Evidence Hub

Survival benefit of adjuvant treatment for ampullary cancer with lymph nodal involvement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Min Kyu Kim, Jin-Ho Choi, I. R. Cho, S. H. Lee, J. K. Ryu, Yong-Tae Kim, W. Paik

Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Diseases International, 2024

3,971 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of adjuvant treatment (AT) in ampullary cancer (AmC) remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the role of AT for AmC.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Studies comparing overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of patients who underwent AT or not following AmC resection were included.

RESULTS

A total of 3971 patients in 21 studies were analyzed. Overall pooled data showed no significant difference in effect on the OS by AT [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.998, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.768-1.297]. No significant difference in recurrence between the AT and non-AT (nAT) groups was noted (HR = 1.158, 95% CI: 0.764-1.755). In subgroup analysis, patients who received AT showed favorable outcomes in the OS compared with those who received nAT in nodal-positive AmC (HR = 0.627, 95% CI: 0.451-0.870). Neither AT consisted of adjuvant chemotherapy with radiotherapy (HR = 0.804, 95% CI: 0.563-1.149) nor AT with adjuvant chemotherapy (HR = 0.883, 95% CI: 0.642-1.214) showed any significant effect on the OS.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of AT in AmC on survival and recurrence did not show a significant benefit. Furthermore, effectiveness according to AT strategies did not show enhancement in survival. AT had an advantage in survival compared with nAT strategy in nodal-positive AmC. In cases of AmC with positive lymph nodal…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 3,971 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free