DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched from its inception until May 2019.
REVIEW METHODS: All observational studies were included.
RESULTS: Twenty-two studies (n = 3,033,814; 184,968 OSA vs 2,848,846 non-OSA) were included for quantitative meta-analysis. In non-cardiac surgery, OSA was significantly associated with a higher incidence of the composite endpoints of postoperative cardiac or cerebrovascular complications (odd ratio: 1.44, 95%CI: 1.17 to 1.78, ρ = 0.007, trial sequential analysis = conclusive; certainty of evidence = very low). In comparison to non-OSA, OSA patients were reported to have nearly 2.5-fold risk of developing pulmonary complications (odd ratio: 2.52, 95%CI: 1.92 to 3.31, ρ
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched for randomized control trials (RCTs) from its inception until April 2020.
RESULTS: Six RCTs (n = 3139 patients) were included. In comparison to the GA alone, our meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in the cancer recurrence rate in patients who received the adjunctive use of RA in the routine care of GA (3 studies, n = 2380 patients; odds ratio 0.93, 95%CI 0.63-1.39, ρ = 0.73, certainty of evidence = very low). Our review also showed no significant difference in cancer-related mortality (2 studies, n = 545; odds ratio 1.20, 95%CI 0.83-1.74, ρ = 0.33, certainty of evidence = low), all-cause mortality (3 studies, n = 2653; odds ratio 0.98, 95%CI 0.69-1.39, ρ = 0.89, certainty of evidence = low) and duration of cancer-free survival (2 studies, n = 659; mean difference 0.00 years, 95%CI -0.25-0.25, ρ = 1.00, certainty of evidence = high).
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis concluded that the adjunctive use of RA in the routine care of GA did not reduce cancer recurrence rate in cancer resection surgery. However, this finding needs to be interpreted with caution due to low level of evidence, substantial heterogeneity and potential risk of bias across the included studies.
STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020171368.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched from its inception until April 2020.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All randomized control trials and observational studies comparing RA only versus GA in cancer resection surgery were included. Case report, case series and editorials were excluded.
RESULTS: Ten retrospective observational studies (n = 9708; 4567 GA vs 5141 RA) were included for qualitative and quantitative meta-analysis. In comparison to GA, RA was not significantly associated with a lower cancer recurrence rate in cancer resection surgery (odds ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.53, p = 0.95, certainty of evidence = very low). However, the trial sequential analysis for cancer recurrence rate was inconclusive. Our analysis demonstrated no significant difference between the RA and GA groups in the overall survival rate (odds ratio 1.51, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.51, p = 0.34, certainty of evidence = very low), time to cancer recurrence (mean difference 1.45 months, 95% CI -8.69 to 11.59, p = 0.78, certainty of evidence = very low), cancer-related mortality (odds ratio 1.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 5.62, p = 0.32, certainty of evidence = very low).
CONCLUSIONS: Given the low level of evidence and underpowered trial sequential analysis, our review neither support nor oppose that the use of RA was associated with lower incidence of cancer recurrence rate than GA in cancer resection surgery.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42020163780.