World journal of surgery · 2015
Systematic mediastinal lymphadenectomy or mediastinal lymph node sampling in patients with pathological stage I NSCLC: a meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dong Siyuan, Du Jiang, Li Wenya, Zhang Shuguang, Zhong Xinwen, Zhang Lin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the evidence comparing systematic mediastinal lymphadenectomy (SML) and mediastinal lymph node sampling (MLS) in the treatment of pathological stage I NSCLC using meta-analytical techniques.
METHODS: A literature search was undertaken until January 2014 to identify the comparative studies evaluating 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates. The pooled odds ratios (OR) and the 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI) were calculated with either the fixed or random effect models.
RESULTS: One RCT study and four retrospective studies were included in our meta-analysis. These studies included a total of 711 patients: 317 treated with SML, and 394 treated with MLS. The SML and the MLS did not demonstrate a significant difference in the 1-year survival rate. There were significant statistical differences between the 3-year (P = 0.03) and 5-year survival rates (P = 0.004), which favored SML.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that in pathological stage I NSCLC, the MLS can get the similar outcome to the SML in terms of 1-year survival rate. However, the SML is superior to MLS in terms of 3- and 5-year survival rates.
METHODS: A literature search was undertaken until January 2014 to identify the comparative studies evaluating 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates. The pooled odds ratios (OR) and the 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI) were calculated with either the fixed or random effect models.
RESULTS: One RCT study and four retrospective studies were included in our meta-analysis. These studies included a total of 711 patients: 317 treated with SML, and 394 treated with MLS. The SML and the MLS did not demonstrate a significant difference in the 1-year survival rate. There were significant statistical differences between the 3-year (P = 0.03) and 5-year survival rates (P = 0.004), which favored SML.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that in pathological stage I NSCLC, the MLS can get the similar outcome to the SML in terms of 1-year survival rate. However, the SML is superior to MLS in terms of 3- and 5-year survival rates.