Search

Background: Low-dose aspirin has been shown to reduce the incidence of cancer, but its role in the treatment of cancer is uncertain. Objectives: We conducted a systematic search of the scientific literature on aspirin taken by patients following a diagnosis of cancer, together with appropriate meta-analyses. Methods: Searches were completed in Medline and Embase in December 2015 using a pre-defined search strategy. References and abstracts of all the selected papers were scanned and expert colleagues were contacted for additional studies. Two reviewers applied pre-determined eligibility criteria (cross-sectional, cohort and controlled studies, and aspirin taken after a diagnosis of cancer), assessed study quality and extracted data on cancer cause-specific deaths, overall mortality and incidence of metastases. Random effects meta-analyses and planned sub-group analyses were completed separately for observational and experimental studies. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed in sensitivity analyses and appropriate omissions made. Papers were examined for any reference to bleeding and authors of the papers were contacted and questioned. Results: Five reports of randomised trials were identified, together with forty two observational studies: sixteen on colorectal cancer, ten on breast and ten on prostate cancer mortality. Pooling of eleven observational reports of the effect of aspirin on cause-specific mortality from colon cancer, after the omission of one report identified on the basis of sensitivity analyses, gave a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.76 (95% CI 0.66, 0.88) with reduced heterogeneity (P = 0.04). The cause specific mortality in five reports of patients with breast cancer showed significant heterogeneity (P<0.0005) but the omission of one outlying study reduced heterogeneity (P = 0.19) and led to an HR = 0.87 (95% CI 0.69, 1.09). Heterogeneity between nine studies of prostate cancer was significant, but again, the omission of one study led to acceptable homogeneity (P = 0.26) and an overall HR = 0.89 (95% CI 0.79–0.99). Six single studies of other cancers suggested reductions in cause specific mortality by aspirin, and in five the effect is statistically significant. There were no significant differences between the pooled HRs for the three main cancers and after the omission of three reports already identified in sensitivity analyses heterogeneity was removed and revealed an overall HR of 0.83 (95% CI 0.76–0.90). A mutation of PIK3CA was present in about 20% of patients, and appeared to explain most of the reduction in colon cancer mortality by aspirin. Data were not adequate to examine the importance of this or any other marker in the effect of aspirin in the other cancers. On bleeding attributable to aspirin two reports stated that there had been no side effect or bleeding attributable to aspirin. Authors on the other reports were written to and 21 replied stating that no data on bleeding were available. Conclusions and Implications: The study highlights the need for randomised trials of aspirin treatment in a variety of cancers. While these are awaited there is an urgent need for evidence from observational studies of aspirin and the less common cancers, and for more evidence of the relevance of possible bio-markers of the aspirin effect on a wide variety of cancers. In the meantime it is urged that patients in whom a cancer is diagnosed should be given details of this research, together with its limitations, to enable each to make an informed decision as to whether or not to take low-dose aspirin. Systematic Review Protocol Number: CRD42015014145 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Preclinical evidence suggests statins may have anti-tumor properties. Large observational studies are also consistent with improved survival and cancer-specific outcomes among cancer patients on statins. We sought to evaluate the randomized controlled trials of statins in addition to usual anti-cancer therapy. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Papers First and Clinicaltrials.gov was performed from inception through to July 4, 2017 to identify randomized clinical trials that investigated statin therapy in cancer patients. Our primary outcome was overall survival and our secondary outcome was progression-free survival. We calculated summary hazard ratio’s (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on random-effects models using aggregate data. PROSPERO (CRD42017065503). Results: Ten studies with 1,881 individuals were included with 1,572 deaths and a median follow-up of 23 months. All trials included patients with advanced (stage 3 or higher) disease. There was minimal between-study statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 1.8%, for OS; I2 = 0%, for PFS). The pooled HR for overall survival in patients randomized to statins plus standard anti-cancer therapy versus standard therapy alone was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.04). In the 9 studies that reported progression-free survival (1,798 participants), the pooled HR for statin plus standard therapy versus standard therapy alone was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.07). Conclusions: In patients with advanced cancer and a prognosis <2 years, the addition of statins to standard anti-cancer therapy does not appear to improve overall survival or progression-free survival. Future research should assess if cancer patients with better prognosis benefit from longer-term statin therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the scientific literature, spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favourable light. The presence of spin in biomedical research can negatively impact the development of further studies, clinical practice, and health policies. This systematic review aims to explore the nature and prevalence of spin in the biomedical literature. We searched MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and hand searched reference lists for all reports that included the measurement of spin in the biomedical literature for at least 1 outcome. Two independent coders extracted data on the characteristics of reports and their included studies and all spin-related outcomes. Results were grouped inductively into themes by spin-related outcome and are presented as a narrative synthesis. We used meta-analyses to analyse the association of spin with industry sponsorship of research. We included 35 reports, which investigated spin in clinical trials, observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. The nature of spin varied according to study design. The highest (but also greatest) variability in the prevalence of spin was present in trials. Some of the common practices used to spin results included detracting from statistically nonsignificant results and inappropriately using causal language. Source of funding was hypothesised by a few authors to be a factor associated with spin; however, results were inconclusive, possibly due to the heterogeneity of the included papers. Further research is needed to assess the impact of spin on readers’ decision-making. Editors and peer reviewers should be familiar with the prevalence and manifestations of spin in their area of research in order to ensure accurate interpretation and dissemination of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The standard treatment for patients with advanced/metastatic soft tissue sarcomas (ASTS) is systemic chemotherapy with doxorubicin. A previous meta-analysis of 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated the superiority of single-agent doxorubicin over doxorubicin-based combination chemotherapy for ASTS. However, meta-analyses of all RCTs that compare doxorubicin to other single-agent or combination regimens as first-line treatments for ASTS are lacking. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of current primary treatments for ASTS. Methods: Eligible studies were RCTs of first-line chemotherapies for ASTS comparing doxorubicin alone to other single agents or to combination therapies (experimental arm). Data from studies reporting hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were pooled. Other time-to-event endpoints were extracted from the studies based on Kaplan-Meier estimates, and pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI were calculated. Results: Twenty-seven eligible RCTs comprising 6156 patients were identified. Overall, the 1-year OS (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79–0.99, P = 0.03) was significantly improved in the experimental arm over the doxorubicin-only arm; however, there was no significant difference in 2-year OS (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73–1.03, P = 0.11) or OS (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91–1.03, P = 0.28) between the two groups. PFS and other time-to-event endpoints were not significantly different between the two treatment arms. While incidences of overall severe adverse events were not significantly different (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.88–1.65, P = 0.26), severe nausea/vomiting was significantly more frequent in the experimental arm (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.27–2.83, P = 0.002). Conclusion: The efficacies of doxorubicin-only and experimental arm regimens were similar, although toxicities were more frequent in the experimental arms. Hence, doxorubicin monotherapy remains suitable as a standard first-line regimen for ASTS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This systematic review with network meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of currently licensed second-line treatments in patients with late stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of participants with advanced/metastatic NSCLC receiving second/third line treatments were screened. We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE; EMBASE; Web of Science) from January, 2000 to July, 2017. Two reviewers screened bibliographic records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. The outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and drug-related grade 3–5 adverse-events (AEs). We pooled study-specific hazard ratios (HR; for OS and PFS) and risk ratios (RR; for AEs) using conventional and network-meta-analyses, and ranked interventions by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. Findings: We included 11 RCTs (7,581 participants) comparing nine drugs. All drugs except for erlotinib significantly improved OS compared to docetaxel. Nivolumab was the highest ranking drug followed by atezolizumab and pembrolizumab. There was no significant difference in OS across these three drugs (HR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.79, 1.21 for nivolumab vs atezolizumab; HR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.77, 1.25 for nivolumab vs pembrolizumab). For PFS, ramucirumab + docetaxel and nivolumab were the drugs with the highest ranking. All interventions except ramucirumab + docetaxel had a reduced risk for severe drug-related AEs vs. docetaxel. Of the drugs with the highest ranking on AEs, nivolumab was significantly safer compared to atezolizumab (RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.38, 0.79) or pembrolizumab (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.34, 0.81). Implications: Nivolumab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab exhibited superior benefit/risk balance compared to other licensed drugs used late stage NSCLC. Our results indicate that the use of immunotherapies in people diagnosed with non-specific late stage NSCLC should be promoted. The use of docetaxel may now be judged irrelevant as a comparator intervention for approval of new drugs for second line treatment of NSCLC. Study registration number: PROSPERO . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose: The role of preoperative short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) in rectal cancer treatment, when compared to long-course radiochemotherapy (LCRT), is still controversial. Thus the meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed to evaluate the long-term survival of SCRT and LCRT as therapeutic regimens for locally advanced rectal cancer. Material and methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to August 2017 for eligible studies. Hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios (ORs) of overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS) and local recurrence (LR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and TSA was applied. Results: 11 studies with 1984 patients were included. There was no significant difference in OS (HR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.75–1.13, p = 0.44), DFS (HR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.79–1.12, p = 0.50) and LR (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.49–1.08, p = 0.11) between SCRT and LCRT groups. TSA suggested firm evidence for lacking on average a -10% relative risk reduction (RRR) in 4-year OS but no statistical significance in 4-year DFS. Conclusions: Preoperative SCRT is as effective as LCRT for locally advanced colorectal cancer in long-term survival. SCRT could be preferential while facing long waiting lists or lacking medical resource. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: mTOR-Is positively influence the occurrence and course of certain tumors after solid organ transplantation. The effect of mTOR-Is on the overall incidence of tumors irrespective of their origin is not entirely clear. Furthermore, conflicting data have been shown on mortality under mTOR-Is. Methods: The current literature was searched for prospective randomized controlled renal transplantation trials. There were 1415 trials screened of which 13 could be included (pts. = 5924). A minimum follow-up of 24 months was mandatory for inclusion. Incidence of malignancies and patient survival was assessed in meta-analyses. Results: The average follow-up of all trials was 40.6 months. Malignancy was significantly reduced under mTOR-Is compared to CNIs (RR 0.70, CI 0.49–0.99, p = 0.046). This effect remained stable when combined with CNIs (RR 0.58, CI 0.34–1.00, p = 0.05). When NMSCs were excluded the risk for malignancy remained significantly reduced under mTOR-I therapy (mono and combi) (RR 0.43, CI 0.24–0.77, p = 0.0046). Graft survival was minimally decreased under mTOR-Is (RR 0.99, CI 0.98–1.00, p = 0.054). This effect was abrogated when mTOR-Is were combined with CNIs (RR 0.99, CI 0.97–1.02, p = 0.50). Patient survival was not different (RR 1.00, CI 0.99–1.01, p = 0.54). Conclusions: Posttransplant patients have a lower incidence of malignancy when treated with an mTOR-I no matter if it is used in combination with CNIs or not. This beneficial effect remains significant even when NMSCs are excluded. With currently used mTOR-I-based regimen patient and graft survival is not different compared to CNI therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Relative effect of therapies indicated for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) after failure of first line treatment is currently not known. The objective of the present study is to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of cabozantinib compared to everolimus, nivolumab, axitinib, sorafenib, and best supportive care (BSC) in aRCC patients who progressed after previous VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment. Methodology & findings: Systematic literature search identified 5 studies for inclusion in this analysis. The assessment of the proportional hazard (PH) assumption between the survival curves for different treatment arms in the identified studies showed that survival curves in two of the studies did not fulfil the PH assumption, making comparisons of constant hazard ratios (HRs) inappropriate. Consequently, a parametric survival network meta-analysis model was implemented with five families of functions being jointly fitted in a Bayesian framework to PFS, then OS, data on all treatments. The comparison relied on data digitized from the Kaplan-Meier curves of published studies, except for cabozantinib and its comparator everolimus where patient level data were available. This analysis applied a Bayesian fixed-effects network meta-analysis model to compare PFS and OS of cabozantinib versus its comparators. The log-normal fixed-effects model displayed the best fit of data for both PFS and OS, and showed that patients on cabozantinib had a higher probability of longer PFS and OS than patients exposed to comparators. The survival advantage of cabozantinib increased over time for OS. For PFS the survival advantage reached its maximum at the end of the first year’s treatment and then decreased over time to zero. Conclusion: With all five families of distributions, cabozantinib was superior to all its comparators with a higher probability of longer PFS and OS during the analyzed 3 years, except with the Gompertz model, where nivolumab was preferred after 24 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Selective outcome reporting is a significant methodological concern. Comparisons between the outcomes reported in clinical trial registrations and those later published allow investigators to understand the extent of selection bias among trialists. We examined the possibility of selective outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in neurology journals. Methods: We searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials from Jan 1, 2010 –Dec 31, 2015 published in the top 3 impact factor neurology journals. These articles were screened according to specific inclusion criteria. Each author individually extracted data from trials following a standardized protocol. A second author verified each extracted element and discrepancies were resolved. Consistency between registered and published outcomes was evaluated and correlations between discrepancies and funding, journal, and temporal trends were examined. Results: 180 trials were included for analysis. 10 (6%) primary outcomes were demoted, 38 (21%) primary outcomes were omitted from the publication, and 61 (34%) unregistered primary outcomes were added to the published report. There were 18 (10%) cases of secondary outcomes being upgraded to primary outcomes in the publication, and there were 53 (29%) changes in timing of assessment. Of 82 (46%) major discrepancies with reported p-values, 54 (66.0%) favored publication of statistically significant results. Conclusion: Across trials, we found 180 major discrepancies. 66% of major discrepancies with a reported p-value (n = 82) favored statistically significant results. These results suggest a need within neurology to provide more consistent and timely registration of outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Awake craniotomy (AC) renders an expanded role in functional neurosurgery. Yet, evidence for optimal anaesthesia management remains limited. We aimed to summarise the latest clinical evidence of AC anaesthesia management and explore the relationship of AC failures on the used anaesthesia techniques. Methods: Two authors performed independently a systematic search of English articles in PubMed and EMBASE database 1/2007-12/2015. Search included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), observational trials, and case reports (n>4 cases), which reported anaesthetic approach for AC and at least one of our pre-specified outcomes: intraoperative seizures, hypoxia, arterial hypertension, nausea and vomiting, neurological dysfunction, conversion into general anaesthesia and failure of AC. Random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate event rates for four outcomes. Relationship with anaesthesia technique was explored using logistic meta-regression, calculating the odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals [95%CI]. Results: We have included forty-seven studies. Eighteen reported asleep-awake-asleep technique (SAS), twenty-seven monitored anaesthesia care (MAC), one reported both and one used the awake-awake-awake technique (AAA). Proportions of AC failures, intraoperative seizures, new neurological dysfunction and conversion into general anaesthesia (GA) were 2% [95%CI:1–3], 8% [95%CI:6–11], 17% [95%CI:12–23] and 2% [95%CI:2–3], respectively. Meta-regression of SAS and MAC technique did not reveal any relevant differences between outcomes explained by the technique, except for conversion into GA. Estimated OR comparing SAS to MAC for AC failures was 0.98 [95%CI:0.36–2.69], 1.01 [95%CI:0.52–1.88] for seizures, 1.66 [95%CI:1.35–3.70] for new neurological dysfunction and 2.17 [95%CI:1.22–3.85] for conversion into GA. The latter result has to be interpreted cautiously. It is based on one retrospective high-risk of bias study and significance was abolished in a sensitivity analysis of only prospectively conducted studies. Conclusion: SAS and MAC techniques were feasible and safe, whereas data for AAA technique are limited. Large RCTs are required to prove superiority of one anaesthetic regime for AC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence on the benefits of combining cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor (COX-2) in treating non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still controversial. We investigated the efficacy and safety profile of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in treating NSCLC. Methods: The first meta-analysis of eligible studies was performed to assess the effect of COX-2 inhibitors for patients with NSCLC on the overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), one-year survival, and toxicities. The fixed-effects model was used to calculate the pooled RR and HR and between-study heterogeneity was assessed. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to the type of COX-2 inhibitors, treatment pattern, and treatment line. Results: Nine randomized clinical trials, comprising 1679 patents with NSCLC, were included in the final meta-analysis. The pooled ORR of patients who have NSCLC with COX-2 inhibitors was significantly higher than that without COX-2 inhibitors. In subgroup analysis, significantly increased ORR results were found on celecoxib (RR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.09, 1.51), rofecoxib (RR = 1.61, 95% CI: 1.14, 2.28), chemotherapy (RR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.20, 1.63), and first-line treatment (RR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.19, 1.63). However, COX-2 inhibitors had no effect on the one-year survival, OS, and PFS. Increased RR of leucopenia (RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.45) and thrombocytopenia (RR = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.06, 1.76) suggested that COX-2 inhibitors increased hematologic toxicities (grade ≥ 3) of chemotherapy Conclusions: COX-2 inhibitors increased ORR of advanced NSCLC and had no impact on survival indices, but it may increase the risk of hematologic toxicities associated with chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Gemcitabine and pemetrexed have been used as maintenance therapy. However, few systematic reviews and meta-analyses have assessed their effects in the newest studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the role of gemcitabine and pemetrexed in the maintenance treatment of non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Methods: We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases from their inceptions to September 16, 2015. We also searched the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) databases from 2008 to 2015. Two authors independently extracted the data. The Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias graph was used to assess the risk of bias. The GRADE system was used to assess the grading of evidence, and a meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 11.0 software. Results: Eleven randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies were collected. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis and divided into the following 4 groups: gemcitabine vs. best supportive care (BSC)/observation, pemetrexed vs. BSC/placebo, pemetrexed + bevacizumab vs. bevacizumab and pemetrexed vs. bevacizumab. Gemcitabine exhibited significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with BSC (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.62, p = 0.000). Pemetrexed exhibited significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.54, p = 0.000) and OS (HR = 0.75, p = 0.000) compared with BSC. Pemetrexed + bevacizumab almost exhibited significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.71, p = 0.051) compared with bevacizumab. Pemetrexed exhibited no improvement in PFS or overall survival (OS) compared with bevacizumab. Regarding the grade, the GRADE system indicated that the gemcitabine group was "MODERATE", the pemetrexed group was "HIGH", and both the pemetrexed + bevacizumab vs. bevacizumab groups and pemetrexed vs. B groups were "LOW". Conclusions: Gemcitabine or pemetrexed compared with BSC/observation/placebo significantly improved PFS or OS. Whether pemetrexed + bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab alone significantly improves PFS requires further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to compare the efficacy of brain radiotherapy (RT) combined with temozolomide (TMZ) versus RT alone as first-line treatment for brain metastases (BM). Methods: Medline, Embase, and Pubmed were used to search for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two investigators reviewed the abstracts and independently rated the quality of trials and relevant data. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events. Results: Seven studies were selected from the literature search. RT plus TMZ produced significant improvement in ORR with odds ratio (OR) of 2.27 (95% CI, 1.29 to 4.00; P = 0.005) compared with RT alone. OS and PFS were not significantly different between the two arms (OS: HR, 1.00; P = 0.959; PFS: HR, 0.73; P = 0.232). However, the RT plus TMZ arm was associated with significantly more grade 3 to 4 nausea and thrombocytopenia. Conclusion: Concomitant RT and TMZ, compared to RT alone, significantly increases ORR in patients with BM, but yields increased toxicity and fails to demonstrate a survival advantage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare surgical efficacy and postoperative recovery of ultrasonic scalpel (USS) with conventional techniques for the resection of gastric carcinoma. Methods: A systematic search of major medical databases (PubMed, Embase, CCRT and CNKI) was conducted. Both randomized and non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs and nRCTs) were considered eligible. Operation time (OT), intraoperative blood loss (BL) and postoperative complications (POC) rates as well as postoperative hospitalization days, number of dissected lymph nodes, abdominal drainage volume and time for recovery of gastrointestinal functions were synthesized and compared. Results: Nineteen studies were included (7 RCTs and 12 nRCTs), in which 1930 patients were enrolled totally (946 in the USS group and 984 in the conventional group). Monopolar electrocautery and ligation were used as the conventional methods. Comparative meta-analysis showed perioperative outcomes were significantly improved using USS compared with conventional surgical instrumentation. OT was reduced from a weighted mean of 185.3 min in the conventional group to 151.0 min in the USS group (MD = −33.30, 95% CI [−41.75, −24.86], p<0.001) and intraoperative BL was decreased from a weighted mean of 217.9 ml in the conventional group to 111.6 ml in the USS group (MD = −113.42, 95% CI [−142.05, −84.79], p<0.001). Results from RCTs subgroup were consistent with those from nRCTs subgroup. The weighted cumulative risk of POC accounted for 8.9% (0%–25%) and 12.9% (5.5%–45%) in the USS and conventional groups, respectively. Pooled estimated results from nRCTs (OR = 0.54, 95% CI [0.27, 1.06], p = 0.07) and RCTs (RR = 0.75, 95% CI [0.44, 1.26], p = 0.27) showed no significant difference between the USS and control groups. Analysis of secondary outcomes showed the improvements of the USS group over control group regarding the number of dissected lymph nodes, postoperative hospitalization days, abdominal drainage volume and time for recovery of gastrointestinal functions. Conclusion: Compared with conventional electrosurgery, the USS is a safe and effective technique with more short-term advantages in open surgery for gastric cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]