RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Research on long-term survival after resection of giant (≥ 10 cm) and non-giant hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (< 10 cm) has produced conflicting results. AIM: This study aimed to investigate whether oncological outcomes and safety profiles of resection differ between giant and non-giant HCC. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched. Studies designed to investigate the outcomes of giant vs non-giant HCC were included. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary endpoints were postoperative complications and mortality rates. All studies were assessed for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: 24 retrospective cohort studies involving 23747 patients (giant = 3326; non-giant = 20421) who underwent HCC resection were included. OS was reported in 24 studies, DFS in 17 studies, 30-d mortality rate in 18 studies, postoperative complications in 15 studies, and post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) in six studies. The HR was significantly lower for non-giant HCC in both OS (HR 0.53, 95%CI: 0.50-0.55, P < 0.001) and DFS (HR 0.62, 95%CI: 0.58-0.84, P < 0.001). No significant difference was found for 30-d mortality rate (OR 0.73, 95%CI: 0.50-1.08, P = 0.116), postoperative complications (OR 0.81, 95%CI: 0.62-1.06, P = 0.140), and PHLF (OR 0.81, 95%CI: 0.62-1.06, P = 0.140). CONCLUSION: Resection of giant HCC is associated with poorer long-term outcomes. The safety profile of resection was similar in both groups; however, this may have been confounded by reporting bias. HCC staging systems should account for the size differences.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Stroke is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Cilostazol, an antiplatelet and phosphodiesterase 3 inhibitor, has not been clearly established for ischaemic stroke use. We aim to determine the efficacy and safety of cilostazol for secondary stroke prevention. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 25 September 2020, for randomised trials comparing the efficacy and safety of cilostazol monotherapy or dual therapy with another antiplatelet regimen or placebo, in patients with ischaemic stroke. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used to assess study quality. This meta-analysis was reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. RESULTS: Eighteen randomised trials comprising 11 429 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Most trials possessed low risk of bias and were of low heterogeneity. Cilostazol significantly reduced the rate of ischaemic stroke recurrence (risk ratio, RR=0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.81), any stroke recurrence (RR=0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.74) and major adverse cardiovascular events (RR=0.67, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.81). Cilostazol did not significantly decrease mortality (RR=0.90, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.25) or increase the rate of good functional outcome (Modified Rankin Scale score of 0-1; RR=1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.19). Cilostazol demonstrated favourable safety profile, significantly reducing the risk of intracranial haemorrhage (RR=0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.68) and major haemorrhagic events (RR=0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Cilostazol demonstrated superior efficacy and safety profiles compared with traditional antiplatelet regimens such as aspirin and clopidogrel for secondary stroke prevention but does not appear to affect functional outcomes. Future randomised trials can be conducted outside East Asia, or compare cilostazol with a wider range of antiplatelet agents.