IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0202185.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for cancer of the esophagus or the gastroesophageal junction: A meta-analysis based on clinical trials

Author

Listed:
  • Xin Zhao
  • Yiming Ren
  • Yong Hu
  • Naiqiang Cui
  • Ximo Wang
  • Yunfeng Cui

Abstract

Background: The benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for treating cancer of the esophagus or the gastroesophageal junction remains controversial. In the present study, we conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of these two management strategies. Methods: The MEDLINE (PubMed), SinoMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible studies. We searched for the most relevant studies published until the end of September 2017. Data were extracted independently and were analyzed using RevMan statistical software version 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, http://tech.cochrane.org/revman/download). Weighted mean differences, risk ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias. In this comprehensive meta-analysis, we examined the efficiency of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of cancer of the esophagus or the gastroesophageal junction as reported in qualified clinical trials. Results: Six qualified articles that included a total of 866 patients were identified. The meta-analysis showed that for 3-year and 5-year survival rates in primary outcomes, the results favored neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy strategies compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.62–0.98, P = 0.03; RR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.50–0.96, P = 0.03, respectively). In terms of secondary outcomes, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy significantly increased the rate of R0 resection and pathological complete response as well (RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.81–0.92, P

Suggested Citation

  • Xin Zhao & Yiming Ren & Yong Hu & Naiqiang Cui & Ximo Wang & Yunfeng Cui, 2018. "Neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for cancer of the esophagus or the gastroesophageal junction: A meta-analysis based on clinical trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-19, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0202185
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202185
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202185
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202185&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0202185?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:pone00:0202185. 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.