A268 PREOPERATIVE EUS-GUIDED FNA IS ASSOCIATED WITH BETTER OVERALL SURVIVAL IN RESECTABLE PANCREATIC CANCER WHEN COMPARED TO UPFRONT SURGERY WITHOUT PREOPERATIVE TISSUE ACQUISITION: A SYSTEMIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the standard of care in advanced pancreatic cancer. In resectable disease, preoperative EUS-FNA can help to identify benign etiology and other cancers while preventing unnecessary surgery. However, concerns regarding tumor seeding and pancreatitis have led some experts to advocate for upfront surgery without tissue sampling. Aims To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risks and benefits of performing pre-operative EUS-FNA in patients with suspected, resectable pancreatic cancer. Methods A literature search was performed up to April 2019 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Knowledge databases with terms specified for pancreatic neoplasm and FNA. All fully published adult studies that compared preoperative EUS-FNA to EUS without FNA in resectable pancreatic cancer for short- and long-term outcomes were included. Results were reported as Odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random effects model. Heterogeneity, publication bias and quality of studies were evaluated. Sensitivity analyses were performed. The primary outcome is overall survival. Secondary outcomes include cancer free survival, tumor recurrence and seeding, and post FNA adverse events. Results An initial search yielded 2814 citations. Six retrospective studies were included with 1155 patients in the EUS-FNA group vs 2067 patients in the comparator group. Overall survival was reported in three studies (n=2701: 796 EUS-FNA, 1905 non-FNA). Patients with preoperative EUS-FNA had better overall survival compared to the non-FNA group (WMD, 4.40 months [0.02 to 8.78]). In adenocarcinoma patients (2 studies, n=2050), there was no significant difference in overall survival (WMD, 2.94 months [-3.87 to 9.74]). Cancer-free survival did not differ significantly between the two groups (WMD, 2.08 months [-2.22 to 6.38]). Moreover, EUS with FNA was not associated with increased rates of tumor recurrence (OR, 0.55 [0.30–1.02]) or peritoneal carcinomatosis (OR, 0.81 [0.56–1.18]). Post-FNA pancreatitis was rare (1.7%), with all patients treated conservatively. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar findings across the different outcomes tested. Conclusions In this meta-analysis, preoperative EUS-FNA in resectable pancreatic cancer was associated with significantly greater overall survival when compared to the non-FNA group with no significant difference in rate of tumour recurrence and/or peritoneal seeding. These findings are limited by the retrospective nature of the included studies; randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results. Funding Agencies None
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,012 | 0,033 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».