MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4247679986 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001556

Preoperative chemotherapy for resectable thoracic esophageal cancer

2003· review· en· W4247679986 sur OpenAlexaff
Richard Malthaner, Deborah Fenlon

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2003
Typereview
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineEsophagectomyEsophageal cancerEsophagusChemotherapySurgeryClinical trialRelative riskCancerInternal medicineOncologyConfidence interval

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Carcinoma of the esophagus is a relatively uncommon but lethal cancer that continues to kill over 90% of its victims within 5 years. Surgery is the treatment of choice for most localized esophageal cancer patients. However, despite curative resection, the 5-year survival rate ranges from 15% to 39%. The failure of surgery to cure clinically localized esophageal cancer is because of the advanced state of the disease before symptoms occur, high frequency of lymph node involvement, and the common occurrence of submucosal spread and extension to surrounding structures. Preoperative chemotherapy has been used in an attempt to decrease tumour activity, increase resectability, and improve disease-free and overall survival. A number of studies have investigated whether preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery leads to an improvement in cure rates, but the individual reports have not been encouraging. The role of preoperative chemotherapy in the treatment of resectable thoracic esophageal cancer remains undefined. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to determine the role of preoperative chemotherapy on overall survival and/or quality-of-life for patients with resectable thoracic esophageal carcinoma. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 2 - 2000), MEDLINE (1966 - 2000), EMBASE (1988 - 2000) and CancerLit (1993 - 2000). The references of all identified studies, review articles, and standard textbooks were examined. Members of the Cochrane UGPD Group and experts in the oncology field were contacted and asked to supply details of any outstanding clinical trials and relevant unpublished materials. There were no language restrictions. The searches were updated in June 2000. The clinical trial registers of the National Cancer Institute and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group were consulted for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Types of studies Studies (published or unpublished) that randomised patients with potentially resectable carcinoma of the esophagus (of any histologic type) to chemotherapy or no chemotherapy before surgery were included in this review. Studies were excluded if they were not truly randomised (phase I or II trials), earlier versions of updated trials, if other treatment modalities (e.g. radiotherapy, hyperthermia) were used, or if there was not a surgery alone control arm. Types of participants The participants consisted of patients with potentially resectable thoracic esophageal carcinoma (of any histologic type). Trials involving patients with carcinoma of the cervical esophagus were excluded. Types of interventions Trials that compared chemotherapy before surgery (esophagectomy) with surgical resection alone (esophagectomy). Types of outcome measures The primary outcome was death at yearly intervals. Morbidity (complications), and quality-of-life were secondary outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Overall mortality at yearly intervals was determined by extracting the total number of patients randomised to the treatment and control groups and the number of deaths in each group. All analyses were carried out on intention-to-treat that is patients were analyzed according to their allocated treatment, irrespective of whether they received that treatment. Mortality at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years were used as endpoints of clinical relevance. If survival numbers at the specified time intervals were not given, they were estimated from the published survival curves. The number of deaths in the treatment groups (preoperative chemotherapy plus surgery) was compared to the number of deaths in the control groups (surgery alone). Treatment modalities as well as patient demographics and characteristics and side-effects were also recorded. Trials meeting the inclusion criteria were evaluated by two independent reviewers using the Jadad method MAIN RESULTS: A total of 14 randomised controlled trials and 1 meta-analysis of preoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for esophageal carcinoma were identified to be potentially eligible for review. This review is based on 7 randomised trials and 1653 patients. At 1 year the Peto odds ratio based on the fixed-effects models showed no difference in mortality between preoperative chemotherapy and surgery alone (OR = 1.03). At 2 years there was a 20% significant decrease in mortality for preoperative chemotherapy (OR = 0.80; 95% C.I. 0.65 to 0.99) but the results were not robust. The results at 3, 4, and 5 years found odds ratios tending to favour preoperative chemotherapy, but wide confidence intervals that included 1. None of the published trials reported on quality-of-life outcomes. There appeared to be an increased risk of morbidity with chemotherapy. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review suggest that there is no strong evidence to recommend preoperative chemotherapy in the treatment of surgically resectable carcinomas of the thoracic esophagus. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,015
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Méta-épidémiologie (sens large), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,393
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0150,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0240,003
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,003

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,172
Tête enseignante GPT0,460
Écart entre enseignants0,287 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations66
Publié2003
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsTravaux en français237 207