Objective Clinical practice guidelines recommend retrieving at least 12 lymph nodes for correct staging in colorectal cancer. However, it is difficult to retrieve adequate lymph nodes because of various factors. We aimed to evaluate the association between the number of retrieved lymph nodes and demographic/tumour-related characteristics in colorectal cancer.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of primary studies.Data sources PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science were searched from January 2016 to June 2023.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies that evaluated the association between retrieved lymph nodes and demographic/tumour-related characteristics in colorectal cancer were included.Data extraction and synthesis OR with 95% conference intervals was extracted and pooled.Results A total of 54 studies containing 2 05 821 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that fewer nodes were retrieved from elderly patients (OR=0.70, 95% CI (0.54 to 0.90), p=0.005), and from tumours located in the left colon than in the right colon (OR=0.43, 95% CI (0.33 to 0.56), p<0.001). More lymph nodes were obtained from females than males (OR=1.15, 95% CI (1.04 to 1.28), p=0.006), from the advanced T stage (T3+T4) than T1+T2 stage (OR=1.57, 95% CI (1.25 to 1.97), p<0.001) and from the N2 stage than N0 stage (OR=1.32, 95% CI (1.15 to 1.51), p<0.001). Body mass index, ethnicity, N1 stage, M stage, tumour differentiation and lymph-vascular invasion were not significantly associated with the lymph node yield.Conclusions The study results suggest that clinicians have an increased opportunity to retrieve sufficient lymph nodes for accurate pathological staging to guide treatment decisions in patients with colorectal cancer who are young, female, with tumours located in the right colon, advanced T stage and N2 stage.

Background & Carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) are promising methods for prostate cancer, however, the consensus of an increasing number of studies has not been reached. We aimed to provide systematic evidence for evaluating the efficacy and safety of CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer by comparing photon radiotherapy. Materials and Methods: We searched for studies focusing on CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer in four online databases until July 2021. Two independent reviewers assessed the quality of included studies and used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of evidence. R 4.0.2 software was used to conduct the meta-analysis. A meta-regression test was performed based on the study design and tumor stage of each study. Results: A total of 33 studies including 13 CIRT- and 20 PBT-related publications, involving 54,101, participants were included. The quality of the included studies was found to be either low or moderate quality. Random model single-arm meta-analysis showed that both the CIRT and PBT have favorable efficacy and safety, with similar 5-year overall survival (OS) (94 vs 92%), the incidence of grade 2 or greater acute genitourinary (AGU) toxicity (5 vs 13%), late genitourinary (LGU) toxicity (4 vs 5%), acute gastrointestinal (AGI) toxicity (1 vs 1%), and late gastrointestinal (LGI) toxicity (2 vs 4%). However, compared with CIRT and PBT, photon radiotherapy was associated with lower 5-year OS (72-73%) and a higher incidence of grade 2 or greater AGU (28-29%), LGU (13-14%), AGI (14-19%), and LGI toxicity (8-10%). The meta-analysis showed the 3-, 4-, and 5-year local control rate (LCR) of CIRT for prostate cancer was 98, 97, and 99%; the 3-, 4-, 5-, and 8-year biochemical relapse-free rate (BRF) was 92, 91, 89, and 79%. GRADE assessment results indicated that the certainty of the evidence was very low. Meta-regression results did not show a significant relationship based on the variables studied (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Currently available evidence demonstrated that the efficacy and safety of CIRT and PBT for prostate cancer were similar, and they may significantly improve the OS, LCR, and reduce the incidence of GU and GI toxicity compared with photon radiotherapy. However, the quantity and quality of the available evidence are insufficient. More high-quality controlled studies are needed in the future.