PROSPERO

International prospective register of systematic reviews

Prolonged interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and esophagectomy in

esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis of cohort studies
Hong-Tao Tie, Feng He

Citation
Hong-Tao Tie, Feng He. Prolonged interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and
esophagectomy in esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. PROSPERO 2016
CRD42016048210 Available from:
http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42016048210

Review question
Evaluating the influence of the interval between nCRT and esophagectomy on the clinical outcomes in
patients with esophageal cancer.

Searches
PubMed and EMBASE; Free-text terms and subject terms of esophageal cancer, chemoradiotherapy, and
surgery.
No language limitations

Types of study to be included

Cohort studies

Condition or domain being studied

Esophageal cancer is one of the most aggressive malignancy and surgical resection remains the essential
cornerstone for patients with resectable disease. However, surgery alone is unsatisfactory and results in a
poor prognosis in patients with locally advanced disease. With progresses in technology and multimodality
therapy, the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate has been increased from 5% to 20% in the last three decades
The interval between nCRT and esophagectomy allows acute inflammation to resolve, patients to recovery
form nCRT, and consequently patients to fit for surgery. To our knowledge, the optimal length of interval
between nCRT and esophagectomy remains unknown. we therefore decided to perform a systematic and
meta-analysis to evaluated the influence of the interval between nCRT and esophagectomy on the clinical
outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer.

Participants/population
Patients received esophagectomy after nCRT

Intervention(s), exposure(s)
Prolonged interval between nCRT and esophagectomy

Comparator(s)/control
Short interval between nCRT and esophagectomy

Primary outcome(s)
Incidence of the anastomotic complications, 5-year OS, peri-operative, and mortality rates.

Secondary outcome(s)
R0 resection rate, radial margin.

Data extraction (selection and coding)

Risk of bias (quality) assessment

Page: 1 / 3
PROSPERO
International prospective register of systematic reviews

Newcastle-Ottawa quality scale will be used to assess risk of bias of the included cohorts.

Strategy for data synthesis

Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) will be used to express the effect, and random effects
model will be used for all meta-analyses in spite of heterogeneity.

Analysis of subgroups or subsets

Sensitivity analyses via pooling the remaining ones after removing individual studies each turn will also be
performed

Contact details for further information

Dr Tie
hongtaotie@163.com

Organisational affiliation of the review

None

Review team members and their organisational affiliations

Dr Hong-Tao Tie.
Dr Feng He.

Anticipated or actual start date

11 June 2016

Anticipated completion date

31 December 2016

Funding sources/sponsors
None

Conflicts of interest
None known

Language
English

Country
China

Stage of review
Review_Ongoing

Subject index terms status

Subject indexing assigned by CRD

Subject index terms

Chemoradiotherapy; Cohort Studies; Esophageal Neoplasms; Esophagectomy; Humans; Neoadjuvant
Therapy

Date of registration in PROSPERO

22 September 2016

Date of publication of this version

19 June 2017

Revision note for this version

Page: 2 / 3
 PROSPERO
International prospective register of systematic reviews

Progress update.

Details of any existing review of the same topic by the same authors
Stage of review at time of this submission

Stage Started Completed

Preliminary searches Yes Yes
Piloting of the study selection process Yes Yes

Formal screening of search results against eligibility criteria Yes Yes

Data extraction Yes No

Risk of bias (quality) assessment No No

Data analysis No No

Revision note
Progress update.

Versions
22 September 2016
19 June 2017

PROSPERO
This information has been provided by the named contact for this review. CRD has accepted this information in good
faith and registered the review in PROSPERO. CRD bears no responsibility or liability for the content of this registration
record, any associated files or external websites.

Page: 3 / 3

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)