Next Article in Journal
Relation of Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin Overexpression to the Resistance to Apoptosis of Tumor B Cells in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Cancer Stem Cells in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer and Brain Metastasis: Challenges and Solutions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 12
Issue 8
10.3390/cancers12082125
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Oncologic Benefit of Adjuvant Chemoradiation after D2 Gastrectomy: A Stepwise Hierarchical Pooled Analysis and Systematic Review

by
Chai Hong Rim
1,*,
In-Soo Shin
2,
Hye Yoon Lee
3,
Won Sup Yoon
1 and
Sunmin Park
1
1
Department of Radiation Oncology, Ansan Hospital, Korea University Medical College, Gyeonggido 15355, Korea
2
Graduate school of Education, Dongguk University, Seoul 04620, Korea
3
Department of General Surgery, Ansan Hospital, Korea University Medical College, Ansan, Gyeonggido 15355, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2020, 12(8), 2125; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12082125
Submission received: 14 July 2020 / Revised: 28 July 2020 / Accepted: 30 July 2020 / Published: 31 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Cancer Therapy)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Our study aimed to evaluate the benefits of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) after D2 gastrectomy, as compared to adjuvant chemotherapy, alone. PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched. We applied stepwise analyses that enabled the evaluation of data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), balanced studies, and all studies separately and in a hierarchical manner. Thirteen controlled studies, including six RCTs involving 2603 patients, were included. Overall pooled analysis revealed a disease-free survival benefit of CRT (odds ratio (OR): 1.264, p = 0.053), which was more evident in the subgroup analysis of RCTs (OR: 1.440, p = 0.006) and balanced studies (OR: 1.417, p < 0.001). Overall survival was insignificantly different in the overall pooled analysis (OR: 1.124, p = 0.347). However, the difference was marginally significant in the subgroup analysis of balanced studies (OR: 1.279, p = 0.055) and significant in the subgroup analysis of studies involving stage ≥III patients only (OR: 1.663, p = 0.005). Locoregional recurrence (LRR) reduction was noted in the overall pooled analysis (OR: 0.559, p = 0.012; pooled rate: 11.3% vs. 18.1%) and was more robust in the subgroup analyses. Grade ≥3 leukopenia was higher in the CRT arm (OR: 1.387, p = 0.004; pooled rate: 26.4% vs. 15.7%). CRT after D2 gastrectomy should be applied for patients with high risk of LRR (e.g., stage ≥ III), along with efforts to reduce leukopenia.

1. Introduction

Gastric cancer is responsible for up to 800,000 deaths annually and is the third leading cause of cancer-related death [1]. The mainstay curative modality for gastric cancer is surgical resection. Except for early-stage cases that are amenable to endoscopic resection (e.g., well-differentiated tumors <2 cm in size), gastrectomy with D2 lymphatic dissection (D2 gastrectomy) is commonly applied, specifically in Asian countries [2,3,4,5,6]. Adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) was previously found to benefit western patients, in whom D2 gastrectomy is less commonly performed [7,8]. Recent landmark randomized controlled trials (RCTs) confirmed the oncologic benefit of S-1 or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin for Asian patients; hence, adjuvant CT is widely administered to these patients (including those who underwent D2 gastrectomy) [9,10].
Although the Intergroup-0116 trial revealed the benefit of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) [11], it was heavily criticized for its insufficient extent of surgery, as fewer than 10% of patients underwent D2 gastrectomy. Therefore, a large tertiary center in South Korea conducted an RCT that compared the benefit of CRT to that of CT in patients who underwent D2 gastrectomy. This “Adjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy in Stomach Cancer” (ARTIST) trial failed to meet its primary endpoint of disease-free survival (DFS, p = 0.0862) [12]. Therefore, adjuvant CRT is generally not recommended after D2 gastrectomy in major clinical guidelines except for high-risk subgroups with R1 resection or remnant disease [2,3,4,13,14,15].
Locoregional recurrence (LRR) remains a burden even after D2 gastrectomy. In a previous large surgical series of up to 1500 patients who underwent D2 gastrectomy [16], grossly one-quarter experienced recurrences, approximately one-third (32.5%) of which were locoregional. The survival period for patients with LRR was only 1.5 months longer than that for patients with hematogenous metastases. Although the primary endpoint was not reached in the ARTIST trial, LRR was significantly reduced (7% vs. 13%, p = 0.0033) and DFS was extended following CRT in the subgroup of patients with lymphatic metastases [17]. Several other clinical trials also revealed LRR and DFS benefits for CRT, which reflected real-world clinical experiences and practices [18,19,20,21]. Furthermore, recent technological advancements in radiation therapy have gradually lowered the risk of possible complications by reducing bystander irradiation to the organs-at-risk [22,23,24].
Our study aimed to integrate and analyze data from controlled trials that compared CRT and CT for patients with gastric cancer who underwent D2 gastrectomy and to thereby evaluate the practical role of CRT using real-world studies and RCTs.

2. Results

Thirteen studies [17,18,19,20,21,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32] involving 2603 patients with gastric cancer who underwent D2 resection were included (Figure 1). Six studies were RCTs [17,18,21,26,29,30] and seven were non-RCTs [19,20,25,27,28,31,32]; nine studies were considered balanced between their two arms [17,18,19,20,21,29,30,31,32]. The studies’ quality scores are shown in Table S1; all studies included patients who achieved R0 resection after D2 gastrectomy except one in which approximately one-quarter of the patients had undergone R1 resection [27]. The studies’ backgrounds and clinical information are shown in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.
The pooled odds ratio (OR) for DFS was 1.264 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.997–1.603, p = 0.053) favoring the CRT arm with a medium degree of heterogeneity (p = 0.1, I2 = 37.5%). In the subgroup analyses of RCTs alone, the pooled OR increased to 1.440 (95% CI: 1.110–1.867, p = 0.006), and heterogeneity was significantly diminished (p = 0.964, I2 = ~0.0%). Subgroup analysis of only the balanced studies showed similar results, with an OR of 1.417 (95% CI: 1.171–1.715, p < 0.001) and very low heterogeneity (p = 0.61, I2 = ~0.0%). In single-arm analyses, the 3-year DFS rates were 62.5% (95% CI: 54.6–69.8) and 57.1% (95% CI: 46.1–67.5) in the CRT and CT arms, respectively; the corresponding 5-year DFS rates were 53.3% (95% CI: 40.9–56.4) and 40.9% (95% CI: 27.3–56.0), respectively. The heterogeneity among studies in the single-arm analyses was very high and significant.
The overall pooled OR for overall survival (OS) was 1.124 (95% CI: 0.881–1.434, p = 0.347). The pooled ORs of subgroup analyses of RCTs and the balanced studies were 1.208 (95% CI: 0.921–1.584, p = 0.172) and 1.279 (95% CI: 0.995–1.644, p = 0.055), respectively. A medium degree of heterogeneity was found in overall pooled analysis and subgroup analysis of the balanced studies, and the subgroup analysis of RCTs alone had very low heterogeneity. Considering the marginally significant result in the subgroup analysis of RCTs alone, in a further subgroup analysis of studies involving stage ≥III patients only, the pooled result was statistically significant with an OR of 1.663 (95% CI: 1.170–2.363, p = 0.005). The pooled 3-year OS rates in the single-arm analyses were 61.4% (95% CI: 51.1–70.8) and 59.1% (95% CI: 44.4–72.3) in the CRT and CT arms, respectively; the corresponding 5-year OS rates were 55.8% (95% CI: 44.5–66.5) and 46.9% (95% CI: 32.0–62.4), respectively. The heterogeneity among studies was very high and significant on single-arm analysis. Prognosticators of OS and DFS were available in four and two studies, respectively. Regarding OS prognosticators, cancer stage was significant in three of the four studies, and positive lymph nodes in surgical pathology or a high lymph node ratio (i.e., number of positive lymph nodes/total dissected lymph nodes) was significant in all four studies. Among DFS prognosticators, the lymph node ratio was significant in one study, and cancer stage and age were significant in the other study. Forest plots of the pooled analyses of 3-year DFS and OS rates are shown in Figure 2.
The LRR rates were significantly lower in the CRT arms than in the CR arms. The pooled OR was 0.559 (95% CI: 0.355–0.879, p = 0.012) for all studies, with a medium degree of heterogeneity (p = 0.073, I2 = 46.1%). In subgroup analyses of RCTs, the OR was 0.495 (95% CI: 0.342–0.715, p < 0.001) with very low heterogeneity (p = 0.569, I2 = ~0.0%). In the balanced studies, the OR was 0.472 (95% CI: 0.334–0.667) with a low degree of heterogeneity (p = 0.357, I2 = 9.2%). Single-arm analyses revealed overall pooled LRR rates of 11.3% (95% CI: 7.5–1.68) and 18.1% (95% CI: 13.1–24.4) in the CRT and CR arms, respectively. As for the distant recurrence rate (DRR), the OR was 0.768 (95% CI: 0.611–0.965, p = 0.023) favoring the CRT arm, with very low heterogeneity (p = 0.504, I2 = ~0.0%). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the subgroup analysis of RCTs alone (OR: 0.788, 95% CI: 0.589–1.054, p = 0.108), whereas borderline significance was noted when analyzing balanced studies alone (OR: 0.802, 95% CI: 0.634–1.015, p = 0.066). DRR rates on pooled single-arm analyses were 24.1% (95% CI: 18.1–31.2) and 30.9% (95% CI: 24.4–38.3) in the CRT and CT arms, respectively. Heterogeneities were high and significant on single-arm pooled analyses of LRR and DRR (Figure 3A,B).
The most common grade ≥3 complications reported were leukopenia and nausea and/or vomiting. Leukopenia was reportedly higher in the CRT arm than in the CR arm, with a pooled OR of 1.387 (95% CI: 1.109–1.734, p = 0.004). Nausea and/or vomiting was not significantly different between the two arms, with an OR of 1.224 (95% CI: 0.893–1.677, p = 0.209). Heterogeneity was very low in both the abovementioned analyses. In single-arm pooled analyses, the incidence rates of leukopenia were 26.4% (95% CI: 17.7–37.5) and 15.7% (95% CI: 9.4–25.0) in CRT and CT arms, respectively, and the incidence rates of nausea and/or vomiting were 11.2% (95% CI: 7.8–15.8) and 11.1% (95% CI: 7.6–16.0) in CRT and CT arms, respectively. Heterogeneity was high in both single-arm analyses (Figure 3C). Regarding grade 5 toxicity, one fatal complication was found in each arm of the pooled studies.
Possible publication bias was observed in the overall pooled analysis of DRR, the subgroup analysis of OS of studies involving stage ≥ III patients only, and single-arm analyses of leukopenia and nausea and/or vomiting. Sensitivity analyses using Duval and Tweedie’s method revealed that, in the overall pooled analysis of DRR, the OR was mildly increased, and the statistical significance of the difference was decreased (trimmed OR: 0.837, 95% CI: 0.655–1.070). Regarding the subgroup analysis of OS with studies involving stage ≥III patients only, trimmed OR was increased to 1.963, which reflects a more significant result. The results of all the pooled analyses are detailed in Table 3.

3. Discussion

3.1. Clinical Interpretation of Pooled Results and Related Literature

Gastric cancer has a tendency to spread locoregionally and hematogenously, even after an extended surgical approach [16]. The addition of radiotherapy to neoadjuvant or adjuvant CT could further reduce LRR by eradicating subclinical tumor foci in the perigastric region. CRT has been applied in both neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. The German POET (Preoperative chemotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced adenocarcinomas of the oesophagogastric junction) trial reported a higher pathologic complete remission and node-negative status and extended OS (3-year: 47.4% vs. 27.7%) compared with neoadjuvant CT alone [33]. Another RCT from Nordic countries reported results with similar trends, with higher pathologic complete remission, lymph node negative status, and R0 status [34]. Although these results were significant, most of the relevant studies were conducted on patients who were diagnosed with diseases in the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction. Therefore, extrapolating these results to other populations, specifically Asians, who are generally diagnosed with stomach cancer that is mainly observed in the body or non-cardia area, might be irrelevant [3,35]. Considering its high incidence in Asia and southern Europe, several clinical guidelines recommend upfront D2 gastrectomy for cases, except in very early disease (e.g., T1N0), and discuss the necessity of adjuvant treatment including CT and CRT [2,3,4,15].
Our study’s first take-home message is that the application of CRT after D2 resection has a clear oncologic benefit in terms of DFS and LRR. The more significant results in the subgroup analyses with markedly lower heterogeneity reflect a clearer oncologic benefit with better clinical distribution between the two arms. Considering the difference in DFS rates between the CRT and CT arms, which was wider at 5 years (53.3% vs. 40.9%) than at 3 years (62.5% vs. 57.1%) on single-arm analysis, mid- to long-term locoregional control with CRT may have contributed to a longer DFS. In a previous surgical series, locoregional and hematogenous recurrences occurred in 32.5% and 34.3% of ~1500 patients, respectively, who underwent D2 gastrectomy and experienced subsequent failure; their corresponding mean survival periods were similar (11.0 and 9.4 months, respectively) [16]. Patients in that study who underwent curative resection for LRR had a mean survival of 21.6 months. These results demonstrate that locoregional and hematogenous recurrences markedly impact oncologic outcomes, indicating that longer survival might be achieved by reducing LRR. Furthermore, Chang et al. [36]. reported that the most prevalent nodal recurrences among patients with stage III gastric cancer were outside the D2 dissection field; hence, adjuvant radiotherapy might control recurrences in those nodal basins.
Although DRR decreased according to the overall pooled analysis, these findings were not significant in the subgroup analysis with RCTs alone. Cancers tend to occur step-wise, developing locally in the primary site and ultimately spreading systemically [37]. Controlling LRR might affect DRR according to previous studies of other malignancies [38,39], but data regarding gastric cancer are insufficient. The possible correlation between LRR reduction via CRT and improved DRR should be further investigated.
Although DFS was shown to be an acceptable surrogate for OS in gastric cancer [40], improvements in DFS and LRR might be insufficient to significantly alter common practice and overcome concerns regarding additional toxicities. The next step for optimizing CRT for gastric cancer is to identify patients who can most benefit from LRR reduction and ultimately experience longer OS. Peng et al. [31] reported improved OS with CRT compared with CT in their subgroup of patients with stage IIIC disease (median OS: 29 vs. 23 months, p = 0.049). A study by Ma et al. [19], which was one of the largest series performed, revealed that CRT provided an OS benefit over CT among patients with stage IIIA and IIIB disease (the 5-year OS rates for stage IIIA patients were 61.5% vs. 34.5% p = 0.03; those for IIIB patients were 46.4% vs. 26.1%, p = 0.035). Although the result was not significant in overall pooled analysis, the subgroup analysis of studies involving stage ≥III patients only showed a significant benefit regarding OS (OR 1.663, p = 0.005), suggesting selective application of CRT after D2 gastrectomy for patients with locally advanced diseases.
Regarding complications, the most problematic complication in response to radiation added to CT was leukopenia. Since hematopoietic cells are highly fragile to radiation exposure, reducing bystander irradiation with the application of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can reduce this complication [41,42]. Specific bone marrow-sparing technique can also be helpful in reducing leukopenia [43]. Of note, the study by Zhu et al. [18] has reported a significantly low rate of leukopenia (7.5%) after CRT using IMRT and has shown a favorable survival in the CRT arm (median OS: 54 vs. 38 months, p = 0.122). Furthermore, CRT should be carefully performed for patients with compromised immunity, such as those having malignancy related with common variable immunodeficiency [44,45].
A limitation inherent to literature analysis is that the majority of studies are published in only a few countries in East Asia. Considering that gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related death globally, the literature remains significantly insufficient. Hence, with respect to administering CRT after D2 gastrectomy, major clinical guidelines depend almost entirely on data from the ARTIST trial [3,14,15], as guidelines from Japan [2] and Italy [4] do not even mention radiotherapy and CRT as possible modalities after D2 gastrectomy. Unfortunately, the ARTIST trial marginally failed to achieve the primary DFS endpoint (p = 0.0862) [12]; this result led to highly conservative recommendations of CRT after D2 resection in the guidelines, such as only for patients with remnant disease (R1 or R2 section) or resection with less-extensive lymphadenectomy (D0 or D1). However, as stated by the American Statistical Association, binary decisions solely depend on a predefined p-value that might cause serious misinterpretation [46]. Furthermore, the clinical significance of subgroup analyses and those of the entire targeted population should also be emphasized. In the ARTIST trial, subgroup analysis of N+ patients showed a significant DFS benefit (p = 0.0365), and nearly 90% of the patients belonged to various N+ subgroups. When considering this, the ARTIST trial may not have actually “failed” as deemed in several clinical guidelines [2,3,4,14,15]. Moreover, although complications tended to increase in the CRT arms of the present meta-analysis, most were transient, and grade 5 complications were significantly rare. Wider application of modern radiotherapy techniques is expected to diminish toxicities, as mentioned above [41,42,43]. Taken altogether, the application of CRT after D2 gastrectomy should be considered for patients with high-risk of LRR, and future randomized studies should identify specific subgroups that can derive OS benefit from CRT, prompted by locoregional benefits and the application of modern techniques.

3.2. Practical Implication and Future Perspectives

Adjuvant CRT after D2 gastrectomy is not commonly practiced in clinical settings, despite its benefits in locoregional control [3]. Although our results cannot change current clinical practice in a short time, our study might at least stimulate the conduction of clinical trials applying adjuvant CRT, specifically for advanced cases with stage ≥III. Multidisciplinary approach has been more rarely performed for gastric cancer in clinical settings compared with other cancers. However, it was recently reported that the diagnoses of gastric cancer were changed in 18–27% of patients, and 23–77% of treatment policies were changed after multidisciplinary discussion [47,48,49]. The results of our study will further increase the necessity of multidisciplinary discussions to optimize clinical decision.
Several molecular pathways are known to be involved in gastric carcinogenesis, such as human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), HER3, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), hepatocyte growth factor receptor/c-MET, E-cadherin, matrix metalloproteinase, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)/VEGF receptor (VEGFR), WNT/β-catenin, fibroblast growth factor receptor, and Akt/PI3K/mTOR, in gastric cancer and other gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies [50]. Additional administration of trastuzumab, a recombinant monoclonal antibody against HER2, has shown a better significant survival benefit compared with conventional CT alone [51]. A monoclonal antibody targeting VEGFR-2, ramucirumab, has also shown significant benefit as a second-line systemic treatment agent [52,53]. Novel molecular findings regarding drug resistance and regional dissemination of GI cancers will stimulate the development of future systemic agents to overcome these clinical hindrances [54,55]. So far, CRT has been only studied as a radiotherapy combined with conventional CT, either in a neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting [3,13]. The results of the present study will encourage future studies optimizing gastric cancer treatment by combining radiotherapy with target agents or newer agents actively being researched.

3.3. Limitations

A limitation of this meta-analysis was that the overall numbers of studies and of RCTs with a sufficient number of enrolled patients were small. A meta-analysis increases the sample size and, consequently, the power to study the effects of interest by combining primary studies while considering the sizes of the studies included. However, one number cannot summarize a research field and can be affected by the heterogeneity of studies, by publication bias and by the fact that not all variables are comparable despite the performance of complementing statistical methods. Clinical application of meta-analysis results should be based on the interpretation of both pooled data and detailed information from individual studies that reflect actual clinical practices [56]. Meta-analyses of non-randomized controlled studies (NRCTs) have been controversial because their potential heterogeneity might skew the pooled analyses; however, oncology research cannot always derive the firmest evidence from RCTs, and carefully performed meta-analyses including NRCTs might provide clinically useful information in obscure areas [57]. Previous systematic reviews also found that meta-analyses based on RCTs versus high-quality studies had similar outcome estimates [58]. Compared with previous meta-analyses of related subjects [59,60,61], our study included the largest number of RCTs, and patients were analyzed from real-world data and NRCTs with no language restrictions during searching. Furthermore, by performing sensitivity analyses (including RCTs and balanced studies), we attempted to minimize the potential bias of including NRCTs and to improve the reliability of outcomes involving real-world data.

4. Methods

This study was designed to answer the PICO question “is there an oncologic benefit of adjuvant CRT compared to CT after D2 resection for gastric cancer in a real-world clinical setting?” and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A systematic search of the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed up to 20 January 2020, using the following search terms: “(gastric OR stomach) AND cancer AND (radiotherapy OR ‘radiation therapy’) AND survival AND D2.” No language or publishing period restriction was applied. Full-text publications were searched to identify a rational clinical comparison between the CRT and CT arms.

4.1. Inclusion Process and Criteria

The primary endpoint of the study was DFS and OS. The secondary endpoints included LRR, DRR, and grade ≥ 3 complication rates. Our inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) controlled clinical trials aimed at comparing CRT and CT after D2 resection for gastric cancer, (2) inclusion of at least 10 patients in each arm, and (3) reporting of at least one survival outcome (DFS or OS).
After the initial search, duplicate studies, conference abstracts, reviews, letters, editorials, case reports, laboratory studies, and irrelevant studies were filtered out using titles and citations. The remaining studies were assessed by reviewing their abstracts and full texts to identify those that met all of the inclusion criteria. We included multiple studies from the same institutions only if they did not have overlapping populations or if any overlap was negligible. For studies with possibly overlapping populations, we selected only one using the following criteria (prioritized in numerical order): (1) the study with a higher level of evidence (e.g., RCTs were preferred over NRCTs), (2) that with the larger number of patients, and (3) the most recently published. All studies were selected by two independent researchers who resolved any disagreements by mutual discussion.

4.2. Data Collection and Quality Assessment

Data acquisition was performed by two independent researchers using a pre-standardized form, including background information of authors, affiliations, study design, patients recruiting periods, and number of patients; clinical information including treatment modality, patients’ age, rate of diffuse type cancer cases, and T and N stages; clinical outcomes including DFS, OS, prognosticators of survival outcomes, pattern of failure, and grade 3 or higher toxicities. Missing DFS and OS rates were estimated from the descriptive graphs in consideration of the follow-up periods. For quality assessment of the included NRCTs and RCTs, the Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used [62]. Studies with scores of ≥8 were considered high quality, scores of 7–8 medium quality, and the remainder low quality.

4.3. Statistical Analyses

Considering the range of clinical diversity, the different institutions with distinct treatment modalities, and the inclusion of studies (NRCTs and RCTs) of different designs, a random effects model was used for the pooled analysis of endpoints [63]. We performed pooled analyses in a stepwise-hierarchical manner; ORs calculated from the comparison of endpoints between the CRT and CT arms were pooled and analyzed for all studies, RCTs alone, and balanced studies alone. Balanced studies were defined as those without significant differences (p < 0.05) in the patients’ clinical profiles (i.e., age, histologic type, and TNM stage). Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated using I2 statistics [64] and the Cochran Q test [65]. Significant heterogeneity was considered present when p < 0.1 and I2 ≥ 50%; I2 values of 25%, 50%, and 75% corresponded to low, moderate, and high degrees of heterogeneity, respectively [66]. Visual inspection of funnel plots and the Egger’s test [67] were used to identify possible publication biases. For pooled analyses with significant asymmetry in funnel plots or two-tailed p-values < 0.1 in the Egger’s test, Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill method [68] was performed for sensitivity analysis. All statistical analyses were designed and confirmed by both a clinician and a biostatistician specialized in meta-analysis and performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3 (Biostat Inc., Englewood, NJ, USA).

4.4. Ethical Consideration

Ethical approval was not required because this study retrieved and synthesized data from already published studies. Otherwise, authors declare that the investigations were performed following the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975 [69], revised in 2013.

5. Conclusions

Our study clearly demonstrated the benefits of CRT after D2 gastrectomy in terms of DFS and LRR and also a possibility of decreased DRR. Although the result was not significant in overall pooled analysis, OS benefit was shown in the subgroup analysis of studies involving stage ≥ III patients only. Therefore, CRT after D2 gastrectomy should be applied for selected patients with a high risk of LRR, such as those with stage ≥ III disease, along with technical efforts such as IMRT or bone marrow-sparing technique, to reduce complications including leukopenia. Future randomized studies should focus on identifying specific subgroups of patients who can benefit from CRT after D2 gastrectomy considering OS.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/12/8/2125/s1, Table S1: Study quality evaluation sheet.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, data curation, C.H.R.; software, methodology, formal analysis, I.-S.S.; data curation, supervision, H.Y.L.; data curation, supervision, W.S.Y.; data curation, supervision, S.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Research Fund of Korea (NRF-2019M2D2A1A01031560). The research grant supported only methodological aspects including statistical analysis and linguistic correction and did not affect major contents including the results and conclusions.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the dedicated contribution of Hu Jing Hua, MSc., who majored in Korean Language Translation at Chonnam National University, Jeollanamdo, Korea, for his Chinese language translation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bray, F.; Ferlay, J.; Soerjomataram, I.; Siegel, R.L.; Torre, L.A.; Jemal, A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018, 68, 394–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Association, J.G.C. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2014 (ver. 4). Gastric. Cancer 2017, 20, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Guideline Committee of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA), Development Working Group & Review Panel. Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2018: An evidence-based, multi-disciplinary approach. J. Gastric Cancer 2019, 19, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. De Manzoni, G.; Marrelli, D.; Baiocchi, G.L.; Morgagni, P.; Saragoni, L.; Degiuli, M.; Donini, A.; Fumagalli, U.; Mazzei, M.A.; Pacelli, F. The Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer (GIRCG) guidelines for gastric cancer staging and treatment: 2015. Gastric Cancer 2017, 20, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Allum, W.; Meyer, H.; Garofalo, A.; Schuhmacher, J.; Demanzoni, G.; Degiuli, M.; Kulig, J.; van de Velde, C.; Roukos, D.; Barr, H. Gastric cancer in Europe: European union network of excellence (EUNE) for gastric cancer steering group. Br. J. Surg. 2008, 95, 406–408. [Google Scholar]
  6. Degiuli, M.; Sasako, M.; Ponti, A.; Vendrame, A.; Tomatis, M.; Mazza, C.; Borasi, A.; Capussotti, L.; Fronda, G.; Morino, M. Randomized clinical trial comparing survival after D1 or D2 gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Br. J. Surg. 2014, 101, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cunningham, D.; Allum, W.H.; Stenning, S.P.; Thompson, J.N.; Van de Velde, C.J.; Nicolson, M.; Scarffe, J.H.; Lofts, F.J.; Falk, S.J.; Iveson, T.J.; et al. Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2006, 355, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jansen, E.; Boot, H.; Dubbelman, R.; Verheij, M.; Cats, A. Postoperative chemoradiotherapy in gastric cancer—A phase I–II study of radiotherapy with dose escalation of weekly cisplatin and daily capecitabine chemotherapy. Ann. Oncol. 2010, 21, 530–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sasako, M.; Sakuramoto, S.; Katai, H.; Kinoshita, T.; Furukawa, H.; Yamaguchi, T.; Nashimoto, A.; Fujii, M.; Nakajima, T.; Ohashi, Y. Five-year outcomes of a randomized phase III trial comparing adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 versus surgery alone in stage II or III gastric cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011, 29, 4387–4393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Noh, S.H.; Park, S.R.; Yang, H.K.; Chung, H.C.; Chung, I.J.; Kim, S.W.; Kim, H.H.; Choi, J.H.; Kim, H.K.; Yu, W. Adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin for gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy (CLASSIC): 5-year follow-up of an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014, 15, 1389–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Macdonald, J.S.; Smalley, S.R.; Benedetti, J.; Hundahl, S.A.; Estes, N.C.; Stemmermann, G.N.; Haller, D.G.; Ajani, J.A.; Gunderson, L.L.; Jessup, J.M.; et al. Chemoradiotherapy after surgery compared with surgery alone for adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction. N. Engl. J. Med. 2001, 345, 725–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Lee, J.; Lim, D.H.; Kim, S.; Park, S.H.; Park, J.O.; Park, Y.S.; Lim, H.Y.; Choi, M.G.; Sohn, T.S.; Noh, J.H.; et al. Phase III trial comparing capecitabine plus cisplatin versus capecitabine plus cisplatin with concurrent capecitabine radiotherapy in completely resected gastric cancer with D2 lymph node dissection: The ARTIST trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 30, 268–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Smyth, E.; Verheij, M.; Allum, W.; Cunningham, D.; Cervantes, A.; Arnold, D. Gastric cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 2016, 27, v38–v49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. National Cancer Comprehensive Network. NCCN Guidelines Version 4.2019 Gastric Cancer. Available online: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/gastric.pdf (accessed on 30 January 2020).
  15. Wang, F.H.; Shen, L.; Li, J.; Zhou, Z.W.; Liang, H.; Zhang, X.T.; Tang, L.; Xin, Y.; Jin, J.; Zhang, Y.J. The Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO): Clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer. Cancer Commun. 2019, 39, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Yoo, C.; Noh, S.H.; Shin, D.; Choi, S.; Min, J. Recurrence following curative resection for gastric carcinoma. Br. J. Surg. 2000, 87, 236–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Park, S.H.; Sohn, T.S.; Lee, J.; Lim, D.H.; Hong, M.E.; Kim, K.-M.; Sohn, I.; Jung, S.H.; Choi, M.G.; Lee, J.H. Phase III trial to compare adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine and cisplatin versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy in gastric cancer: Final report of the adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in stomach tumors trial, including survival and subset analyses. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015, 33, 3130–3136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Zhu, W.G.; Xua, D.F.; Pu, J.; Zong, C.D.; Li, T.; Tao, G.Z.; Ji, F.Z.; Zhou, X.L.; Han, J.H.; Wang, C.S. A randomized, controlled, multicenter study comparing intensity-modulated radiotherapy plus concurrent chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone in gastric cancer patients with D2 resection. Radiother. Oncol. 2012, 104, 361–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ma, G.F.; Zhang, H.G.; Liu, J.; Chen, Y.X.; Xiao, H.; Wang, X.F.; He, J.; Zeng, Z.C.; Sun, J.; Liu, T.S. Benefit of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with pathological stage III gastric cancer. Cancer Manag. Res. 2019, 11, 6029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Turanli, S.; Atalay, C.; Berberoglu, U.; Gulben, K. Adjuvant chemoradiation versus chemotherapy for stage III gastric cancer after surgery with curative intent. J. Cancer Res. Ther. 2015, 11, 369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kim, T.H.; Park, S.R.; Ryu, K.W.; Kim, Y.-W.; Bae, J.-M.; Lee, J.H.; Choi, I.J.; Kim, Y.-J.; Kim, D.Y. Phase 3 trial of postoperative chemotherapy alone versus chemoradiation therapy in stage III-IV gastric cancer treated with R0 gastrectomy and D2 lymph node dissection. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys. 2012, 84, e585–e592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Trip, A.K.; Nijkamp, J.; van Tinteren, H.; Cats, A.; Boot, H.; Jansen, E.P.M.; Verheij, M. IMRT limits nephrotoxicity after chemoradiotherapy for gastric cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2015, 114, 421–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Boda-Heggemann, J.; Weiss, C.; Schneider, V.; Hofheinz, R.-D.; Haneder, S.; Michaely, H.; Wertz, H.; Ronellenfitsch, U.; Hochhaus, A.; Wenz, F. Adjuvant IMRT/XELOX radiochemotherapy improves long-term overall-and disease-free survival in advanced gastric cancer. Strahlenther. Onkol. 2013, 189, 417–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ringash, J.; Perkins, G.; Brierley, J.; Lockwood, G.; Islam, M.; Catton, P.; Cummings, B.; Kim, J.; Wong, R.; Dawson, L. IMRT for adjuvant radiation in gastric cancer: A preferred plan? Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys. 2005, 63, 732–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Markelis, R.; Endzinas, Ž.; Kiudelis, M.; Grižas, S.; Pundzius, J.; Saladžinskas, Ž.; Juozaitytė, E.; Inčiūra, A.; Pranys, D.; Maleckas, A. Adjuvant therapy after curative resection with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: Results of a prospective clinical trial. Medicina 2009, 45, 460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kwon, H.C.; Kim, M.C.; Kim, K.H.; Jang, J.S.; Oh, S.Y.; KIM, S.H.; Kwon, K.A.; Lee, S.; Lee, H.S.; KIM, H.J. Adjuvant chemoradiation versus chemotherapy in completely resected advanced gastric cancer with D2 nodal dissection. Asia Pac. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010, 6, 278–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kilic, L.; Ordu, C.; Ekenel, M.; Yildiz, I.; Keskin, S.; Sen, F.; Gural, Z.; Asoglu, O.; Kizir, A.; Aykan, F. Comparison of two different adjuvant treatment modalities for pN3 gastric cancer patients after D2 lymph node dissection: Can we avoid radiotherapy in a subgroup of patients? Med. Oncol. 2013, 30, 660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lee, S.J.; Sohn, T.S.; Lee, J.; Park, S.H.; Park, J.O.; Do Hoon, L.; Park, Y.S.; Lim, H.Y.; Choi, M.G.; Lee, J.H. Adjuvant chemoradiation with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin versus S-1 in gastric cancer patients following D2 lymph node dissection surgery: A feasibility study. Anticancer Res. 2014, 34, 6585–6591. [Google Scholar]
  29. Cao, X.G. Efficacy and adverse reactions of chemoradiotherapy after D2 radical resection for advanced gastric cancer. J. Pract. Oncol. 2015, 30, 533–536. [Google Scholar]
  30. Yu, J.W.; Hao, J.Q.; Hu, Z.G.; Qian, L.T. Chemoradiotherapy vs pure chemotherapy for local progressive gastric cancer following D2 lymph node dissection: A comparison of effectiveness. Acad. J. Second Mil. Med. Univ. 2016, 37, 177–183. [Google Scholar]
  31. Peng, J.; Wei, Y.; Zhou, F.; Dai, J.; Zhong, Y.; Xie, C.; Qin, Y.; Gong, J.; Xiong, B.; Zhou, Y. D2-resected stage IIIc gastric cancer patients benefit from adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Cancer Med. 2016, 5, 2773–2780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Li, Q.; Li, G.; Palmer, J.D.; Zhang, Z. Lymph node burden as a predictive factor for selective chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer after a D2 dissection. Amer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 40, 375–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Stahl, M.; Walz, M.K.; Riera-Knorrenschild, J.; Stuschke, M.; Sandermann, A.; Bitzer, M.; Wilke, H.; Budach, W. Preoperative chemotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced adenocarcinomas of the oesophagogastric junction (POET): Long-term results of a controlled randomised trial. Eur. J. Cancer (Oxford, England: 1990) 2017, 81, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Klevebro, F.; Alexandersson von Döbeln, G.; Wang, N.; Johnsen, G.; Jacobsen, A.B.; Friesland, S.; Hatlevoll, I.; Glenjen, N.I.; Lind, P.; Tsai, J.A.; et al. A randomized clinical trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for cancer of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction. Ann. Oncol. 2016, 27, 660–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Shim, J.H.; Song, K.Y.; Jeon, H.M.; Park, C.H.; Jacks, L.M.; Gonen, M.; Shah, M.A.; Brennan, M.F.; Coit, D.G.; Strong, V.E. Is gastric cancer different in Korea and the United States? Impact of tumor location on prognosis. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2014, 21, 2332–2339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Chang, J.S.; Lim, J.S.; Noh, S.H.; Hyung, W.J.; An, J.Y.; Lee, Y.C.; Rha, S.Y.; Lee, C.G.; Koom, W.S. Patterns of regional recurrence after curative D2 resection for stage III (N3) gastric cancer: Implications for postoperative radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2012, 104, 367–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Brady, L.W.; Perez, C.A.; Wazer, D.E. Perez & Brady’s Principles and Practice of Radiation Oncology; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kwong, D.; Sham, J.; Choy, D. The effect of loco-regional control on distant metastatic dissemination in carcinoma of the nasopharynx: An analysis of 1301 patients. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys. 1994, 30, 1029–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Vicini, F.A.; Kestin, L.; Huang, R.; Martinez, A. Does local recurrence affect the rate of distant metastases and survival in patients with early-stage breast carcinoma treated with breast-conserving therapy? Cancer 2003, 97, 910–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Oba, K.; Paoletti, X.; Alberts, S.; Bang, Y.J.; Benedetti, J.; Bleiberg, H.; Catalano, P.; Lordick, F.; Michiels, S.; Morita, S. Disease-free survival as a surrogate for overall survival in adjuvant trials of gastric cancer: A meta-analysis. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2013, 105, 1600–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Wang, X.; Zhao, D.; Yang, L.; Chi, Y.; Tang, Y.; Li, N.; Wang, S.; Song, Y.; Liu, Y.; Liu, W. S-1 chemotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy after D1/D2 lymph node dissection in patients with node-positive gastric cancer: A phase I/II study. Br. J. Cancer 2018, 118, 338–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Moningi, S.; Ajani, J.A.; Badgwell, B.D.; Murphy, M.B.; Ikoma, N.; Mansfield, P.F.; Ho, J.C.; Suh, Y.; Crane, C.; Herman, J.M. IMRT reduces acute toxicity in patients treated with preoperative chemoradiation for gastric cancer. Adv. Radiat. Oncol. 2019, 5, 369–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, J.; Tian, Y.; Tang, Y.; Wang, X.; Li, N.; Ren, H.; Fang, H.; Feng, Y.; Wang, S.; Song, Y. A phase II prospective nonrandomized trial of magnetic resonance imaging-guided hematopoietic bone marrow-sparing radiotherapy for gastric cancer patients with concurrent chemotherapy. Onco Targets Ther. 2016, 9, 2701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Leone, P.; Vacca, A.; Dammacco, F.; Racanelli, V. Common variable immunodeficiency and gastric malignancies. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Yap, Y.L.; So, J.B. Gastric adenocarcinoma occurring in a young patient with common variable immunodeficiency syndrome. Singap. Med. J. 2009, 50, e201–e203. [Google Scholar]
  46. Wasserstein, R.L.; Lazar, N.A. The ASA statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. Am. Stat. 2016, 70, 129–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Basta, Y.L.; Baur, O.L.; van Dieren, S.; Klinkenbijl, J.H.; Fockens, P.; Tytgat, K.M. Is there a benefit of multidisciplinary cancer team meetings for patients with gastrointestinal malignancies? Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2016, 23, 2430–2437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Du, C.Z.; Li, J.; Cai, Y.; Sun, Y.S.; Xue, W.C.; Gu, J. Effect of multidisciplinary team treatment on outcomes of patients with gastrointestinal malignancy. World J. Gastroenterol. 2011, 17, 2013–2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Oxenberg, J.; Papenfuss, W.; Esemuede, I.; Attwood, K.; Simunovic, M.; Kuvshinoff, B.; Francescutti, V. Multidisciplinary cancer conferences for gastrointestinal malignancies result in measureable treatment changes: A prospective study of 149 consecutive patients. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2015, 22, 1533–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Quéro, L.; Guillerm, S.; Hennequin, C. Neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy for gastric cancer. World J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 2015, 7, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bang, Y.J.; Van Cutsem, E.; Feyereislova, A.; Chung, H.C.; Shen, L.; Sawaki, A.; Lordick, F.; Ohtsu, A.; Omuro, Y.; Satoh, T.; et al. Trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for treatment of HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (ToGA): A phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet (London, England) 2010, 376, 687–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Fuchs, C.S.; Tomasek, J.; Yong, C.J.; Dumitru, F.; Passalacqua, R.; Goswami, C.; Safran, H.; Dos Santos, L.V.; Aprile, G.; Ferry, D.R.; et al. Ramucirumab monotherapy for previously treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (REGARD): An international, randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet (London, England) 2014, 383, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wilke, H.; Muro, K.; Van Cutsem, E.; Oh, S.C.; Bodoky, G.; Shimada, Y.; Hironaka, S.; Sugimoto, N.; Lipatov, O.; Kim, T.Y.; et al. Ramucirumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in patients with previously treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (RAINBOW): A double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014, 15, 1224–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wei, L.; Sun, J.; Zhang, N.; Zheng, Y.; Wang, X.; Lv, L.; Liu, J.; Xu, Y.; Shen, Y.; Yang, M. Noncoding RNAs in gastric cancer: Implications for drug resistance. Mol. Cancer 2020, 19, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Argentiero, A.; De Summa, S.; Di Fonte, R.; Iacobazzi, R.M.; Porcelli, L.; Da Vià, M.; Brunetti, O.; Azzariti, A.; Silvestris, N.; Solimando, A.G. Gene expression comparison between the lymph node-positive and-negative reveals a peculiar immune microenvironment signature and a theranostic role for WNT targeting in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A pilot study. Cancers 2019, 11, 942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Eggar, M.; Davey Smith, G. Misleading meta-analysis. Lessons from “an effective, safe, simple” intervention that wasn’t. Br. Med. J. 1995, 310, 752–754. [Google Scholar]
  57. Stroup, D.F.; Berlin, J.A.; Morton, S.C.; Olkin, I.; Williamson, G.D.; Rennie, D.; Moher, D.; Becker, B.J.; Sipe, T.A.; Thacker, S.B. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2000, 283, 2008–2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Shrier, I.; Boivin, J.-F.; Steele, R.J.; Platt, R.W.; Furlan, A.; Kakuma, R.; Brophy, J.; Rossignol, M. Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2007, 166, 1203–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhou, M.L.; Kang, M.; Li, G.C.; Guo, X.M.; Zhang, Z. Postoperative chemoradiotherapy versus chemotherapy for R0 resected gastric cancer with D2 lymph node dissection: An up-to-date meta-analysis. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2016, 14, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Huang, Y.Y.; Yang, Q.; Zhou, S.W.; Wei, Y.; Chen, Y.X.; Xie, D.R.; Zhang, B. Postoperative chemoradiotherapy versus postoperative chemotherapy for completely resected gastric cancer with D2 Lymphadenectomy: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e68939. [Google Scholar]
  61. Ohri, N.; Garg, M.K.; Aparo, S.; Kaubisch, A.; Tome, W.; Kennedy, T.J.; Kalnicki, S.; Guha, C. Who benefits from adjuvant radiation therapy for gastric cancer? A meta-analysis. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. Phys. 2013, 86, 330–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses. Available online: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp (accessed on 3 February 2020).
  63. Borenstein, M.; Hedges, L.V.; Higgins, J.P.; Rothstein, H.R. Fixed-Effect Versus Random-Effects Models. In Introduction to Meta-Analysis; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  64. Higgins, J.P.T.; Thompson, S.G. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 2002, 21, 1539–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Cochran, W.G. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 1954, 10, 101–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Higgins, J.P.; Thompson, S.G.; Deeks, J.J.; Altman, D.G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br. Med. J. 2003, 327, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Egger, M.; Smith, G.D.; Schneider, M.; Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br. Med. J. 1997, 315, 629–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Duval, S.; Tweedie, R. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000, 56, 455–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Declaration of Helsinki: Recommendations Guiding Medical Doctors in Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Available online: https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/ (accessed on 3 February 2020).
Cancers 12 02125 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart of the study selection process.
Figure 1. Flowchart of the study selection process.
Cancers 12 02125 g001
Cancers 12 02125 g002 550
Figure 2. (A) Forest plots of overall and subgroup pooled analyses of 3-year disease-free survival (DFS). (B) Forest plots of overall and subgroup pooled analyses of 3-year overall survival (OS). CI, confidence interval; RCT, randomized controlled trial.
Figure 2. (A) Forest plots of overall and subgroup pooled analyses of 3-year disease-free survival (DFS). (B) Forest plots of overall and subgroup pooled analyses of 3-year overall survival (OS). CI, confidence interval; RCT, randomized controlled trial.
Cancers 12 02125 g002
Cancers 12 02125 g003 550
Figure 3. (A) Forest plots of overall and subgroup pooled analyses of locoregional recurrence rate (LRR). (B) Forest plots of overall and subgroup pooled analyses of distant recurrence rate (DRR). CI, confidence interval; RCT, randomized controlled trial. (C) Forest plots of pooled analyses of leukopenia and nausea and/or vomiting.
Figure 3. (A) Forest plots of overall and subgroup pooled analyses of locoregional recurrence rate (LRR). (B) Forest plots of overall and subgroup pooled analyses of distant recurrence rate (DRR). CI, confidence interval; RCT, randomized controlled trial. (C) Forest plots of pooled analyses of leukopenia and nausea and/or vomiting.
Cancers 12 02125 g003
Table
Table 1. Background information of patients in the included studies.
Table 1. Background information of patients in the included studies.
Author, YearAffiliationStudy DesignInclusion CriteriaInclusion PeriodTotal No. of PatientsCRT/CT No.Modality† Age
(Years)		Diffuse Type (%)T StageN Stage
Markelis, 2009 [25]Kaunas University, LithuaniaNRCT, prospectiveRadical resection and D2 LND
I–IV		2003–200713363FL, 45 Gy/5 weeksm57.9HG 3–4 (78%)T1–2 (30%); T3–4 (70%)N0 (29%); N1 (41%); N2 (30%)
705FU and LVm62.2HG 3–4 (63%)T1–2 (33%); T3–4 (67%)N0 (27%); N1 (44%); N2 (29%)
p-value0.0170.09210.8830.685
Kwon, 2010 [26]Dong-A University, South KoreaRCTR0 resection and D2 LND
III–IV		2002–20046131FP and capecitabine, 45 Gy/5 weeks≥60 (25.8%)64.5AJCC IIIA (36%); IIIB (42%); IV (M0, 23%)
30FP≥60 (46.7%)43.3AJCC IIIA (67%); IIIB (23%); IV (M0, 10%)
p-value0.1140.1080.05
Zhu, 2012 [18]Nanjing Medical University, ChinaRCTR0 resection and D2 LND
IB–IV		2003–2008351186FL and 45 Gy/5 weeks (IMRT)M56NAAJCC IB–II (30%); III (55%); IV (M0, 14%)
1655FU and LVM59NAAJCC IB–II (27%); III (58%); IV (M0, 14%)
p-valueNA
Kim, 2012 [21]NCC, KoreaRCTR0 resection and D2 LND
stage III–IV		2002–200611046FL and 45 Gy/5 weeks≥60 (19.6%)56.5T2 (30%);
T3 (63%);
T4 (7%)		N1 (33%); N2 (46%);
N3 (22%)
44FL≥60 (31.8%)54.5T2 (43%)
T3 (50%);
T4 (7%)		N0–1 (27%); N2 (50%); N3 (23%)
p-value0.230.9780.4650.483
Park, 2015,
Lee, 2012
(ARTIST) [12,17]		Samsung Medical Center, KoreaRCTR0 resection and D2 LND
IB–IV		2004–2008458230XP and 45 Gy/5 weeksM5663%AJCC II (37%); III (31%); IV(M0, 11%)
N0 (12%); N1 (57%); N2–3 (32%)
228XPM5657%AJCC II (38%); III (29%); IV (12%)
N0 (15%); N1 (54%); N2–3 (31%)
p-valueNA
Kilic, 2013 [27]Istanbul University, TurkeyNRCT, retrospectiveD2 LND, pTanyN3M0
(R0 77.8% vs. 71.7%, p = 0.61)		2005–20097118FL and 45 Gy/5 weeksM4661.1T2/3 (89%)
T4 (11%)		all N3
53ECF of DCFM5430.1T2/3 (91%)
T4 (9%)		all N3
p-value0.10.020.72
Lee, 2014 [28]Samsung Medical Center, KoreaNRCT, retrospectiveR0 resection and D2 LND
IB–IV		2008–2009405244FL and 45 Gy/5 weeksM53Tubular (68.4%)
signet ring cell (22.1%)		T1–2 (71%)
T3–4 (29%)		N0–2 (56%)
N3a (27%) N3b (17%)
161S-1M57Tubular (67.1%)
signet ring cell (21.1%)		T1–2 (82%)
T3–4 (18%)		N0–2 (78%)
N3a (17%) N3b (5%)
p-value0.0010.2340.02<0.001
Cao, 2015 [29]Xinwen Mining Group Central Hospital, ChinaRCTR0 resection and D2 LND
stage III–IV		2008–20105025FP and capecitabine CCRT≥60 (40%)LD (68%)AJCC IIIA (32%); IIIB (40%)
25FP≥60 (44%)LD (60%)AJCC IIIA (48%); IIIB (32%)
p-valueNSNSNS
Turanli, 2015 [20]Ankara Oncology Education and Research Hospital, TurkeyNRCT, retrospectiveR0 resection and D2 LND
III		2004–20099271FL and 45 Gy/5 weeksm57.529.6T3 (7%)
T4 (89%)		N1 (18%); N2 (40%)
N3 (42%)
21FL or ECFm57.538.1T3 (14%)
T4 (81%)		N1 (14%); N2 (38%);
N3 (47%)
p-value0.980.460.480.87
Yu, 2016 [30]Anhui University, ChinaRCTR0 resection and D2 LND
stage II–III		2010–20117940Capecitabine CCRT (45 Gy) followed by XELOX≥60 (57.5%)HG3–4
(57.5%)		AJCC II (40%) III (60%)
N0 (29%)
39XELOX≥60 (48.7%)HG3–4 (64.1%)AJCC II (36%) III (64%)
N0 (31%)
p-value0.4340.5480.707
Peng, 2016 [31]Wuhan University, ChinaNRCT, retrospectiveR0 resection and D2 LND
stage IIA–IIIC		2004–2012337124FOLFOX or XELOX or capecitabine and 45 Gy/ 5 weeksM54HG 3–4 (78.2%)AJCC II (36%); IIIA (20%); IIIB (17%) IIIC (27%)
213FOLFOX or XELOX or capecitabineM56HG 3–4 (75.5%)AJCC II (31%); IIIA (23%); IIIB (20%); IIIC (27%)
p-value0.2470.1280.507
Li, 2017 [32]Fudan University, ChinaNRCT, retrospectiveR0 resection and D2 LND
IB–IIIC		2005–2010186935FU or capecitabine or tegafur and 45–50Gy/5–6 weeks (3D-CRT or IMRT)m54LD (15.1%)T1–2 (17%)
T3 (25%)
T4 (58%)		N0 (9%); N1 (17%); N2 (23%); N3 (52%)
935FU based regimenm57LD (19.4%)T1–2 (14%)
T3 (19%)
T4 (67%)		N0 (11%); N1 (22%); N2 (24%); N3 (44%)
p-value0.610.430.370.76
Ma, 2019 [19]Fudan University, ChinaNRCT, retrospective, PSMR0 resection and D2 LND
stage III		2009–2014270135Same regimen and 45 Gy/5 weeks, 5–10 Gy boost (3D-CRT or IMRT)m54.3NAT2 (6%)
T3 (16%)
T4 (79%)		N0–2 (31%)
N3a (45%)
N3b (24%)
1355FU or capecitabine or ECF, modified DCF regimenm54.7NAT2 (3%)
T3 (21%)
T4 (76%)		N0–2 (30%)
N3a (44%)
N3b (25%)
p-value0.74 0.3050.081
Abbreviations: CRT, chemoradiation; CCRT, concurrent chemoradiation; CT, chemotherapy; RCT, randomized controlled trial; LND, lymph node dissection; 5FU, 5-fluorouracil; FL, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin; FP, 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin; IMRT, intensity-modulated radiotherapy; NA, not assessed; NCC, National Cancer Center; XP, capecitabine and cisplatin; AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; ECF, epirubicin, cisplatin, fluorouracil; DCF, docetaxel, cisplatin, fluorouracil; LD, low differentiation; NRCT, non-randomized controlled trials; XELOX, capecitabine and oxaliplatin; HG, high-grade; PSM, propensity score matching. † Upper case M denotes the median, and lower case m denotes the mean. Statistically significant p-values marked in bold font.
Table
Table 2. Clinical outcomes of patients in the included studies.
Table 2. Clinical outcomes of patients in the included studies.
Author, YearCRT/CT No.Median Follow-Up
(Months, Range)		Median DFS3-Year DFS5-Year DFSMedian OS (Months)3-Year OS5-Year OSPrognosticators
(p-Value)		Pattern of FailureGrade 3–4 Toxicities
(CRT vs. CT)
Markelis, 2009 [25]63 52.4% Overall incidence: 44.4% vs. 7.1% (p < 0.05)
70 57.1%
0.039
Kwon, 2010 [26]3177.2
(24–92.8)		 80.0%76.7% 80.6%70.1% Overall LRR 12.9% vs. 23.3% (p = 0.335); DM 9.7% vs. 23.3% (p = 0.335)Neutropenia (48.4% vs. 16.7%); anemia (12.9% vs. 16.7%); N/V (6.5% vs. 13.3%)
30 75.2%59.1% 76.7%70.0%
0.8870.222 0.814
Zhu, 2012 [18]18642.55057.5%45.2%54.059.7%48.4%UVA, OS: Stage (p < 0.001); LN+ (p = 0.001)5-yr LRR 15.6% vs. 24.2% (CRT vs. CT, p = 0.042); 5-yr DM 24.2% vs. 26.7% (p = 0.595)Leukopenia (7.5% vs. 7.3%); nausea (2.7% vs. 0%); vomiting (1.6% vs. 0%)
1653246.7%35.8%38.050.3%41.4%
0.0290.122
Kim, 2012 [21]4686.7 67.4%60.9% 65.2% Overall LRR 10.9% vs. 34.1% (CRT vs. CT, p = 0.006); Overall DM 32.6% vs. 47.7 (CRT vs. CT, p = 0.288)Hematologic (19.6% vs. 25%, p = NS); GI toxicity (17.4% vs. 11.4%, p = NS).
44 59.1%50.0% 54.6%
0.2460.67
Park, 2015
Lee, 2012 (ARTIST) [12,17]		2307 years 78.2%73.9% 80.0%75.0%MVA, OS: Stage (p < 0.01); Lauren classification (p = 0.03); LNR (p < 0.01)Overall LRR 7% vs. 13% (CRT vs. CT, p = 0.0033); DM 24% vs. 27% (p = 0.5568)Neutropenia (48.4% vs. 40.7%); Nausea (12.3% vs. 12.4%); Vomiting (3.5% vs. 3.1%); One 5 complication in each arm
228 74.2%67.1% 83.7%73.0%
0.08620.527
Kilic, 2013 [27]1813.8
(6.2–74.1)		15.2 34.238.8% MVA, DFS: LNR (p = 0.04)Overall LRR 33.3% vs. 15.1% (CRT vs. CT, p = 0.63); DM 22.2% vs. 41.5% (CRT vs. CT)No toxicity related death in both groups
5312.5 26.839.6%
0.560.74
Lee, 2014 [28]24449
(3.0–62.0)		 73.0% 79.8% MVA, DFS: Stage (<0.001); Age (p = 0.006) Neutropenia 40.2% vs. 8.7% (p < 0.001); all neutropenia was transient. Nausea 5.7% vs. 0% (p = 0.002); vomiting 2.5% vs. 0% (p = 0.085)
161 81.4% 87.7%
0.035
Cao, 2015 [29]253 years 76.0%60.0% 64.0% Neutropenia 48% vs. 32% (p = 0.016); nausea 4% vs. 16% (p = 0.032); diarrhea 8% vs. 0% (p = 0.025)
25 64.0%52.0% 60.0%
0.1120.231 0.324
Turanli, 2015 [20]7130 (8–112) 42.2%32.9%32.043.6%34.4% Overall LRR 15.7% vs. 14.3% (CRT vs. CT, p = 0.089); DM 45.1% vs. 57.1% (p = 0.42)
21 42.8%24.1%29.042.8%23.8%
0.80.74
Yu, 2016 [30]4034 42.5% 52.5% MVA, OS: ECOG (0.016); LN+ (0.035) Leukopenia (10% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.253); N/V (17.5% vs. 12.8%, p = 0.043)
39 28.2% 38.5%
0.238 0.235
Peng, 2016 [31]12441.1
(14–111.1)		40.755.6%38.7%51.041.4%45.6% Overall incidence: 36.3% vs. 31.0% (p = 0.338)
m/c Cx: Leukopenia or neutropenia (21.7% vs. 14.6%, p = 0.09); nausea (10.4% vs. 8.4%); vomiting (9.6% vs. 7.5%)
21331.243.7%31.1%48.634.7%37.3%
0.112 0.3 0.132
Li, 2017 [32]93CRT 28 (5–62)
CT 43 (2–63)		 57.0% 72.8% Overall LRR 3.2% vs. 4.3% (p = 0.76); DM 12.9% vs. 23.7% (p = 0.18)Overall incidence: 38.7% vs. 18.3% (p = 0.002); leukopenia 30.1% vs. 10.8%, Nausea (10.8% vs. 5.4%); vomiting (5.4% vs. 5.4%)
93 62.0% 77.4%
0.30.23
Ma, 2019 [19]13541
(7–104.2)		 60.7%40.7%M51.257.0%45.2%MVA, OS: Stage (<0.001); LNR <0.001; total vs. subtotal gastrectomy 0.007); tumor deposit (0.028)Overall LRR [n = 135 (CRT) 280 (CTx)] 7.4% vs. 21.1% (CRT vs. CT, p < 0.001); Overall DM 21.5% vs. 21.1% (CRT vs. CT, p = 0.924)Leukopenia (16.3% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.493); anorexia (14.8% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.365); N/V (8.9% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.615)
135 52.6%16.3%M39.338.5%19.3%
<0.01<0.01
Abbreviations: CRT, chemoradiation; CT, chemotherapy; DFS, disease-free survival; OS, overall survival; LRR, locoregional recurrence rate; DM, distant metastases; N/V, nausea and vomiting; GI, gastrointestinal; NS, not significant; Cx, complication; CTx, chemotherapy; UVA, univariate analysis; MVA, multivariate analysis; LNR, lymph node ratio. Statistically significant p-values marked in bold font.
Table
Table 3. Pooled results of endpoints.
Table 3. Pooled results of endpoints.
StudiesNo. of StudiesNo. of PatientsHeterogeneity pI2 (%)HeterogeneityPooled Results (95% CI)p (Pooled Analyses)Egger’s p
DFS, controlled comparisons
All studies1123790.137.5%MediumOR 1.264 (0.997–1.603)0.0530.942
RCTs610890.964~0.0%Very lowOR 1.440 (1.110–1.867)0.0060.420
Balanced919130.61~0.0%Very lowOR 1.417 (1.171–1.715)<0.0010.824
3-year DFS, single-arm analysis
CRT arm111225<0.00184.9%Very high62.5% (54.6–69.8)NA0.749
CT arm111154<0.00191.3%Very high57.1% (46.1–67.5)NA0.868
5-year DFS, single-arm analysis
CRT arm8848<0.00191.1%Very high53.3% (40.9–65.4)NA0.851
CT arm8861<0.00193.4%Very high40.9% (27.3–56.0)NA0.748
OS, controlled comparisons
All studies1325830.0641.2%MediumOR 1.124 (0.881–1.434)0.3470.760
RCTs610890.4061.5%Very lowOR 1.208 (0.921–1.584)0.1720.622
Balanced919130.16631.6%MediumOR 1.279 (0.995–1.644)0.0550.840trimmed value †
Stage ≥III55630.662~0.0%Very lowOR 1.663 (1.170–2.363)0.0050.023OR 1.963 (1.443–2.671)
3-year OS, single-arm analysis
CRT arm111235<0.00190.8%Very high61.4% (51.1–70.8)NA0.479
CT arm111208<0.00195.0%Very high59.1% (44.4–72.3)NA0.513
5-year OS, single-arm analysis
CRT arm8848<0.00189.1%Very high55.8% (44.5–66.5)NA0.885
CT arm8861<0.00193.9%Very high46.9% (32.0–62.4)NA0.922
Locoregional recurrence, controlled comparison
All studies817240.07346.1%MediumOR 0.559 (0.355–0.879)0.0120.439
RCTs49600.569~0.0%Very lowOR 0.495 (0.342–0.715)<0.0010.307
Balanced615920.3579.2%LowOR 0.472 (0.334–0.667)<0.0010.863
Locoregional recurrence, single-arm analysis
CRT arm88100.00170.4%High11.3% (7.5–16.8)NA0.786
CT arm8914<0.00173.7%High18.1% (13.1–24.4)NA0.459
Distant metastasis, controlled comparison
All studies817240.504~0.0Very lowOR 0.768 (0.611–0.965)0.0230.004OR 0.837 (0.655–1.070)
RCTs49600.511~0.0Very lowOR 0.788 (0.589–1.054)0.1080.027OR 0.814 (0.612–1.083)
Balanced615920.543~0.0Very lowOR 0.802 (0.634–1.015)0.0660.051OR 0.908 (0.710–1.160)
Distant metastasis, single-arm analysis
CRT arm8810<0.00174.3%High24.1% (18.1–31.2)NA0.621
CT arm8914<0.00175.3%High30.9% (24.4–38.3)NA0.06929.0% (22.6–36.3)
Complication of grade ≥3
Leukopenia818210.433~0.0Very lowOR 1.387 (1.109–1.734)0.0040.946
N/V717310.4062.5%Very lowOR 1.224 (0.893–1.677)0.2090.617
Leukopenia, single-arm analysis
CRT arm101154<0.00191.9%Very high26.4% (17.7–37.5)NA0.105
CT arm101133<0.00191.1%Very high15.7% (9.4–25.0)NA0.07417.1% (10.7–26.2)
N/V, single-arm analysis
CRT arm91108<0.00172.6%High11.2% (7.8–15.8)NA0.200
CT arm910890.00563..8%High11.1% (7.6–16.0)NA0.01411.7% (7.7–17.5)
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; RCT, randomized controlled trial; CRT, chemoradiation; CT, chemotherapy; NA, not assessable; DFS, disease-free survival; OS, overall survival; N/V, nausea and/or vomiting. † Values from Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill method.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rim, C.H.; Shin, I.-S.; Lee, H.Y.; Yoon, W.S.; Park, S. Oncologic Benefit of Adjuvant Chemoradiation after D2 Gastrectomy: A Stepwise Hierarchical Pooled Analysis and Systematic Review. Cancers 2020, 12, 2125. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12082125

AMA Style

Rim CH, Shin I-S, Lee HY, Yoon WS, Park S. Oncologic Benefit of Adjuvant Chemoradiation after D2 Gastrectomy: A Stepwise Hierarchical Pooled Analysis and Systematic Review. Cancers. 2020; 12(8):2125. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12082125

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rim, Chai Hong, In-Soo Shin, Hye Yoon Lee, Won Sup Yoon, and Sunmin Park. 2020. "Oncologic Benefit of Adjuvant Chemoradiation after D2 Gastrectomy: A Stepwise Hierarchical Pooled Analysis and Systematic Review" Cancers 12, no. 8: 2125. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12082125

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop