背景:肺癌仍然是全球范围内癌症相关死亡的主要原因。手术是非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的主要治疗选择。然而,NSCLC切除术中淋巴结评估的最佳手术方法仍存在争议,与淋巴结采样(LNS)相比,淋巴结清扫术(LND)是否更有效地降低NSCLC的复发和转移率仍不确定。因此,我们将进行一项荟萃分析,以评估LND和LNS在NSCLC患者中的复发和转移.
方法:本系统评价和荟萃分析将遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目:PRISMA声明。根据预定义的纳入标准,我们将进行全面的检索,以了解NSCLC患者中LND与LNS相比复发和转移的随机对照试验和非随机研究.从PubMed开始的文献检索,EMBASE,Cochrane图书馆,CNKI,万方,SINOMED,VIP和WebofScience将完成。语言没有限制,搜索将于2024年8月30日进行,并定期搜索新的研究。此外,将检索相关文献参考文献,并对相关期刊进行手工检索。主要结果包括总复发率,局部复发率和远处转移率。补充结果包括区域复发率和淋巴结转移率。两名独立审稿人将进行筛选,数据提取和质量评估。我们的审稿人将进行分组分析,敏感性分析和发表偏倚分析评价异质性和稳健性。评审管理器5.4将用于分析和综合。建议评估的分级,开发和评估将用于评估整个研究的证据质量。
背景:由于不涉及参与者的私人信息,因此对于这项研究而言,道德认可是不必要的。本研究的结果将通过同行评审的期刊或会议演示文稿传播。
背景:系统审查的协议已在开放科学框架上注册,注册doi:https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF。IO/S2FT5。
BACKGROUND: Lung cancer remains the primary cause of cancer-related deaths on a global scale. Surgery is the main therapeutic option for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the optimal surgical approach for lymph node assessment in NSCLC resection remains controversial, and it is still uncertain whether lymph node dissection (LND) is more effective in reducing recurrence and metastasis rates in NSCLC compared with lymph node sampling (LNS). Therefore, we will conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the recurrence and metastasis of LND versus LNS in patients with NSCLC.
METHODS: This systematic
review and meta-analysis will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: The PRISMA Statement. According to the predefined inclusion criteria, we will conduct a comprehensive search for randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies examining the recurrence and metastasis of LND compared with LNS in patients with NSCLC. A literature search from inception in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, SINOMED, VIP and Web of Science will be done. There will be no limitations on language, and the search will be undertaken on 30 August 2024, with regular search for new studies. Additionally, relevant literature references will be retrieved and hand-searching of pertinent journals will be conducted. The main outcomes include overall recurrence rate, local recurrence rate and distant metastasis rate. The supplementary outcomes encompass the rates of regional recurrence and lymph node metastasis. Two independent reviewers will perform screening, data extraction and quality assessment. Our reviewers will perform subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias analysis to evaluate the heterogeneity and robustness.
Review Manager 5.4 will be applied in analysing and synthesising. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation will be used to assess the quality of evidence for the whole study.
BACKGROUND: Ethical approval is dispensable for this study since no private information of the participants will be involved. The findings of the present study will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal or conference presentation.
BACKGROUND: The protocol of the systematic
review has been registered on Open Science Framework, with a registration doi: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/S2FT5.