Home > DARE Reviews > [Fluorouracil implants for colorectal...
  • We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews.

[Fluorouracil implants for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis]

Review published: 2012.

Bibliographic details: Huang Y, Nie YL, Zhang MM, Li YL, Chen JR.  [Fluorouracil implants for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis]. Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 2012; 15(4): 377-381. [PubMed: 22539386]

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit and safety of fluorouracil implants on colorectal cancer.

METHODS: Based on the methods of Cochrane systematic reviews, databases including CBM(1982 to March 2011), CNKI(1911 to March 2011), EMBASE(1966 to March 2011), and Medline(1950 to March 2011) were searched to identify randomized controlled trials assessing the benefit of fluorouracil implants on colorectal cancer. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane's tool for assessing bias. RevMan5.0 was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included(n=1223). The quality of included studies was moderate. Fluorouracil implants could reduce the 2-year mortality(RR=0.33. 95% CI:0.18-0.59), 2-year metastasis rate(RR=0.35, 95% CI: 0.19-0.66), and 2-year recurrence rate(RR=0.48, 95% CI:0.36-0.65). There were no significant differences in complications and adverse effects between fluorouracil implants and the control group.

CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence demonstrates that fluorouracil implants may modestly improve the outcome of colorectal cancer patients without increasing its adverse events. However, the results should be interpreted with caution due to the risk of bias of included studies.

CRD has determined that this article meets the DARE scientific quality criteria for a systematic review.

Copyright © 2014 University of York.

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...