The aim of this study was to analyze esophageal cancer patients who previously underwent neoadjuvant therapy followed by a curative resection to determine whether additional adjuvant therapy is associated with improved survival outcomes. Summary Background Data: Neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery is the standard of care for locally advanced esophageal cancer, whereas adjuvant therapy is typically employed for patients with residual disease. However, the role of adjuvant therapy after a curative resection is still uncertain. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched for studies comparing patients with esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant therapy and curative resection with and without adjuvant therapy. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS), and random effects meta-analysis was conducted where appropriate. Grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Results: Ten studies involving 6462 patients were included. When compared to patients who received neoadjuvant therapy and esophagectomy alone, adjuvant therapy groups experienced a significant decrease in mortality by 48% at 1 year (Risk Ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.65, P < 0.001, moderate certainty). This reduction in mortality was carried through to 5-year follow-up (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.96, P < 0.001, moderate certainty). The difference between the adjuvant therapy and the control group was uncertain regarding the secondary outcomes. Conclusion: Adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant treatment and esophagectomy with negative resection margins provide an improved OS at 1 and 5 years with moderate to high certainty of evidence, but the benefit for disease-free survival and locoregional/distal recurrence remain uncertain due to limited reporting of these outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Summary Iron deficiency (ID) and iron deficiency anemia (IDA) are common following bariatric surgery; however, there are limited standardized treatment recommendations for their management. The purpose of this study was to review the current strategies for iron supplementation following bariatric surgery and assess their relative efficacy in managing ID and IDA. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to January 2021. Primary outcomes of interest were prevention or improvement in ID or IDA with iron supplementation. Forty‐nine studies with 12,880 patients were included. Most patients underwent Roux‐en‐Y gastric bypass (61.9%). Iron supplementation was most commonly administered orally for prevention of ID/IDA and was effective in 52% of studies. Both IV and oral iron were given for treatment of ID/IDA. Fifty percent (3/6) of the oral and 100% (3/3) of the IV supplementation strategies were effective at treating ID. Iron supplementation strategies employed following bariatric surgery are highly variable, and many do not provide sufficient iron to prevent the development of ID and IDA, potentially due to poor patient adherence. Further high‐quality prospective trials, particularly comparing intravenous and oral iron, are warranted in order to determine the ideal dosage, route, and duration of iron supplementation.