RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: To investigate the relationship between interstitial maturity and prognosis of colorectal cancer. AIM: To examine the correlation between interstitial maturity and the prognosis of colorectal cancer. METHODS: The paper database PubMed, EMBASE, Cochranelibrary, Springerlink, CNKI, and Wanfang database were searched until December 2023. "tumor stroma maturity" "desmoplastic stroma reaction" "desmoplastic reaction" "stroma reaction" "degree of stroma reaction "" stroma classification" "stroma density" "colorectal cancer" "colon cancer" "rectal cancer" "prognosis" were searched for the search terms. Two system assessors independently screened the literature quality according to the inclusion exclusion criteria, Quality evaluation and data extraction were performed for the included literatures, and meta-analysis was performed for randomized control trials included at using Review Manager 5.2 software. RESULTS: Finally, data of 9849 patients with colorectal cancer from 19 cosets in 15 literatures were included, including 4339 patients with mature type (control group), 3048 patients with intermediate type (intermediate group) and 2456 patients with immature type (immature group). The results of meta-analysis showed: Relapse-free survival [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.66, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.30-3.08; P < 0.00001], disease-free survival (HR = 3.68, 95%CI: 2.33-5.81; P < 0.00001) and overall survival (HR = 1.70, 95%CI: 1.53-1.87; P < 0.00001) were significantly lower than those in mature group (control group); relapse-free survival (HR = 1.36, 95%CI: 1.17-1.59; P < 0.0001) and disease-free survival rate (HR = 1.85, 95%CI: 1.53-2.24; P < 0.0001) was significantly lower than the mature group (control group). CONCLUSION: There is the correlation between tumor interstitial maturity and survival prognosis of colorectal cancer, and different degrees of tumor interstitial maturity have a certain impact on the quality of life of colorectal cancer patients.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: To compare the efficacy and safety of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in the treatment of middle and low locally advanced rectal cancer. Our study will systematically collect and integrate studies to evaluate the ability of these two treatments to improve tumor shrinkage rates, surgical resection rates, tumor-free survival, and severe adverse events. AIM: To provide clinicians and patients with more reliable treatment options to optimize treatment outcomes and quality of life for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer by comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the two treatment options. METHODS: A full search of all clinical studies on the effectiveness and safety of TNT and nCRT for treating locally advanced rectal cancer identified in Chinese (CNKI, Wanfang, China Biomedical Literature Database) and English (PubMed, Embase) databases was performed. Two system assessors independently screened the studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality evaluation and data extraction were performed for the included literature. We used RevMan 5.3 software to perform a meta-analysis of the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate, T stage degradation rate, resection 0 (R0) rate, anal grade 3/4 acute toxicity rate, perioperative complications, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) in the TNT and nCRT groups. RESULTS: Finally, 14 studies were included, six of which were randomized controlled studies. A total of 3797 patients were included, including 1865 in the TNT group and 1932 in the nCRT group. The two sets of baseline data were comparable. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the pCR rate [odds ratio (OR) = 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.30-1.90, P < 0.00001], T stage degradation rate (OR = 2.16, 95%CI: 1.63-2.57, P < 0.00001), and R0 resection rate (OR = 1.42, 95%CI: 1.09-1.85, P = 0.009) were significantly greater in the nCRT group than in the nCRT group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of grade 3/4 acute toxicity or perioperative complications between the two groups. The 5-year OS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.84, 95%CI: 0.69-1.02, P = 0.08] and DFS (HR = 0.94, 95%CI: 0.03-1.39, P = 0.74) of the TNT group were similar to those of the nCRT group. CONCLUSION: TNT has greater clinical efficacy and safety than nCRT in the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer.