Laparoscopic Versus Open Gastrectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) is a well-established surgical technique in treating patients with early gastric cancer. However, the efficacy and safety of LAG versus open gastrectomy (OG) in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) remains unclear. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library in June 2023 for RCTs comparing LAG versus OG in patients with AGC. We pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary and continuous endpoints, respectively. We performed all statistical analyses using R software version 4.3.1 and a random-effects model. RESULTS: Nine RCTs comprising 3827 patients were included. There were no differences in terms of intraoperative complications (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.82), number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD -0.54 lymph nodes; 95% CI -1.18 to 0.09), or mortality (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.30 to 2.83). LAG was associated with a longer operative time (MD 49.28 minutes; 95% CI 30.88 to 67.69), lower intraoperative blood loss (MD -51.24 milliliters; 95% CI -81.41 to -21.06), shorter length of stay (MD -0.83 days; 95% CI -1.60 to -0.06), and higher incidence of pancreatic fistula (RR 2.44; 95% CI 1.08 to 5.50). Postoperatively, LAG was also superior to OG in reducing bleeding rates (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.86) and time to first flatus (MD -0.27 days; 95% CI -0.47 to -0.07), with comparable results in anastomotic leakage, wound healing issues, major complications, time to ambulation, or time to first liquid intake. In the long-term analyses at 3 and 5 years, there were no significant differences between LAG and OG in terms of overall survival (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.03) or relapse-free survival (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.04). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis of RCTs suggests that LAG may be an effective and safe alternative to OG for treating AGC; albeit, it may be associated with an increased risk for pancreatic fistula.

Comparative efficacy of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) versus bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) in newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

In view of the increasing data evaluating carfilzomib-based induction for newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (KRd) versus bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (VRd). Three studies totaling 1597 patients (50% KRd-treated, 50% VRd-treated) were included. Despite similar survival outcomes and overall response rate compared with the VRd arm, KRd-treated subjects showed higher odds of achieving complete responses and measurable residual disease negativity. Among patients with high-risk cytogenetics (n = 348), KRd was associated with significant improvement in progression-free survival (HR = 0.70; 95% CI = 0.50-0.97; p = .03; I2 = 0%), suggesting carfilzomib-based induction may be preferable in this NDMM subpopulation.

Cardio-protective effects of statins in patients undergoing anthracycline-based chemotherapy: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Several interventions have been tested for cardio-protection against anthracycline-induced cancer therapy-related cardiovascular dysfunction (CTRCD). The role of statins in this setting remains unclear. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing statins versus control (placebo or no intervention) for preventing anthracycline-induced CTRCD. We applied a random-effects model to pool risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: We included seven RCTs comprising 887 patients with planned chemotherapy with anthracycline-based regimens, of whom 49.8 % were randomized to statins. Relative to placebo, statins significantly reduced the incidence of cardiotoxicity/CTRCD (RR 0.46; 95 % CI 0.29 to 0.72; p < 0.001). The left ventricular end-systolic volume was also lower in patients treated with statin (MD -3.12 mL; 95 % CI -6.13 to -0.12 mL; p = 0.042). There was no significant difference between groups in post-anthracycline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) overall. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis of RCTs, statins were significantly associated with a lower incidence of anthracycline-induced CTRCD and attenuated changes in the left ventricular end-systolic volume. Thus, our findings suggest that statins should be considered as a cardio-protection strategy for patients with planned anthracycline-based chemotherapy.

Thromboembolic risk of carfilzomib or bortezomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: A comparative systematic review and meta-analysis.

Thrombosis represents a frequent and potentially severe complication in individuals diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM). These events can be driven by both the disease as well as the therapies themselves. Overall, available evidence is inconclusive about the differential thrombogenicity of carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (KRd) and bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (VRd). This meta-analysis compares the risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE; including deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE; including myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke) with KRd versus VRd as primary therapy for newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). Out of 510 studies identified after deduplication, one randomized controlled trial and five retrospective cohort studies were included. We analyzed 2304 patients (VRd: 1380; KRd: 924) for VTE events and 2179 patients (VRd: 1316; KRd: 863) for ATE events. Lower rates of VTE were observed in the VRd group when compared with the KRd group (6.16% vs. 8.87%; odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.88; p = .01). Both treatment groups exhibited minimal ATE incidence, with no significant difference between them (0.91% vs. 1.16%; OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.24-4.20; p = .99). In view of potential biases from retrospective studies, heterogeneity of baseline population characteristics, and limited access to patient-level data (e.g., VTE risk stratification and type of thromboprophylaxis regimen used) inherent to this meta-analysis, additional research is warranted to further validate our findings and refine strategies for thrombosis prevention in MM.

Safety and efficacy of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors are at increased risk for atrial fibrillation (AF). However, data on the efficacy and safety of catheter ablation (CA) in this population remain limited. Therefore, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing outcomes after CA for AF in patients with versus without prior or active cancer. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase from inception to April 2023 for studies comparing the safety and efficacy of CA for AF in cancer survivors. Outcomes of interest were bleeding events, late AF recurrence, and need for repeat ablation. Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4.1. We pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary endpoints. RESULTS: We included 5 retrospective cohort studies comprising 998 patients, of whom 41.4% had a history of cancer. Cancer survivors were at significantly higher risk of clinically relevant bleeding (OR 2.17; 95% CI 1.17-4.0; p=0.01) as compared with those without cancer. The efficacy of CA for AF was similar between groups. Late AF recurrence at 12 months was not significantly different between patients with vs. without a history of cancer (OR 1.29; 95% CI 0.78-2.13; p=0.32). Similar findings were observed in the outcome of repeat ablations (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.37-1.37; p=0.31). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that cancer survivors have an increased risk of bleeding after CA for AF relative to patients without cancer, with no significant difference in the efficacy of CA for maintenance of sinus rhythm between groups. STUDY REGISTRATION: This systematic review is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under registration number CRD42023394538.

Direct oral anticoagulants versus aspirin for primary thromboprophylaxis in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing outpatient therapy: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis.

Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are at an elevated risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is further increased for those undergoing anti-myeloma therapy. Current guidelines suggest low-dose direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as an alternative to aspirin for primary thromboprophylaxis in this population, but data comparing these two therapies are limited. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare DOACs with aspirin for primary thromboprophylaxis in individuals undergoing outpatient anti-myeloma therapy. Studies were selected when comparing DOACs versus aspirin for thrombotic and haemorrhagic outcomes. We included 10 randomised controlled trials and observational studies comprising 1026 patients with MM who received primary thromboprophylaxis with DOACs (n = 337) or aspirin (n = 689). DOAC thromboprophylaxis was associated with a significantly lower incidence of VTE compared with aspirin (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.16-0.68; p < 0.001). Major, clinically relevant non-major and minor bleeding event rates did not differ significantly between groups. Overall, our meta-analysis suggests that DOACs may be a preferable option to aspirin for the prevention of MM-related thrombosis. However, these results should be interpreted in the context of heterogeneous baseline population characteristics and potential bias from including observational studies. Further research is needed to evaluate the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy, particularly in high-risk individuals.

Maternal Outcomes in Women with Peripartum Cardiomyopathy versus Age and Race-Matched Peers in an Urban US Community.

Peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) is idiopathic systolic congestive heart failure around pregnancy. Comparisons with matched controls are lacking. We investigated maternal characteristics and outcomes up to 12 months in a cohort admitted to Montefiore Health System in Bronx, New York 1999−2015 (n = 53 cases and n = 92 age and race-matched controls, >80% Black or Hispanic/Latina). Compared to peers, women with PPCM had more chronic hypertension (24.5% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.001), prior gestational hypertension (20.8% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.001), prior preeclampsia (17.0% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.001), familial dilated cardiomyopathy (5.7% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.04), smoking (15.1% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.001), lower summary socioeconomic scores (−4.12 (IQR −6.81, −2.13) vs. −1.62 (IQR −4.20, −0.74), p < 0.001), public insurance (67.9% vs. 29.3% p = 0.001), and frequent depressive symptoms. Women with PPCM were often admitted antepartum (34.0% vs. 18.5%, p = 0.001) and underwent Cesarean section (65.4% vs. 30.4%, p = 0.001), but had less preterm labor (27.3% vs. 51.1%, p = 0.001). Women were rarely treated with bromocriptine (3.8%), frequently underwent left ventricular assist device placement (9.4% and n = 2 with menorrhagia requiring transfusion and progesterone) or heart transplantation (3.8%), but there were no in-hospital deaths. In sum, women with PPCM had worse socioeconomic disadvantage and baseline health than matched peers. Programs addressing social determinants of health may be important for women at high risk of PPCM.