BACKGROUND: The efficacy of adjuvant treatment (AT) in ampullary cancer (AmC) remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the role of AT for AmC.
METHODS: A comprehensive systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Studies comparing overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of patients who underwent AT or not following AmC resection were included.
RESULTS: A total of 3971 patients in 21 studies were analyzed. Overall pooled data showed no significant difference in effect on the OS by AT [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.998, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.768-1.297]. No significant difference in recurrence between the AT and non-AT (nAT) groups was noted (HR = 1.158, 95% CI: 0.764-1.755). In subgroup analysis, patients who received AT showed favorable outcomes in the OS compared with those who received nAT in nodal-positive AmC (HR = 0.627, 95% CI: 0.451-0.870). Neither AT consisted of adjuvant chemotherapy with radiotherapy (HR = 0.804, 95% CI: 0.563-1.149) nor AT with adjuvant chemotherapy (HR = 0.883, 95% CI: 0.642-1.214) showed any significant effect on the OS.
CONCLUSIONS: The effect of AT in AmC on survival and recurrence did not show a significant benefit. Furthermore, effectiveness according to AT strategies did not show enhancement in survival. AT had an advantage in survival compared with nAT strategy in nodal-positive AmC. In cases of AmC with positive lymph nodal involvement, AT may be warranted regardless of detailed strategies.

Endometrial cancer is one of the most common gynecological cancer in the world. However, the available adjuvant therapies, chemotherapy (CT) and radiotherapy (RT), demonstrated several limitations when used alone. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the clinical effectiveness of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) based on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).
A literature search was performed on five databases and one clinical trial registry to obtain all relevant articles. Search for studies was completed on September 9, 2021. A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the overall hazard ratio with the 95% Confidence Interval.
A total of 17 articles with 23,975 patients in the CRT vs RT group and 50,502 patients in the CRT vs CT group were included. The OS Hazard Ratios (HR) of CRT compared to RT was 0.66 (95% CI [0.59-0.75]; P < 0.00001). Compared to CT, the OS HR was 0.70 (95% CI [0.64-0.78]; P < 0.00001). CRT also significantly improved the DFS compared to CT only (HR 0.79, 95% CI [0.64-0.97]; P = 0.02) However, CRT did not improve the DFS compared to RT only, with HR of 0.71 (95% CI [0.46-1.09]; P = 0.12).
Adjuvant CRT can significantly improve OS compared to CT or RT alone and improve the DFS compared to CT alone in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. Further research is needed to identify the optimal CRT regimen, and to whom CRT will be most beneficial.

When presenting with major pathological risk factors, adjuvant radio-chemotherapy for oral cavity cancers (OCC) is recommended, but the addition of chemotherapy to radiotherapy (POCRT) when only minor pathological risk factors are present is controversial. A systematic review following the PICO-PRISMA methodology (PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42021267498) was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries. Studies assessing outcomes of POCRT in patients with solely minor risk factors (perineural invasion or lymph vascular invasion; pN1 single; DOI ≥ 5 mm; close margin < 2−5 mm; node-positive level IV or V; pT3 or pT4; multiple lymph nodes without ENE) were evaluated. A meta-analysis technique with a single-arm study was performed. Radiotherapy was combined with chemotherapy in all studies. One study only included patients treated with POCRT. In the other 12 studies, patients were treated with only PORT (12,883 patients) and with POCRT (10,663 patients). Among the patients treated with POCRT, the pooled 3 year OS rate was 72.9% (95%CI: 65.5−79.2%); the pooled 3 year DFS was 70.9% (95%CI: 48.8−86.2%); and the pooled LRFS was 69.8% (95%CI: 46.1−86.1%). Results are in favor of POCRT in terms of OS but not significant for DFS and LRFS, probably due to the heterogeneity of the included studies and a combination of different prognostic factors.

The presence of intermediate risk factors reduces the predictability of radical hysterectomy, demanding the use of adjuvant therapy for treatment of Early stage cervical cancer (ESCC) patients. Adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) and chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has been widely used with varied efficacy and safety issues. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to update the available evidence and assess the effect of post-surgical adjuvant RT versus adjuvant CRT on survival rate and complications/toxicities in management of ESCC patients with intermediate risk factors. PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science (WOS) and CENTRAL were searched using a combination of relevant keywords. All studies comparing outcomes of adjuvant RT versus CRT in ESCC patients with intermediate-risk factors in terms of recurrence free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicities/complications were included. Both qualitative and quantitative analysis was carried out. The risk of bias assessment was done using Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for retrospective cohort studies and Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used for randomized clinical trials. Eleven retrospective cohort studies and two randomized clinical trials were included in this review. Adjuvant CRT was found to have better RFS with ESCC patients with multiple intermediate risk factors with OR 3.11 95% CI [1.04, 4.99], p < 0.0001; i2 = 6%. However, similar benefit was observed between both regimens in presence of a single intermediate risk factor OR 1.80 95% CI [0.96, 3.36], p = 0.07; i2 = 0%. Grade 3 or 4 haematological toxicity among patients receiving post-surgical adjuvant RT versus adjuvant CRT showed increased association of toxicity with adjuvant CRT with OR 7.73 95%CI [3.40, 17.59], p < 0.0001; i2 = 62%. Adjuvant CRT shows favourable RFS and OS in ESCC patients with multiple intermediate risk factors. CRT also showed greater incidence of grade 3 or 4 haematological and non-haematiological toxicity, however, the same could be well tolerated when used within the recommended dosage.

Surgical resection remains the most important treatment for patients with biliary tract cancer (BTC), but despite radical surgical techniques many patients ultimately develop recurrent disease. BTC encompasses several distinct disease entities-intrahepatic, perihilar and distal bile duct cholangiocarcinoma as well as gallbladder cancer. These tumors are histologically similar, but have different etiologies and recent information regarding their genomic footprint has questioned their biological similarity. Surgical approaches are also necessarily varied based on the site of the tumor. Due to the poor survival rates seen in this disease, there has been significant effort to investigate chemotherapy and radiotherapy as adjuvants in patients whose disease has been successfully resected. The majority of the published evidence supporting this treatment relies on retrospective series or limited prospective studies, making interpretation difficult and complicating treatment decisions. This review summarizes the data regarding these adjunctive therapies.