IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0109979.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mediastinal Lymph Node Dissection versus Mediastinal Lymph Node Sampling for Early Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Xiongfeng Huang
  • Jianmin Wang
  • Qiao Chen
  • Jielin Jiang

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the overall survival, local recurrence, distant metastasis, and complications of mediastinal lymph node dissection (MLND) versus mediastinal lymph node sampling (MLNS) in stage I–IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Methods: A systematic search of published literature was conducted using the main databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases) to identify relevant randomized controlled trials that compared MLND vs. MLNS in NSCLC patients. Methodological quality of included randomized controlled trials was assessed according to the criteria from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions (Version 5.1.0). Meta-analysis was performed using The Cochrane Collaboration’s Review Manager 5.3. The results of the meta-analysis were expressed as hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR), with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: We included results reported from six randomized controlled trials, with a total of 1,791 patients included in the primary meta-analysis. Compared to MLNS in NSCLC patients, there was no statistically significant difference in MLND on overall survival (HR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08; P = 0.13). In addition, the results indicated that local recurrence rate (RR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.28; P = 0.67), distant metastasis rate (RR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.04; P = 0.15), and total complications rate (RR = 1.10, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.79; P = 0.72) were similar, no significant difference found between the two groups. Conclusions: Results for overall survival, local recurrence rate, and distant metastasis rate were similar between MLND and MLNS in early stage NSCLC patients. There was no evidence that MLND increased complications compared with MLNS. Whether or not MLND is superior to MLNS for stage II–IIIA remains to be determined.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiongfeng Huang & Jianmin Wang & Qiao Chen & Jielin Jiang, 2014. "Mediastinal Lymph Node Dissection versus Mediastinal Lymph Node Sampling for Early Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-8, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0109979
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109979
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0109979
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0109979&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0109979?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0109979. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.