The development of network meta-analysis

Efficacy and safety of perioperative therapy for locally resectable gastric cancer: A network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer (GC) is the fifth most commonly diagnosed malignancy worldwide, with over 1 million new cases per year, and the third leading cause of cancer-related death.

AIM

To determine the optimal perioperative treatment regimen for patients with locally resectable GC.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted, focusing on phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing perioperative chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy in treating locally resectable GC. The R0 resection rate, overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and incidence of grade 3 or higher nonsurgical severe adverse events (SAEs) associated with various perioperative regimens were analyzed. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare treatment regimens and rank their efficacy.

RESULTS

Thirty RCTs involving 8346 patients were included in this study. Neoadjuvant XELOX plus neoadjuvant radiotherapy and neoadjuvant CF were found to significantly improve the R0 resection rate compared with surgery alone, and the former had the highest probability of being the most effective option in this context. Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant FLOT was associated with the highest probability of being the best regimen for improving OS. Owing to limited data, no definitive ranking could be determined for DFS. Considering nonsurgical SAEs, FLO has emerged as the safest treatment regimen.

CONCLUSION

This study provides valuable insights for clinicians when selecting perioperative treatment regimens for patients with locally resectable GC. Further studies are required to validate these findings.

[Evidence-based versus expertise-based medicine in orthopedic and trauma surgery : There is nothing more practical than a good theory]

About a quarter of a century after the introduction of the concept and principles of evidence-based medicine (EbM), some healthcare providers are still adamant that these are incompatible with knowledge gained through experience. Across the surgical disciplines, it is often argued EbM underestimates or neglects the importance of intuition and surgical skills. To put it bluntly, these assumptions are wrong and often characterized by a misunderstanding of the methodology of EbM. Even the best controlled trial cannot be properly interpreted or implemented without clinical reasoning; furthermore, clinicians of all disciplines are obligated to provide care according to the current state of scientific knowledge. In an era of revolutionary biomedical developments, exponential increase of research but incremental innovations, they must become familiar with pragmatic tools to appraise the validity and relevance of clinical study results, and to decide whether there is a need to adapt current beliefs and practices based on the new information. We herein use the recent example of a new medical device for the surgical treatment of rotator cuff tears and subacromial impingement syndrome to illustrate how important it is to interpret data in the context of a precise, answerable question and to combine clinical expertise with methodological principles offered by EbM.