Background: The benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in oesophageal cancer has been extensively studied but data on survival are still equivocal. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery in the reduction of mortality in patients with resectable oesophageal cancer. Methods: Computerised bibliographic searches of MEDLINE and CANCERLIT (1970-2002) were supplemented with hand searches of reference lists. Study selection: Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing preoperative chemoradiotherapy plus surgery with surgery alone, and if they included patients with resectable histologically proven oesophageal cancer without metastatic disease. Six eligible RCTs were identified and included in the meta-analysis. Data extraction: Data on study populations, interventions, and outcomes were extracted from each RCT according to the intention to treat method by three independent observers and combined using the DerSimonian and Laird method. Results: Chemoradiotherapy plus surgery compared with surgery alone significantly reduced the three year mortality rate (odds ratio (OR) 0.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.93); p = 0.03) (number needed to treat = 10). Pathological examination showed that preoperative chemoradiotherapy downstaged the tumour (that is, less advanced stage at pathological examination at the time of surgery) compared with surgery alone (OR 0.43 (95% CI 0.26-0.72); p = 0.001). The risk for postoperative mortality was higher in the chemoradiotherapy plus surgery group (OR 2.10 (95% CI 1.18-3.73); p = 0.01). Conclusions: In patients with resectable oesophageal cancer, chemoradiotherapy plus surgery significantly reduces three year mortality compared with surgery alone. However, postoperative mortality was significantly increased by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Further large scale multicentre RCTs may prove useful to substantiate the benefit on overall survival.
Multicenter randomized trials have shown that once-weekly pegylated interferon (peginterferon) alfa-2a is more efficacious than conventional interferon alfa-2a (IFN) in patients with chronic hepatitis C. We performed a meta-analysis of 1,013 previously untreated patients (from 3 randomized trials) with pretreatment and post-treatment liver biopsies to assess the differences between peginterferon alfa-2a and IFN in terms of their effects on liver histology. Reported values were standardized mean differences (SMD) between patients receiving peginterferon alfa-2a and those receiving IFN (post-treatment value minus baseline value for each group). We used a random-effects model to quantify the average effect of peginterferon alfa-2a on liver histology. Peginterferon alfa-2a significantly reduced fibrosis compared with IFN (SMD, ؊0.14; 95% CI: ؊0.27, ؊0.01; P ؍ .04). A reduction in fibrosis was observed among sustained virologic responders (SMD, ؊0.59; 95% CI: ؊0.89, ؊0.30; P < .0001) and patients with recurrent disease (SMD, ؊0.34; 95% CI: ؊0.54, ؊0.14; P ؍ .0007), whereas no significant reduction was observed among nonresponders (SMD, ؊0.
Conflicting data exist regarding the relationship between hepatitis C virus genotype 1 and hepatic steatosis as well as the latter's role in the progression of fibrosis and treatment response. We assessed factors associated with hepatic steatosis in genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C and the impact of hepatic fat on fibrosis development and interferon responsiveness. Two hundred ninety-one non-diabetic patients with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C were examined for the presence of steatosis and its correlation with clinical, virological, and biochemical data, including insulin resistance (
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.