GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: Annals of Surgery, Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), Vol. 275, No. 1 ( 2022-01), p. 91-98
    Abstract: The aim of this study was to analyze esophageal cancer patients who previously underwent neoadjuvant therapy followed by a curative resection to determine whether additional adjuvant therapy is associated with improved survival outcomes. Summary Background Data: Neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery is the standard of care for locally advanced esophageal cancer, whereas adjuvant therapy is typically employed for patients with residual disease. However, the role of adjuvant therapy after a curative resection is still uncertain. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched for studies comparing patients with esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant therapy and curative resection with and without adjuvant therapy. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS), and random effects meta-analysis was conducted where appropriate. Grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Results: Ten studies involving 6462 patients were included. When compared to patients who received neoadjuvant therapy and esophagectomy alone, adjuvant therapy groups experienced a significant decrease in mortality by 48% at 1 year (Risk Ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41–0.65, P 〈 0.001, moderate certainty ). This reduction in mortality was carried through to 5-year follow-up (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.86–0.96, P 〈 0.001, moderate certainty ). The difference between the adjuvant therapy and the control group was uncertain regarding the secondary outcomes. Conclusion: Adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant treatment and esophagectomy with negative resection margins provide an improved OS at 1 and 5 years with moderate to high certainty of evidence, but the benefit for disease-free survival and locoregional/distal recurrence remain uncertain due to limited reporting of these outcomes.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0003-4932 , 1528-1140
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2641023-0
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2002200-1
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Annals of Surgery, Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
    Abstract: Determine if robotic-assisted lobectomy (RPL-4) is cost-effective and offers improved patient-reported health utility for patients with early-stage NSCLC when compared to video-assisted lobectomy (VATS-Lobectomy). Summary Background Data: Barriers against the adoption of RPL-4 in publicly-funded healthcare include the paucity of high-quality prospective trials and the perceived high cost of robotic surgery. Methods: Patients were enrolled in a blinded, multi-centered, RCT in Canada, the USA, and France, and were randomized 1:1 to either RPL-4 or VATS-Lobectomy. EQ-5D-5L was administered at baseline and post-operative day 1; weeks 3, 7, 12; and months 6 and 12. Direct and indirect costs were tracked using standard methods. Seemingly Unrelated Regression was applied to estimate the cost effect, adjusting for baseline health utility. Incremental cost effectiveness ratio was generated by 10,000 bootstrap samples with multivariate imputation by chained equations. Results: Of 406 patients screened, 186 were randomized, and 164 analyzed after final eligibility review (RPL-4:n=81; VATS-Lobectomy:n=83). Twelve-month follow-up was completed by 94.51%(155/164) of participants. Median age was 68(60-74). There were no significant differences in body mass index, comorbidity, pulmonary function, smoking status, baseline health utility, or tumor characteristics between arms. The mean 12-week health utility score was 0.85(0.10) for RPL-4 and 0.80(0.19) for VATS-Lobectomy ( P =0.02). Significantly more lymph nodes were sampled [10(8-13) vs 8(5-10); P =0.003] in the RPL-4 arm. The incremental cost/QALY of RPL-4 was $14,925.62(95% CI $6,843.69,$23,007.56) at 12-months. Conclusions: Early results of the RAVAL trial suggest that RPL-4 is cost-effective and associated with comparable short-term patient-reported health utility scores when compared to VATS-Lobectomy.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0003-4932
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2002200-1
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...