Background and aim Endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) and percutaneous biliary drainage (PTBD) are the two main strategies of preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) for resectable malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) worldwide, but which is better remains unclear. Seeding metastasis (SM) has been reported repeatedly in the recent decade, although it is rarely taken into consideration in the choice of PBD. Hence, a systematic review was badly warranted to evaluate the incidence of SM between PTBD and EBD in the preoperative treatment of MBO. Methods PubMed, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were used to identify any potentially eligible studies comparing the incidence of SM between EBD and PTBD from Nov 1990 to Mar 2018. The effect size was determined by odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results Ten studies were enrolled in this study, including 1379 cases in the EBD group and 1085 cases in the PTBD group. Results showed that the incidence of SM in the EBD group was significantly lower than that in the PTBD group (10.5% vs. 22.0%, OR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.23~0.53). Subgroup analysis stratified by the definition of SM showed that the pooled ORs for peritoneal metastasis and tube-related SM between EBD and PTBD were 0.42 (95% CI 0.31~0.57) and 0.17 (95% CI 0.10~0.29), respectively. Subgroup analysis stratified by the location of MBO showed that the pooled ORs for the incidence of SM between EBD and PTBD for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, distal cholangiocarcinoma, and pancreatic cancer were 0.27 (95% CI 0.13~0.56), 0.32 (95% CI 0.17~0.60), and 0.27 (95% CI 0.19~0.40), respectively. Conclusion EBD should be the optimal PBD for MBO considering the SM, but it deserved further validation.

Backgroud Resection is still the only potentially curative treatment for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), but the prognosis remains far from satisfactory. However, the benefit of adjuvant therapy (AT) remains controversial, although it has been conducted prevalently. Hence, a meta-analysis was warranted to evaluate the effect of AT for patients with ICC after resection. Patients and methods PubMed, MedLine, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science were used to identify potentially eligible studies from Jan.1 st 1990 to Aug. 31 st 2019, investigating the effect of AT for patients with ICC after resection. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to determine the effect size. Results 22 studies with 10181 patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis, including 832 patients in the chemotherapy group, 309 patients in the transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) group, 1192 patients in the radiotherapy group, 235 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group, and 6424 patients in the non-AT group. The pooled HR for the OS rate and RFS rate in the AT group were 0.63 (95%CI 0.52~0.74), 0.74 (95%CI 0.58~0.90), compared with the non-AT group. Subgroup analysis showed that the pooled HR for the OS rate in the AT group compared with non-AT group were as follows: chemotherapy group was 0.57 (95%CI = 0.44~0.70), TACE group was 0.56 (95%CI = 0.31~0.82), radiotherapy group was 0.71 (95%CI = 0.39~1.03), chemoradiotherapy group was 0.73 (95%CI = 0.57~0.89),

No abstract