Author
Listed:
- Tianyu He
- Jiacheng Yao
- Jun Chen
- Tingting Liu
- Jun Dang
Abstract
Background: The role of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) after complete tumor resection in patients with thymoma or thymic carcinoma remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to identify groups that would benefit from PORT. Methods: Multiple scientific databases were systematically searched for studies comparing overall survival (OS) and/or disease-free survival (DFS) between PORT and surgery alone in patients with completely resected thymomas or thymic carcinomas until April 10, 2024. A random-effects model was used for the statistical analysis. Results: A total of 31 studies with 10543 patients were included (17 studies involving 4763 patients with thymoma, seven studies involving 1045 patients with thymic carcinoma, and seven studies involving 4735 patients with mixed histological types). Notably, PORT significantly prolonged OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59–0.91) and DFS (HR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.43–0.89). Similar results were also observed when the multivariate-adjusted HRs were used as the measure of effect (OS: HR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.43–0.83; DFS: HR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.29–0.79). In subgroup analyses, PORT was associated with a longer OS and DFS for thymoma (HR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.56–0.96 and HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.46–0.93), thymic carcinoma (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.49–1.07 and HR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.19–0.77), and stage 3–4 disease (HR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.34–0.74 and HR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.27–0.70), but not for stage 2 disease (HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.55–1.19 and HR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.51–1.83). Conclusions: PORT is likely to improve OS and DFS in patients with completely resected stage 3–4 thymoma or thymic carcinoma; however, the value of PORT for stage 2 disease requires further evaluation in large-scale studies.
Suggested Citation
Tianyu He & Jiacheng Yao & Jun Chen & Tingting Liu & Jun Dang, 2024.
"Postoperative radiotherapy for completely resected thymoma and thymic carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(8), pages 1-14, August.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0308111
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308111
Download full text from publisher
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:pone00:0308111. 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.