Correlation of pathological complete response with survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer treated with radical surgery: A meta-analysis

Ziyu Li, Fei Shan, Yinkui Wang, Yan Zhang, Lianhai Zhang, Shuangxi Li, Yongning Jia, Kan Xue, Rulin Miao, Zhemin Li and Jiafu Ji

PLOS ONE, 2018, vol. 13, issue 1, 1-13

Abstract: Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before radical gastrectomy is preferred for locally advanced gastric cancer. To avoid the problematic use of pTNM for patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) gastric cancer TNM staging system (8th edition) added ypTNM for the first time. But patients achieving pathological complete response were not covered by the new ypTNM staging system. To investigate whether pathological complete response is associated with better outcome in gastric cancer, as was reported in rectal, breast and bladder cancer. Methods: We systematically searched the databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Collaboration’s Central register of controlled trials from January 1988 to April 2015 for publications which reported outcomes of patients with and without pathological complete response (pCR) (pT0N0M0) to investigate whether pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) treated with radical surgery is associated with better survival. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). The secondary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS). Both were measured with a relative risk (RR). A meta-analysis was performed using the fixed effects model. Forest plots and the Q test was used to evaluate overall heterogeneity for OS and DFS. Results: A total of seven trials, 1143 patients were included and analyzed after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical surgery with no other preoperative treatment. The average rate of pCR was 6.74% (range: 3%-15%). The RR of patients who achieved pCR in the primary tumor and lymph nodes is 0.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25–0.98; p = 0.04), 0.34 (95% CI, 0.21–0.55; p

Date: 2018
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0189294 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 89294&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0189294

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189294

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().