You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 8, Issue 4
  • Management of recurrent pancreatic cancer after surgical resection: a protocol for systematic review, evidence mapping and meta-analysis

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Oncology
Protocol
Management of recurrent pancreatic cancer after surgical resection: a protocol for systematic review, evidence mapping and meta-analysis
  1. Jong-chan Lee1,
  2. Soyeon Ahn2,
  3. In Kuk Cho1,
  4. Jongchan Lee1,
  5. Jaihwan Kim1,
  6. Jin-Hyeok Hwang1
  1. 1 Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
  2. 2 Department of Biostatistics, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jin-Hyeok Hwang; woltoong{at}snu.ac.kr

Abstract

Introduction Although recurrence rate among cases of resected pancreatic cancer are as high as 85%, an optimal treatment for recurrent pancreatic cancer (RePC) has not been established. Previous evidence regarding RePC is scarce, and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are particularly lacking. The evidence mapping (EM) method has been introduced as a tool intended to complement the conventional systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) and is suitable for this issue. This review aims to investigate the optimal treatment options for RePC, using a newly developed automatic EM tool.

Method and analysis All study types, including RCTs, non-randomised studies and other forms of observational studies will be included in the SR-EM. The Medline, Embase, Cochrane library and Scopus databases will be searched for reports of five treatment options for local and metastatic recurrences, including re-resection, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, best supportive care and other novel treatments, published from database inception to 30 April 2017. References from relevant studies will be searched manually. If meta-analysis is feasible, the primary outcome measure will be median overall survival. Two independent authors will select the studies and assess the risk of bias, and a third author will resolve discrepancies in consensus meeting. To visualise EM, we will use a novel web-based and open-access mapping programme, Plotting E-Map (PLOEM) (http://plotting-e-map.com). If eligible combinations of interventions for quantitative comparison are identified, we will conduct subgroup MAs using random-effect models and I2 statistics. Publication bias will be visualised using funnel plots.

Ethics and dissemination This study will not use primary data, and therefore formal ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and committee conferences.

PROSPEROregistration number CRD42016049178.

  • recurrent pancreatic cancer
  • evidence mapping
  • plotting-e-map
  • ploem

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017249

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors J-cL and J-HH planned the protocol. SA assisted with protocol design. JK provided clinical advice regarding the study protocol. JL revised the search strategy. J-cL, SA and J-HH drafted the protocol. JL and IKC search for studies and extract and analyse data. SA played a critical role in reviewing NRS and J-cL conceptualised and designed the PLOEM V.1.0.

    • Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.