OS differences between MBC or SBC and UBC, we did not observe any significant OS difference among the three groups of our population. Anyway, we found a significant worse disease-free survival in MBC than UBC and a significant higher prevalence of radical surgery in MBC and SBC than UBC. Conclusions. Despite the low prevalence of MBC and SBC, the presence of a long time risk of MBC confirms the crucial role of ipsi- and contralateral mammographies in the postoperative follow-up.

The predictive value of interim and final [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography after rituximab-chemotherapy in the treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to determine the prognostic value of interim and final FDG-PET in major histotypes of B-cell NHL patients treated with rituximab containing-chemotherapy.

METHODS

We searched for articles published in English, limited to lymphoma, rituximab, and FDG-PET, and dedicated to deal with the impact on progression and survival. The log hazard ratios (HR) and their variances were estimated.

RESULTS

A PubMed and Scopus review of published trials identified 13 studies of Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) which were set as the main outcome measures. The combined HRs of I-PET for PFS and OS in DLBCL were 4.4 (P = 0.11) and 3.99 (P = 0.46), respectively. The combined HRs of F-PET for PFS and OS in DLBCL were 5.91 (P = 0.39) and 6.75 (P = 0.92), respectively. Regarding to non-DLBCL with F-PET, the combined HRs of F-PET for PFS and OS were 4.05 (P = 0.79) and 5.1 (P = 0.51), respectively. No publication bias existed.

CONCLUSION

In DLBCL, both I-PET and F-PET can be performed for survival and progression analysis. But in other B-cell subtypes such as follicular lymphoma (FL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), it would be necessary to perform F-PET for predictive purposes.

Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint in advanced breast cancer

OBJECTIVES

Progression-free survival (PFS) has not been validated as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS) for anthracycline (A) and taxane-based (T) chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer (ABC). Using trial-level, meta-analytic approaches, we evaluated PFS as a surrogate endpoint.

METHODS

A literature review identified randomized, controlled A and T trials for ABC. Progression-based endpoints were classified by prospective definitions. Treatment effects were derived as hazard ratios for PFS (HRPFS) and OS (HROS). Kappa statistic assessed overall agreement. A fixed-effects regression model was used to predict HROS from observed HRPFS. Cross-validation was performed. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed for PFS definition, year of last patient recruitment, line of treatment, and constant rate assumption.

RESULTS

Sixteen A and fifteen T trials met inclusion criteria, producing seventeen A (n = 4,323) and seventeen T (n = 5,893) trial-arm pairs. Agreement (kappa statistic) between the direction of HROS and HRPFS was 0.71 for A (p = .0029) and 0.75 for T (p = .0028). While HRPFS was a statistically significant predictor of HROS for both A (p = .0019) and T (p = .012), the explained variances were 0.49 (A) and 0.35 (T). In cross-validation, 97 percent of the 95 percent prediction intervals crossed the equivalence line, and the direction of predicted HROS agreed with observed HROS in 82 percent (A) and 76 percent (T). Results were robust in sensitivity and subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that the trial-level treatment effect on PFS is significantly associated with the trial-level treatment effect on OS. However, prediction of OS based on PFS is surrounded with uncertainty.