Abstract

BackgroundThis review was designed to compile the evidence on the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer and apical lymph node (APN) metastasis and the long-term benefit of inferior mesenteric artery lymph node (IMA-LN) resection.MethodsWe searched the PubMed Central, Cochrane library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases from inception until May 2021 for relevant publications. We assess the quality of the studies using the Newcastle Ottawa scale. We conducted a random-effects model meta-analysis and report pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsWe analyzed data from 13 studies conducted in Japan, China, and Korea with 6,193 participants. Most studies were retrospective in nature and of low quality. We found that patients with APN metastasis had shorter OSs (pooled HR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.92–3.02) and PFSs (pooled HR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.90–3.09) than the patients without the metastasis. We identified significant heterogeneity without publication bias for both outcomes. Moreover, our sensitivity analysis revealed robust estimates were robust for the individual effects.ConclusionOur findings suggest that patients with colorectal cancer and APN metastases have significantly worse OS and DFS than those without the metastasis. However, inclusion of low-quality retrospective studies with high heterogeneity limits the generalizability of study findings.

Highlights

  • Inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) lymph nodes (LNs), known as the apical lymph nodes (APN), are situated between the IMA and left colonic artery origins [1, 2]

  • Colorectal surgeons are aware of the possible association between the anastomosis leak rate and the prognosis after IMA ligation

  • The sample sizes amongst the studies varied from 97 to 1,205 participants

Read more

Summary

Methods

We searched the PubMed Central, Cochrane library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases from inception until May 2021 for relevant publications. We assess the quality of the studies using the Newcastle Ottawa scale. We conducted a random-effects model meta-analysis and report pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)

Results
Conclusion
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.