International journal of colorectal disease · 2022
Local resection versus radical resection for early-stage rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Tan Shufa, Xu Chenxi, Ma Hongbo, Chen Shikai, Yang Yunyi, Zhan Yanrong, Wu Jiyun, Sun Zhenfu, Ren Bozhi, Zhou Qi, Cu Yaping
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The optimal surgical approach for early-stage rectal cancer remains controversial. Radical resection is considered to be the gold standard for rectal cancer treatment. More and more studies show that local resection can replace traditional radical resection in the treatment of early rectal cancer. This research aimed to compare the efficacy of local excision and radical surgery for early-stage rectal cancer and report the evidence-based clinical advantages of both techniques.
METHODS: The clinical trials comparing oncological and perioperative local and radical resection outcomes for early-stage rectal cancer were searched from 7 national and international databases.
RESULTS: Finally, 3 randomized controlled trials and 14 cohort studies were included. In terms of oncology and perioperative outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between the radical resection group and the local resection group in terms of OS (HR = 1.05, 95% CI (0.98, 1.13), DFS [HR = 1.18, 95% CI (0.93, 1.48), p = 0.168), distant metastasis rate (RR = 1.04, 95% CI (0.49, 2.20), p = 0.928), and mortality rate (RR = 1.52, 95% CI (0.80, 2.91), p = 0.200). However, there were significant differences in the outcomes of complications (RR = 2.85, 95% CI (2.07, 3.92), p < 0.001), length of hospital stays (WMD = 5.41, 95% CI (3.94, 6.87), p < 0.001), stoma rate (RR = 7.69, 95% CI (2.39, 24.77), p = 0.001), local recurrence rate (RR = 0.48, 95% CI (0.27, 0.86), p = 0.013), operative time (WMD = 74.68, 95% CI (68.00, 81.36), p < 0.001), blood loss (WMD = 156.36, 95% CI (95.48, 217.21, p < 0.001), and adverse events (RR = 1.59, 95% CI (1.05, 2.41), p = 0.027).
CONCLUSION: Local excision may be a viable alternative to radical resection for early-stage rectal cancer, but higher quality clinical studies are needed to confirm this.
METHODS: The clinical trials comparing oncological and perioperative local and radical resection outcomes for early-stage rectal cancer were searched from 7 national and international databases.
RESULTS: Finally, 3 randomized controlled trials and 14 cohort studies were included. In terms of oncology and perioperative outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between the radical resection group and the local resection group in terms of OS (HR = 1.05, 95% CI (0.98, 1.13), DFS [HR = 1.18, 95% CI (0.93, 1.48), p = 0.168), distant metastasis rate (RR = 1.04, 95% CI (0.49, 2.20), p = 0.928), and mortality rate (RR = 1.52, 95% CI (0.80, 2.91), p = 0.200). However, there were significant differences in the outcomes of complications (RR = 2.85, 95% CI (2.07, 3.92), p < 0.001), length of hospital stays (WMD = 5.41, 95% CI (3.94, 6.87), p < 0.001), stoma rate (RR = 7.69, 95% CI (2.39, 24.77), p = 0.001), local recurrence rate (RR = 0.48, 95% CI (0.27, 0.86), p = 0.013), operative time (WMD = 74.68, 95% CI (68.00, 81.36), p < 0.001), blood loss (WMD = 156.36, 95% CI (95.48, 217.21, p < 0.001), and adverse events (RR = 1.59, 95% CI (1.05, 2.41), p = 0.027).
CONCLUSION: Local excision may be a viable alternative to radical resection for early-stage rectal cancer, but higher quality clinical studies are needed to confirm this.