Impact of tumor size on survival of patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Background The impact of tumor size on prognosis for surgically treated patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate this issue. Methods Relevant studies published from January 2000 to June 2017 were identified through EMBASE and PUBMED. Data were pooled for meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3. Results Twenty eight observational studies involving a total of 23,945 patients were included. Tumors > 2 cm was associated with poor prognosis: the pooled hazard ratio (HR) estimate for overall survival was 1.52 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41–1.64; P < 0.0001) by univariate analysis and 1.61 (95% CI: 1.35–1.91; P < 0.0001) by multivariate analysis; the pooled HR estimate for disease-free survival was 1.74 (95% CI: 1.46–2.07; P < 0.0001) by univariate analysis and 1.38 (95% CI: 1.12–1.68; P = 0.002) by multivariate analysis. When compared with patients with tumors ≤2 cm, those with the tumors > 2 cm had higher incidences of lymph node metastasis, poor tumor differentiation, lymph vessel invasion, vascular invasion, perineural invasion, and positive intraoperative peritoneal cytology. Conclusion These data demonstrate that PDAC size > 2 cm is an independent predictive factor for poor prognosis after surgical resection and associated with more aggressive tumor biology..
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2018 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2018 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:18 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
BMC cancer - 18(2018), 1 vom: 16. Okt. |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Li, Debang [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
Volltext [kostenfrei] |
|---|
| Themen: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
© The Author(s). 2018 |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1186/s12885-018-4901-9 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
OLC2100393502 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC2100393502 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230401225316.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230401s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s12885-018-4901-9 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2100393502 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s12885-018-4901-9-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 610 |q VZ |
| 100 | 1 | |a Li, Debang |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Impact of tumor size on survival of patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2018 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © The Author(s). 2018 | ||
| 520 | |a Background The impact of tumor size on prognosis for surgically treated patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate this issue. Methods Relevant studies published from January 2000 to June 2017 were identified through EMBASE and PUBMED. Data were pooled for meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3. Results Twenty eight observational studies involving a total of 23,945 patients were included. Tumors > 2 cm was associated with poor prognosis: the pooled hazard ratio (HR) estimate for overall survival was 1.52 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41–1.64; P < 0.0001) by univariate analysis and 1.61 (95% CI: 1.35–1.91; P < 0.0001) by multivariate analysis; the pooled HR estimate for disease-free survival was 1.74 (95% CI: 1.46–2.07; P < 0.0001) by univariate analysis and 1.38 (95% CI: 1.12–1.68; P = 0.002) by multivariate analysis. When compared with patients with tumors ≤2 cm, those with the tumors > 2 cm had higher incidences of lymph node metastasis, poor tumor differentiation, lymph vessel invasion, vascular invasion, perineural invasion, and positive intraoperative peritoneal cytology. Conclusion These data demonstrate that PDAC size > 2 cm is an independent predictive factor for poor prognosis after surgical resection and associated with more aggressive tumor biology. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Resection | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Size | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Prognosis | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hu, Bin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhou, Yanming |0 (orcid)0000-0002-8684-7485 |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wan, Tao |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Si, Xiaoying |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t BMC cancer |d BioMed Central, 2001 |g 18(2018), 1 vom: 16. Okt. |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)326643710 |w (DE-600)2041352-X |w (DE-576)107014645 |x 1471-2407 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:18 |g year:2018 |g number:1 |g day:16 |g month:10 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4901-9 |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_702 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2001 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2003 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2005 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2006 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2007 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2008 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2009 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2010 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2011 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2015 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2020 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2021 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2025 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2031 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2038 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2044 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2048 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2055 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2056 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2057 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2061 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2111 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2113 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2134 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2190 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2446 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 18 |j 2018 |e 1 |b 16 |c 10 | ||