[The efficacy and safety of salvage surgery for local recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a systematic review and Meta-analysis].

Abstract

Objective: To assess the current evidence regarding the efficacy, safety, and potential advantages of endoscopic compared with open salvage surgery for patients with local recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Methods: A systematic search of Pubmed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases ranged between 2000 and 2017 was conducted. Included studies reported specific residual or local recurrent nasopharyngeal cancer survival data. Proportional Meta-analysis was performed on both outcomes with a random-effects model and the 95% confidential intervals were calculated by Stata 12.0 software. Results: A total of 24 case series studies were included in the Meta-analysis.The pooled 2-year overall survival rates of endoscopic and open group were 84% (95%CI:72%-93%), 68%(95%CI:59%-77%),respectively.The pooled 2-year disease-free survival rates of endoscopic and open group were 68%(95%CI:53%-81%), 65%(95%CI:54%-75%),respectively. The pooled 5-year overall survival rates of endoscopic and open group were 72%(95%CI:37%-97%), 48% (95%CI:40%-56%),respectively.The pooled 5-year disease-free survival rates of endoscopic and open group were 65%(95%CI:29%-93%), 50%(95%CI:43%-57%),respectively.The combined outcome of endoscopic was higher than open procedure. In addition, less severe complications, lower local recurrence rates(27%vs32%).The 2-year overall survival rates of endoscopic was higher than open procedure in the staging of rT1, rT2, and rT3 (93%vs87%; 77%vs63%; 67%vs53%) , but was equal to open in the staging for rT4 (35%vs35%) .Meta-regression showed that the heterogeneity was correlated with advanced tumor ratio. Conclusions: The present Meta-analysis reveals that endoscopic approach offers a safe and efficient alternative to open approach with better short-term outcome and fewer postoperative complications in selecting patients strictly.