-
Epidemiology and Health 2020This report provides information on 14 behavioral and nutritional factors that can be addressed in stomach cancer prevention programs. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This report provides information on 14 behavioral and nutritional factors that can be addressed in stomach cancer prevention programs.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched through December 2018. Reference lists were also screened. Observational studies addressing the associations between stomach cancer and behavioral factors were analyzed. Between-study heterogeneity was investigated using the χ2, τ2, and I2 statistics. The likelihood of publication bias was explored using the Begg and Egger tests and trim-and-fill analysis. Effect sizes were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Of 52,916 identified studies, 232 (including 33,831,063 participants) were eligible. The OR (95% CI) of factors associated with stomach cancer were as follows: Helicobacter pylori infection, 2.56 (95% CI, 2.18 to 3.00); current smoking, 1.61 (95% CI, 1.49 to 1.75); former smoking 1.43 (95% CI, 1.29 to 1.59); current drinking, 1.19 (95% CI, 1.10 to 1.29); former drinking, 1.73 (95% CI, 1.17 to 2.56); overweight/obesity, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.08); sufficient physical activity, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.68 to 1.02); consumption of fruits ≥3 times/wk, 0.48 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.63); consumption of vegetables ≥3 times/wk, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.49 to 0.79); eating pickled vegetables, 1.28 (95% CI, 1.09 to 1.51); drinking black tea, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.20); drinking green tea, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80 to 0.97); drinking coffee, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.11); eating fish ≥1 time/wk 0.79 (95% CI, 0.61 to 1.03); eating red meat ≥4 times/wk 1.31 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.96), and high salt intake 3.78 (95% CI, 1.74 to 5.44) and 1.34 (95% CI, 0.88 to 2.03), based on two different studies.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis provided a clear picture of the behavioral and nutritional factors associated with the development of stomach cancer. These results may be utilized for ranking and prioritizing preventable risk factors to implement effective prevention programs.
Topics: Health Risk Behaviors; Humans; Nutritional Status; Risk Factors; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 32023777
DOI: 10.4178/epih.e2020004 -
Gastroenterology May 2016Eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection has been reported to reduce the risk of gastric cancer among asymptomatic individuals in high-risk areas. The magnitude of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection has been reported to reduce the risk of gastric cancer among asymptomatic individuals in high-risk areas. The magnitude of benefit of H pylori eradication in populations with different levels of gastric cancer risk and in different clinical scenarios is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies to investigate the effects of H pylori eradication on the incidence of gastric cancer.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov, reviewing titles and abstracts of studies of the effects of eradication of H pylori infection on risk of gastric cancer, through May 2015. We also searched bibliographies of included studies, related reviews, and abstracts presented at Digestive Disease Week. Twenty-four eligible studies (22 research manuscripts and 2 abstracts) were included in our meta-analysis (715 incident gastric cancers among a total of 48,064 individuals/340,255 person-years). We assessed the effects, as well as their modification by baseline gastric cancer incidence, study design (randomized trial vs observational study), clinical scenario (asymptomatic infected individuals vs individuals after endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer), demographic characteristics of patients (age and sex), and duration of follow-up.
RESULTS
After adjustment for baseline gastric cancer incidence, individuals with eradication of H pylori infection had a lower incidence of gastric cancer than those who did not receive eradication therapy (pooled incidence rate ratio = 0.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.44-0.64). There was little heterogeneity among studies. Baseline gastric cancer incidence modified the benefit of H pylori eradication (P = .037 for interaction); the incidence rate ratio of gastric cancer decreased in a nonlinear fashion with increasing baseline incidence of gastric cancer (P = .018, in comparison with the linear model). The benefit also modestly increased with age (P = .023 for interaction), but this might be due to correlation between age and baseline gastric cancer incidence. Eradication provided significant benefit for asymptomatic infected individuals (pooled incidence rate ratio, 0.62; 95% CI: 0.49-0.79) and individuals after endoscopic resection of gastric cancers (pooled incidence rate ratio, 0.46; 95% CI: 0.35-0.60). The benefits of H pylori eradication did not differ with study design, sex, or follow-up period.
CONCLUSIONS
In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we associated eradication of H pylori infection with a reduced incidence of gastric cancer. The benefits of eradication vary with baseline gastric cancer incidence, but apply to all levels of baseline risk.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Humans; Incidence; Odds Ratio; Protective Factors; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Stomach Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26836587
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.01.028 -
Gut Dec 2020Gastric cancer is strongly associated with (). We conducted a previous systematic review and meta-analysis that suggested eradication therapy reduced future incidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Gastric cancer is strongly associated with (). We conducted a previous systematic review and meta-analysis that suggested eradication therapy reduced future incidence of gastric cancer, but effect size was uncertain, and there was no reduction in gastric cancer-related mortality. We updated this meta-analysis, as more data has accumulated. We also evaluated impact of eradication therapy on future risk of gastric cancer in patients having endoscopic mucosal resection for gastric neoplasia.
DESIGN
We searched the medical literature through February 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining effect of eradication therapy on subsequent occurrence of gastric cancer in healthy -positive adults, and in -positive patients with gastric neoplasia undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection. The control arm received placebo or no treatment. Follow-up was for ≥2 years. We estimated the relative risk (RR) number needed to treat (NNT), and evaluated the disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) gained from screening from the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
We identified 10 RCTs, seven recruited 8323 healthy individuals, and three randomised 1841 patients with gastric neoplasia. In healthy individuals, eradication therapy reduced incidence of gastric cancer (RR=0.54; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.72, NNT=72), and reduced mortality from gastric cancer (RR=0.61; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.92, NNT=135), but did not affect all-cause mortality. These data suggest that 8 743 815 DALYs (95% CI 5 646 173 to 11 847 456) would be gained if population screening and treatment was implemented globally. In patients with gastric neoplasia, eradication therapy also reduced incidence of future gastric cancer (RR=0.49; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.70, NNT=21). Adverse events were incompletely reported.
CONCLUSION
There is moderate evidence to suggest that eradication therapy reduces the incidence of gastric cancer in healthy individuals and patients with gastric neoplasia in East Asian countries. There also appears to be a reduction in gastric cancer-related mortality.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Endoscopic Mucosal Resection; Helicobacter Infections; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Statistics as Topic; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 32205420
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-320839 -
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer... Mar 2018Objective: Gastric cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, with many influences contributing to the disease. The aim of this study was to identify the... (Review)
Review
Objective: Gastric cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, with many influences contributing to the disease. The aim of this study was to identify the most important risk factors. Methods: This study was conducted in 2017 with a structured overview in the Science Directe, Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science (ISI) databases. In the first step, articles were extracted based on their titles and abstracts; the quality of 43 articles was evaluated using the STORBE tool. Inclusion criteria were studies carried out on human, English language (first step), year of the study and the study type (second step). Results: Finally, 1,381 articles were found, of which 1,269 were excluded in primary and secondary screening. In reviewing the references of the remaining 44 papers, 4 studies were added. Finally, 43 articles were selected for the quality assessment process. A total of 52 risk factors for gastric cancer were identified and classified into nine important categories: diet, lifestyle, genetic predisposition, family history, treatment and medical conditions, infections, demographic characteristics, occupational exposures and ionizing radiation’. Conclusion: Several environmental and genetic factors are involved in the development of gastric cancer. Regarding the role of changes in ‘diet and lifestyle’, considering appropriate nutrition and improving the level of education and awareness of people is vital for early diagnosis and timely treatment of this disease, especially in people with a family history and genetic predisposition.
Topics: Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Humans; Risk Factors; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 29579788
DOI: 10.22034/APJCP.2018.19.3.591 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2017Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide. In "Western" countries, most people are either diagnosed at an advanced stage, or develop a relapse after... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide. In "Western" countries, most people are either diagnosed at an advanced stage, or develop a relapse after surgery with curative intent. In people with advanced disease, significant benefits from targeted therapies are currently limited to HER-2 positive disease treated with trastuzumab, in combination with chemotherapy, in first-line. In second-line, ramucirumab, alone or in combination with paclitaxel, demonstrated significant survival benefits. Thus, systemic chemotherapy remains the mainstay of treatment for advanced gastric cancer. Uncertainty remains regarding the choice of the regimen.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of chemotherapy versus best supportive care (BSC), combination versus single-agent chemotherapy and different chemotherapy combinations in advanced gastric cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and Embase up to June 2016, reference lists of studies, and contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered only RCTs on systemic, intravenous or oral chemotherapy versus BSC, combination versus single-agent chemotherapy and different chemotherapy regimens in advanced gastric cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified studies and extracted data. A third investigator was consulted in case of disagreements. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 64 RCTs, of which 60 RCTs (11,698 participants) provided data for the meta-analysis of overall survival. We found chemotherapy extends overall survival (OS) by approximately 6.7 months more than BSC (hazard ratio (HR) 0.3, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.24 to 0.55, 184 participants, three studies, moderate-quality evidence). Combination chemotherapy extends OS slightly (by an additional month) versus single-agent chemotherapy (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.89, 4447 participants, 23 studies, moderate-quality evidence), which is partly counterbalanced by increased toxicity. The benefit of epirubicin in three-drug combinations, in which cisplatin is replaced by oxaliplatin and 5-FU is replaced by capecitabine is unknown.Irinotecan extends OS slightly (by an additional 1.6 months) versus non-irinotecan-containing regimens (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95, 2135 participants, 10 studies, high-quality evidence).Docetaxel extends OS slightly (just over one month) compared to non-docetaxel-containing regimens (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.95, 2001 participants, eight studies, high-quality evidence). However, due to subgroup analyses, we are uncertain whether docetaxel-containing combinations (docetaxel added to a single-agent or two-drug combination) extends OS due to moderate-quality evidence (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.91, 1466 participants, four studies, moderate-quality evidence). When another chemotherapy was replaced by docetaxel, there is probably little or no difference in OS (HR 1.05; 0.87 to 1.27, 479 participants, three studies, moderate-quality evidence). We found there is probably little or no difference in OS when comparing capecitabine versus 5-FU-containing regimens (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.11, 732 participants, five studies, moderate-quality evidence) .Oxaliplatin may extend (by less than one month) OS versus cisplatin-containing regimens (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98, 1105 participants, five studies, low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether taxane-platinum combinations with (versus without) fluoropyrimidines extend OS due to very low-quality evidence (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.06, 482 participants, three studies, very low-quality evidence). S-1 regimens improve OS slightly (by less than an additional month) versus 5-FU-containing regimens (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.00, 1793 participants, four studies, high-quality evidence), however since S-1 is used in different doses and schedules between Asian and non-Asian population, the applicability of this finding to individual populations is uncertain.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Chemotherapy improves survival (by an additional 6.7 months) in comparison to BSC, and combination chemotherapy improves survival (by an additional month) compared to single-agent 5-FU. Testing all patients for HER-2 status may help to identify patients with HER-2-positive tumours, for whom, in the absence of contraindications, trastuzumab in combination with capecitabine or 5-FU in combination with cisplatin has been shown to be beneficial. For HER-2 negative people, all different two-and three-drug combinations including irinotecan, docetaxel, oxaliplatin or oral 5-FU prodrugs are valid treatment options for advanced gastric cancer, and consideration of the side effects of each regimen is essential in the treatment decision. Irinotecan-containing combinations and docetaxel-containing combinations (in which docetaxel was added to a single-agent or two-drug (platinum/5-FUcombination) show significant survival benefits in the comparisons studied above. Furthermore, docetaxel-containing three-drug regimens have increased response rates, but the advantages of the docetaxel-containing three-drug combinations (DCF, FLO-T) are counterbalanced by increased toxicity. Additionally, oxaliplatin-containing regimens demonstrated a benefit in OS as compared to the same regimen containing cisplatin, and there is a modest survival improvement of S-1 compared to 5-FU-containing regimens.Whether the survival benefit for three-drug combinations including cisplatin, 5-FU, and epirubicin as compared to the same regimen without epirubicin is still valid when second-line therapy is routinely administered and when cisplatin is replaced by oxaliplatin and 5-FU by capecitabine is questionable. Furthermore, the magnitude of the observed survival benefits for the three-drug regimens is not large enough to be clinically meaningful as defined recently by the American Society for Clinical Oncology (Ellis 2014). In contrast to the comparisons in which a survival benefit was observed by adding a third drug to a two-drug regimen at the cost of increased toxicity, the comparison of regimens in which another chemotherapy was replaced by irinotecan was associated with a survival benefit (of borderline statistical significance), but without increased toxicity. For this reason irinotecan/5-FU-containing combinations are an attractive option for first-line treatment. Although they need to be interpreted with caution, subgroup analyses of one study suggest that elderly people have a greater benefit form oxaliplatin, as compared to cisplatin-based regimens, and that people with locally advanced disease or younger than 65 years might benefit more from a three-drug regimen including 5-FU, docetaxel, and oxaliplatin as compared to a two-drug combination of 5-FU and oxaliplatin, a hypothesis that needs further confirmation. For people with good performance status, the benefit of second-line chemotherapy has been established in several RCTs.
Topics: Anthracyclines; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Camptothecin; Cisplatin; Docetaxel; Fluorouracil; Humans; Irinotecan; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomach Neoplasms; Taxoids
PubMed: 28850174
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004064.pub4 -
Cancer Control : Journal of the Moffitt... 2021Treatment options for advanced gastric esophageal cancer are quite limited. Chemotherapy is unavoidable at certain stages, and research on targeted therapies has mostly... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Treatment options for advanced gastric esophageal cancer are quite limited. Chemotherapy is unavoidable at certain stages, and research on targeted therapies has mostly failed. The advent of immunotherapy has brought hope for the treatment of advanced gastric esophageal cancer. The aim of the study was to analyze the safety of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy and the long-term survival of patients who were diagnosed as gastric esophageal cancer and received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy.
METHOD
Studies on anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy of advanced gastric esophageal cancer published before February 1, 2020 were searched online. The survival (e.g. 6-month overall survival, 12-month overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rates (ORR)) and adverse effects of immunotherapy were compared to that of control therapy (physician's choice of therapy).
RESULTS
After screening 185 studies, 4 comparative cohort studies which reported the long-term survival of patients receiving immunotherapy were included. Compared to control group, the 12-month survival (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.31 to 2.12, P < 0.0001) and 18-month survival (OR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.39 to 2.81, P = 0.0001) were significantly longer in immunotherapy group. The 3-month survival rate (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.36 to 3.06, P = 0.92) and 18-month survival rate (OR = 1.44, 95% CI: 0.98 to 2.12, P = 0.07) were not significantly different between immunotherapy group and control group. The ORR were not significantly different between immunotherapy group and control group (OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 0.65 to 3.66, P = 0.01). Meta-analysis pointed out that in the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 sub group population, the immunotherapy could obviously benefit the patients in tumor response rates (OR = 3.80, 95% CI: 1.89 to 7.61, P = 0.0002).
CONCLUSION
For the treatment of advanced gastric esophageal cancer, the therapeutic efficacy of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy was superior to that of chemotherapy or palliative care.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Esophageal Neoplasms; Humans; Immunotherapy; Stomach Neoplasms; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 33618535
DOI: 10.1177/1073274821997430 -
JAMA Oncology Oct 2022Approval by the US Food and Drug Administration of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) for advanced gastroesophageal cancer (aGEC) irrespective of PD-L1 status has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Association of PD-L1 Expression and Other Variables With Benefit From Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 17 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trials.
IMPORTANCE
Approval by the US Food and Drug Administration of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) for advanced gastroesophageal cancer (aGEC) irrespective of PD-L1 status has generated controversy. Exploratory analyses from individual trials indicate a lack of meaningful benefit from ICI in patients with absent or low PD-L1 expression; however, analysis of a single variable while ignoring others may not consider the instability inherent in exploratory analyses.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically examine the predictive value of tissue-based PD-L1 status compared with that of other variables for ICI benefit in aGEC to assess its stability.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register (2000-2022).
STUDY SELECTION, DATA EXTRACTION, AND SYNTHESIS
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included of adults with aGEC (adenocarcinoma [AC] or squamous cell carcinoma [SCC]) randomized to anti-PD-1 or PD-L1-containing treatment vs standard of care (SOC). Study screening, data abstraction, and bias assessment were completed independently by 2 reviewers. Of 5752 records screened, 26 were assessed for eligibility; 17 trials were included in the analysis.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The prespecified primary end point was overall survival. The mean hazard ratio (HR) for ICI vs SOC was calculated (random-effects model). Predictive values were quantified by calculating the ratio of mean HRs between 2 levels of each variable.
RESULTS
In all, 17 RCTs (9 first line, 8 after first line) at low risk of bias and 14 predictive variables were included, totaling 11 166 participants (5067 with SCC, 6099 with ACC; 77.6% were male and 22.4% were female; 59.5% of patients were younger than 65 years, 40.5% were 65 years or older). Among patients with SCCs, PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) was the strongest predictor of ICI benefit (HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.53-0.68] for high TPS; and HR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.75-0.95] for low TPS), yielding a predictive value of 41.0% favoring high TPS (vs ≤16.0% for other variables). Among patients with AC, PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) was the strongest predictor (after microsatellite instability high status) of ICI benefit (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.66-0.81] for high CPS; and HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.84-1.07] for low CPS), yielding a predictive value of 29.4% favoring CPS-high (vs ≤12.9% for other variables). Head-to-head analyses of trials containing both levels of a variable and/or having similar design generally yielded consistent results.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Tissue-based PD-L1 expression, more than any variable other than microsatellite instability-high, identified varying degrees of benefit from ICI-containing therapy vs SOC among patients with aGEC in 17 RCTs.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Adenocarcinoma; B7-H1 Antigen; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Esophageal Neoplasms; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Microsatellite Instability; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomach Neoplasms; United States
PubMed: 36006624
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.3707 -
Nutrients Oct 2022Aim: The effect of dietary salt intake on the risk of gastric cancer is not clear. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate the association between dietary salt intake... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Aim: The effect of dietary salt intake on the risk of gastric cancer is not clear. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate the association between dietary salt intake and the risk of gastric cancer. Methods: Three major databases were searched to retrieve case-control studies published in English before 1 July 2022. Random effects model analysis was used to obtain the pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the association between dietary salt intake and risk of gastric cancer. Subgroup analyses were used to identify possible sources of heterogeneity. Results: Thirty-eight case-control studies were included in this meta-analysis (total population: n = 37,225). The pooled ORs showed a significantly positive association between high salt intake and gastric cancer compared with low salt intake (OR = 1.55, 95% CI (1.45, 1.64); p < 0.001). In subgroup meta-analysis for geographic region, estimation method for dietary salt intake and the source of controls, this association was not changed. Conclusion: Higher dietary salt intake increased the risk of gastric cancer. This study has implications for the prevention of gastric cancer.
Topics: Humans; Case-Control Studies; Nutritional Status; Risk Factors; Sodium Chloride, Dietary; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 36296944
DOI: 10.3390/nu14204260 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Sep 2008Stomach cancer is usually an adenocarcinoma arising in the stomach, and includes tumours arising at or just below the gastro-oesophageal junction (type II and III... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Stomach cancer is usually an adenocarcinoma arising in the stomach, and includes tumours arising at or just below the gastro-oesophageal junction (type II and III junctional tumours). The annual incidence varies among countries and by sex, with about 80 cases a year per 100,000 in Japanese men, 30/100,000 in Japanese women, 18/100,000 in British men, and 10/100,000 in British women.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of radical versus conservative surgical resection? What are the effects of adjuvant chemotherapy? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to August 2007 (BMJ Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 18 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, lymphadenectomy (radical, conservative), removal of adjacent organs, and subtotal gastrectomy for resectable distal tumours.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Esophagogastric Junction; Gastrectomy; Humans; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 19445803
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2011Stomach cancer is usually an adenocarcinoma arising in the stomach, and includes tumours arising at or just below the gastro-oesophageal junction (type II and III... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Stomach cancer is usually an adenocarcinoma arising in the stomach, and includes tumours arising at or just below the gastro-oesophageal junction (type II and III junctional tumours). The annual incidence varies among countries and by sex, with about 80/100,000 cases per year in Japanese men, 30/100,000 in Japanese women, 18/100,000 in British men, and 10/100,000 in British women.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of radical versus conservative surgical resection? What are the effects of adjuvant chemotherapy? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 19 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, lymphadenectomy (radical, conservative), removal of adjacent organs, and subtotal gastrectomy for resectable distal tumours.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Esophagogastric Junction; Gastrectomy; Humans; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 21439098
DOI: No ID Found