Prognostic and predictive factors for overall survival in metastatic oesophagogastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 103 ◽  
pp. 214-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emil ter Veer ◽  
Jessy Joy van Kleef ◽  
Sandor Schokker ◽  
Stephanie O. van der Woude ◽  
Marety Laarman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Predictive Factors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Prognostic And Predictive Factors ◽  
Oesophagogastric Cancer

scholarly journals Prognostic and Predictive Factors for the Curative Treatment of Esophageal and Gastric Cancer in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 530 ◽  
Author(s):  
van den Ende ◽  
ter Veer ◽  
Mali ◽  
van Berge Henegouwen ◽  
Hulshof ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Predictive Factors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Curative Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Prognostic And Predictive Factors

Background: An overview of promising prognostic variables and predictive subgroups concerning the curative treatment of esophageal and gastric cancer from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and ASCO/ESMO conferences were searched up to March 2019 for RCTs on the curative treatment of esophageal or gastric cancer with data on prognostic and/or predictive factors for overall survival. Prognostic factors were deemed potentially clinically relevant according to the following criteria; (1) statistically significant (p < 0.05) in a multivariate analysis, (2) reported in at least 250 patients, and (3) p < 0.05, in ≥ 33% of the total number of patients in RCTs reporting this factor. Predictive factors were potentially clinically-relevant if (1) the p-value for interaction between subgroups was <0.20 and (2) the hazard ratio in one of the subgroups was significant (p < 0.05). Results: For gastric cancer, 39 RCTs were identified (n = 13,530 patients) and, for esophageal cancer, 33 RCTs were identified (n = 8618 patients). In total, we identified 23 potentially clinically relevant prognostic factors for gastric cancer and 16 for esophageal cancer. There were 15 potentially clinically relevant predictive factors for gastric cancer and 10 for esophageal cancer. Conclusion: The identified prognostic and predictive factors can be included and analyzed in future RCTs and be of guidance for nomograms. Further validation should be performed in large patient cohorts.

scholarly journals P20-8 The impact of valproic acid on overall survival in patients with glioblastoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. S340
Author(s):  
Charlotte A. Jonatan ◽  
Elizabeth Marcella ◽  
Jeannette Tandiono ◽  
Sharon Chen ◽  
Felix Wijovi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Valproic Acid ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
The Impact

Overall survival and local recurrence following RFA, MWA, and cryoablation of very early and early HCC: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pankaj Gupta ◽  
Muniraju Maralakunte ◽  
Praveen Kumar-M ◽  
Karamvir Chandel ◽  
Sreedhara B. Chaluvashetty ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Local Recurrence ◽  
Bayesian Network ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Early Hcc

scholarly journals Radiotherapy of oligometastatic prostate cancer: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Rogowski ◽  
Mack Roach ◽  
Nina-Sophie Schmidt-Hegemann ◽  
Christian Trapp ◽  
Rieke von Bestenbostel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Predictive Factors ◽  
Therapeutic Potential ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Oligometastatic Disease ◽  
Psma Pet ◽  
Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer ◽  
Prognostic And Predictive Factors

Abstract Background Due to improved imaging sensitivity, the term “oligometastatic” prostate cancer disease is diagnosed more often, leading to an increasing interest in metastasis-directed therapy (MDT). There are two types of radiation based MDT applied when treating oligometastatic disease: (1) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) generally used for bone metastases; or (2) SBRT for isolated nodal oligometastases combined with prophylactic elective nodal radiotherapy. This review aims to summarize current evidence data, which may shed light on the optimal management of this heterogeneous group of patients. Methods A systematic review of the Medline database through PubMed was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. All relevant studies published up to November 2020 were identified and screened. Fifty-six titles were included. Besides outcome parameters, different prognostic and predictive factors were assessed, including site of metastases, time between primary treatment and MDT, use of systemic therapies, hormone sensitivity, as well as pattern of recurrence. Findings Evidence consists largely of retrospective case series and no consistent precise definition of oligometastasis exists, however, most investigators seem to acknowledge the need to distinguish between patients presenting with what is frequently called “synchronous” versus “metachronous” oligometastatic disease. Available data on radiotherapy as MDT demonstrate high local control rates and a small but relevant proportion of patients without progressive disease after 2 years. This holds true for both hormone sensitive and castration resistant prostate cancer diseases. The use of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT for staging increased dramatically. Radiation doses and field sizes varied considerably among the studies. The search for relevant prognostic and predictive factors is ongoing. Conclusions To our best knowledge this review on oligometastatic prostate cancer included the largest number of original articles. It demonstrates the therapeutic potential and challenges of MDT for oligometastatic prostate cancer. Prospective studies are under way and will provide further high-level evidence.

scholarly journals Mortality due to cancer treatment delay: systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. m4087 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy P Hanna ◽  
Will D King ◽  
Stephane Thibodeau ◽  
Matthew Jalink ◽  
Gregory A Paulin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Adjuvant Radiotherapy ◽  
Systemic Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Delay ◽  
Hazard Ratio

Abstract Objective To quantify the association of cancer treatment delay and mortality for each four week increase in delay to inform cancer treatment pathways. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Published studies in Medline from 1 January 2000 to 10 April 2020. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Curative, neoadjuvant, and adjuvant indications for surgery, systemic treatment, or radiotherapy for cancers of the bladder, breast, colon, rectum, lung, cervix, and head and neck were included. The main outcome measure was the hazard ratio for overall survival for each four week delay for each indication. Delay was measured from diagnosis to first treatment, or from the completion of one treatment to the start of the next. The primary analysis only included high validity studies controlling for major prognostic factors. Hazard ratios were assumed to be log linear in relation to overall survival and were converted to an effect for each four week delay. Pooled effects were estimated using DerSimonian and Laird random effect models. Results The review included 34 studies for 17 indications (n=1 272 681 patients). No high validity data were found for five of the radiotherapy indications or for cervical cancer surgery. The association between delay and increased mortality was significant (P<0.05) for 13 of 17 indications. Surgery findings were consistent, with a mortality risk for each four week delay of 1.06-1.08 (eg, colectomy 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.12; breast surgery 1.08, 1.03 to 1.13). Estimates for systemic treatment varied (hazard ratio range 1.01-1.28). Radiotherapy estimates were for radical radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (hazard ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.14), adjuvant radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery (0.98, 0.88 to 1.09), and cervix cancer adjuvant radiotherapy (1.23, 1.00 to 1.50). A sensitivity analysis of studies that had been excluded because of lack of information on comorbidities or functional status did not change the findings. Conclusions Cancer treatment delay is a problem in health systems worldwide. The impact of delay on mortality can now be quantified for prioritisation and modelling. Even a four week delay of cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality across surgical, systemic treatment, and radiotherapy indications for seven cancers. Policies focused on minimising system level delays to cancer treatment initiation could improve population level survival outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document