Figures & data
Figure 1. Flowchart of the literature search. A literature search was undertaken according to the PRISMA guidelines. A total of 998 studies were identified, of which 9 studies were included in the meta-analysis after screening.
![Figure 1. Flowchart of the literature search. A literature search was undertaken according to the PRISMA guidelines. A total of 998 studies were identified, of which 9 studies were included in the meta-analysis after screening.](/cms/asset/14947910-3312-434a-8214-c09125330191/ihyt_a_1803424_f0001_b.jpg)
Table 1. Characteristics of the selected studies.
Figure 2. Median OS for different patient groups in the 9 included studies. Each circle represents one study group, with the name of the first author labeled in the center. The red font indicates a statistically significant difference in OS between the 2 groups. Blue and yellow circles represent the PC + LM and PC groups, respectively. The size of the circle represents the number of patients in the corresponding group.
![Figure 2. Median OS for different patient groups in the 9 included studies. Each circle represents one study group, with the name of the first author labeled in the center. The red font indicates a statistically significant difference in OS between the 2 groups. Blue and yellow circles represent the PC + LM and PC groups, respectively. The size of the circle represents the number of patients in the corresponding group.](/cms/asset/cc8c644f-33ee-4018-933a-f23ff779e7b7/ihyt_a_1803424_f0002_c.jpg)
Figure 3. Median DFS in the different patient groups in the 9 included studies. Each circle represents one study group, with the name of the first author labeled in the center. The red font indicates a statistically significant difference in DFS between the 2 groups. Blue and yellow circles represent the PC + LM and PC groups, respectively. The size of the circle represents the number of patients in the corresponding group.
![Figure 3. Median DFS in the different patient groups in the 9 included studies. Each circle represents one study group, with the name of the first author labeled in the center. The red font indicates a statistically significant difference in DFS between the 2 groups. Blue and yellow circles represent the PC + LM and PC groups, respectively. The size of the circle represents the number of patients in the corresponding group.](/cms/asset/2090c69f-384e-42be-af42-0efbe03a0eae/ihyt_a_1803424_f0003_c.jpg)
Table 2. Clinical outcomes of the selected studies.
Figure 4. Forest plots regarding OS and DFS. The pooled HR for OS was 1.68 (95% CI 1.33–2.13, p < 0.01) and the pooled HR for DFS was 1.82 (95% CI 1.51–2.20, p < 0.01). Both results indicated better survival in the PC group compared with the PC + LM group.
![Figure 4. Forest plots regarding OS and DFS. The pooled HR for OS was 1.68 (95% CI 1.33–2.13, p < 0.01) and the pooled HR for DFS was 1.82 (95% CI 1.51–2.20, p < 0.01). Both results indicated better survival in the PC group compared with the PC + LM group.](/cms/asset/8d6a3592-975c-455d-a1fc-acac069489b4/ihyt_a_1803424_f0004_c.jpg)
Figure 5. Forest plots of recurrence. Pooled RRs concerning overall recurrence, hepatic recurrence, and peritoneal recurrence were 1.22 (95% CI 1.04–1.44, p = 0.02), 2.29 (95% CI 0.98–5.37, p = 0.06), and 0.95 (95% CI 0.60–1.51, p = 0.82), respectively. A fixed-effect model was used to calculate the RR of overall and peritoneal recurrence, whereas a random-effects model was used to calculate the RR of hepatic recurrence. The results of the analysis showed a higher risk of tumor recurrence in the PC + LM group.
![Figure 5. Forest plots of recurrence. Pooled RRs concerning overall recurrence, hepatic recurrence, and peritoneal recurrence were 1.22 (95% CI 1.04–1.44, p = 0.02), 2.29 (95% CI 0.98–5.37, p = 0.06), and 0.95 (95% CI 0.60–1.51, p = 0.82), respectively. A fixed-effect model was used to calculate the RR of overall and peritoneal recurrence, whereas a random-effects model was used to calculate the RR of hepatic recurrence. The results of the analysis showed a higher risk of tumor recurrence in the PC + LM group.](/cms/asset/c1b72d74-323f-49f1-9b55-5332bdd35b75/ihyt_a_1803424_f0005_c.jpg)
Figure 6. A Forest plot of postoperative mortality and major morbidity. The pooled RR of postoperative mortality was 1.76 (95% CI 0.73–4.23, p = 0.21) and the pooled RR of major postoperative morbidity was 1.47 (95% CI 1.19–1.82, p < 0.01). The results indicated a higher morbidity during the early period postoperatively in the PC + LM group, whereas there was no statistically significant difference in mortality between the 2 groups.
![Figure 6. A Forest plot of postoperative mortality and major morbidity. The pooled RR of postoperative mortality was 1.76 (95% CI 0.73–4.23, p = 0.21) and the pooled RR of major postoperative morbidity was 1.47 (95% CI 1.19–1.82, p < 0.01). The results indicated a higher morbidity during the early period postoperatively in the PC + LM group, whereas there was no statistically significant difference in mortality between the 2 groups.](/cms/asset/34f66040-b59d-412e-8700-3caa3a658dac/ihyt_a_1803424_f0006_c.jpg)
Table 3. Results of tests for funnel plot asymmetry.