| Title |
Perioperative Blood Transfusion and the Prognosis of Pancreatic Cancer Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Surgical Oncology, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1245/s10434-015-4823-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael N. Mavros, Li Xu, Hadia Maqsood, Faiz Gani, Aslam Ejaz, Gaya Spolverato, Waddah B. Al-Refaie, Steven M. Frank, Timothy M. Pawlik |
| Abstract |
Perioperative blood transfusion (PBT) is common in pancreatic surgery. Recent studies have suggested that PBT may be associated with worse long-term outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing long-term clinical outcomes of cancer patients undergoing curative-intent pancreatic surgery with regard to occurrence of PBT was performed. A total of 23 studies (4339 patients) were included in the systematic review, and 19 studies (3646 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Nearly half (45.8 %) of all patients were female (range 25-60 %), and median age ranged from 59 to 72 years. About half (46.5 %, range 19-72 %) of the patients were transfused. Most had pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (69.5 %), while others had ampullary carcinoma (15.0 %), cholangiocarcinoma (7.4 %), or exocrine tumors of pancreas (8.1 %). Most (91.1 %) underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy, while the remaining patients underwent a total or distal pancreatectomy. The 5-year overall survival for all patients ranged from 0 to 65 %. Thirteen and nine of 19 studies reported a detrimental effect of PBT on survival on univariable and multivariable analysis, respectively. Overall, PBT was associated with shorter overall survival (pooled odds ratio 2.43, 95 % confidence interval 1.90-3.10); this finding was reproduced in sensitivity analysis. Patients receiving PBT had significantly lower 5-year survival after curative-intent pancreatic surgery. Further research should focus on implementing guidelines for and discerning factors associated with the poor outcomes after PBT. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 63 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 11% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 18 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 50% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 23 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 November 2015.
All research outputs
#18,425,370
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#4,981
of 6,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,962
of 266,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#78
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,470 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,183 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.