Risk factors for lateral pelvic lymph node metastasis in patients with lower rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and objective: Lateral pelvic lymph node (LPLN) metastasis is one of the prominent reasons for local recurrence (LR) in patients with rectal cancer (RC). The evaluation criteria of lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) for patients in eastern (mainly in Japan) and western countries have been controversial. The aim of this study was to analyse the risk factors for LPLN metastasis in order to guide surgical methods. Methods: We searched relevant databases (Embase (Ovid), Medline (Ovid), PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) for articles published between 1 January 2000 and 05 October 2022 to evaluate the risk factors for LPLN metastasis in patients with RC in this meta-analysis. Results: A total of 24 articles with 5843 patients were included in this study. The overall results showed that female sex, age <60 years, pretherapeutic CEA level >5 ng/ml, clinical T4 stage (cT4), clinical M1 stage (cM1), distance of the tumour from the anal verge (AV) <50 mm, tumour centre located below the peritoneal reflection (Rb), short axis (SA) of LPLN ≥8 mm before nCRT, short axis (SA) of LPLN ≥5 mm after nCRT, border irregularity of LPLN, tumour size ≥50 mm, pathological T3-4 stage (pT3-4), pathological N2 stage (pN2), mesorectal lymph node metastasis (MLNM), lymphatic invasion (LI), venous invasion (VI), CRM (+) and poor differentiation were significant risk factors for LPLN metastasis (P <0.05). Conclusion: This study summarized almost all potential risk factors of LPLN metastasis and expected to provide effective treatment strategies for patients with LRC. According to the risk factors of lateral lymph node metastasis, we can adopt different comprehensive treatment strategies. High-risk patients can perform lateral lymph node dissection to effectively reduce local recurrence; In low-risk patients, we can avoid overtreatment, reduce complications and trauma caused by lateral lymph node dissection, and maximize patient survival and quality of life.

Comparison of the prognosis of four different surgical strategies for proximal gastric cancer: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is controversy regarding the long-term prognosis and short-term postoperative complications of different surgical strategies for proximal gastric cancer (PGC). METHODS: We searched for articles published in Embase (Ovid), Medline (Ovid), PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science between January 1, 1990, and February 1, 2021. We screened out the literature comparing different surgical strategies. We then evaluated the long-term and short-term outcome of different surgical strategies using a network meta-analysis, which summarizes the hazard ratio, odds ratio, mean difference, and 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between different surgical strategies for 5-year overall survival (OS), anastomotic leakage, or weight loss after 1 year. Compared with total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction (TG-RY) and proximal gastrectomy with double tract reconstruction (PG-DTR), the proximal gastrectomy with esophagogastrostomy (PG-EG) strategy significantly increased the incidence of reflux esophagitis; and the operation time and blood loss of the PG-EG strategy were significantly less than those of the other surgical strategies. The anastomotic stenosis rates of the PG-EG and proximal gastrectomy with jejunum interstitial (PG-JI) strategies were significantly higher than those of TG-RY and PG-DTR; the hemoglobin level after 1 year for the PG-DTR strategy was significantly higher than that of the TG-RY strategy. CONCLUSION: Our comprehensive literature research found that different surgical strategies had no significant difference in the long-term survival of PGC, but the incidence of reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stenosis after PG-DTR and TG-RY was significantly reduced.

Comparison of the prognosis of four different treatment strategies for acute left malignant colonic obstruction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is controversy regarding the efficacy of different treatment strategies for acute left malignant colonic obstruction. This study investigated the 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of several treatment strategies for acute left malignant colonic obstruction. METHODS: We searched for articles published in PubMed, Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science, and Cochrane Library between January 1, 2000, and July 1, 2020. We screened out the literature comparing different treatment strategies. Evaluate the primary and secondary outcomes of different treatment strategies. The network meta-analysis summarizes the hazard ratio, odds ratio, mean difference, and its 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: The network meta-analysis involved 48 articles, including 8 (randomized controlled trials) RCTs and 40 non-RCTs. Primary outcomes: the 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of the CS-BTS strategy and the DS-BTS strategy were significantly better than those of the ES strategy, and the 5-year OS of the DS-BTS strategy was significantly better than that of CS-BTS. The long-term survival of TCT-BTS was not significantly different from those of CS-BTS and ES. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: compared with emergency resection (ER) strategies, colonic stent-bridge to surgery (CS-BTS) and transanal colorectal tube-bridge to surgery (TCT-BTS) strategies can significantly increase the primary anastomosis rate, CS-BTS and decompressing stoma-bridge to surgery (DS-BTS) strategies can significantly reduce mortality, and CS-BTS strategies can significantly reduce the permanent stoma rate. The hospital stay of DS-BTS is significantly longer than that of other strategies. There was no significant difference in the anastomotic leakage levels of several treatment strategies. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive literature research, we find that CS-BTS and DS-BTS strategies can bring better 5-year OS and DFS than ER. DS-BTS strategies have a better 5-year OS than CS-BTS strategies. Without considering the hospital stays, DS-BTS strategy is the best choice.