-
JAMA Dermatology Apr 2016To date, the magnitude of association and the quality of evidence for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) and risk factors for outcomes have not been reviewed and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
To date, the magnitude of association and the quality of evidence for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) and risk factors for outcomes have not been reviewed and analyzed systematically.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically analyze all published data on risk factors for recurrence, metastasis, and disease-specific death (DSD) of cSCC.
DATA SOURCES
Comprehensive search of Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus, from each database's inception to May 14, 2015.
STUDY SELECTION
Inclusion criteria were studies of at least 10 patients, comparative data for at least 1 cSCC risk factor, and an outcome of interest. Exclusion criteria were noncutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), anogenital SCC, inability to extract cSCC data from other malignancy data, SCC in situ, Marjolin ulcer, and genetic disorders predisposing to cSCC.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently abstracted the data. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
A priori outcomes were recurrence, metastasis, and DSD.
RESULTS
Thirty-six studies (17 248 patients with 23 421 cSCCs) were included. Significant risk factors for recurrence were the following: Breslow thickness exceeding 2 mm (risk ratio [RR], 9.64; 95% CI, 1.30-71.52), invasion beyond subcutaneous fat (RR, 7.61; 95% CI, 4.17-13.88), Breslow thickness exceeding 6 mm (RR, 7.13; 95% CI, 3.04-16.72), perineural invasion (RR, 4.30; 95% CI, 2.80-6.60), diameter exceeding 20 mm (RR, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.91-5.45), location on the temple (RR, 3.20; 95% CI, 1.12-9.15), and poor differentiation (RR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.72-4.14). Significant risk factors for metastasis were: invasion beyond subcutaneous fat (RR, 11.21; 95% CI, 3.59-34.97), Breslow thickness exceeding 2 mm (RR, 10.76; 95% CI, 2.55-45.31), Breslow thickness exceeding 6 mm (RR, 6.93; 95% CI, 4.02-11.94), diameter exceeding 20 mm (RR, 6.15; 95% CI, 3.56-10.65), poor differentiation (RR, 4.98; 95% CI, 3.30-7.49), perineural invasion (RR, 2.95; 95% CI, 2.31-3.75), immunosuppression (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.07-2.37), and location on the temple (RR, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.72-4.63), ear (RR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.67-3.23), or lip (RR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.54-3.37). Significant risk factors for DSD were: diameter exceeding 20 mm (RR, 19.10; 95% CI, 5.80-62.95), poor differentiation (RR, 5.65; 95% CI, 1.76-18.20), location on the ear (RR, 4.67; 95% CI, 1.28-17.12) or lip (RR, 4.55; 95% CI, 1.41-14.69), invasion beyond subcutaneous fat (RR, 4.49; 95% CI, 2.05-9.82), and perineural invasion (RR, 4.06; 95% CI, 3.10-5.32). Evidence quality was considered low to moderate.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Tumor depth is associated with the highest RR of local recurrence and metastasis of cSCC, and tumor diameter exceeding 20 mm is associated with the highest RR of DSD. Unified, consistent collection and reporting of risk factors in a prospective, multicentered effort are needed to further understand the increasing incidence of cSCC.
Topics: Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Humans; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Neoplasm Metastasis; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Risk Factors; Skin Neoplasms
PubMed: 26762219
DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.4994 -
Radiotherapy and Oncology : Journal of... Jul 2020Recognizing the rapidly increasing interest and evidence in using metastasis-directed radiotherapy (MDRT) for oligometastatic disease (OMD), ESTRO and ASTRO convened a...
BACKGROUND
Recognizing the rapidly increasing interest and evidence in using metastasis-directed radiotherapy (MDRT) for oligometastatic disease (OMD), ESTRO and ASTRO convened a committee to establish consensus regarding definitions of OMD and define gaps in current evidence.
METHODS
A systematic literature review focused on curative intent MDRT was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane. Subsequent consensus opinion, using a Delphi process, highlighted the current state of evidence and the limitations in the available literature.
RESULTS
Available evidence regarding the use of MDRT for OMD mostly derives from retrospective, single-centre series, with significant heterogeneity in patient inclusion criteria, definition of OMD, and outcomes reported. Consensus was reached that OMD is largely independent of primary tumour, metastatic location and the presence or length of a disease-free interval, supporting both synchronous and metachronous OMD. In the absence of clinical data supporting a maximum number of metastases and organs to define OMD, and of validated molecular biomarkers, consensus supported the ability to deliver safe and clinically meaningful radiotherapy with curative intent to all metastatic sites as a minimum requirement for defining OMD in the context of radiotherapy. Systemic therapy induced OMD was identified as a distinct state of OMD. High-resolution imaging to assess and confirm OMD is crucial, including brain imaging when indicated. Minimum common endpoints such as progression-free and overall survival, local control, toxicity and quality-of-life should be reported; uncommon endpoints as deferral of systemic therapy and cost were endorsed.
CONCLUSION
While significant heterogeneity exists in the current OMD definitions in the literature, consensus was reached on multiple key questions. Based on available data, OMD can to date be defined as 1-5 metastatic lesions, a controlled primary tumor being optional, but where all metastatic sites must be safely treatable. Consistent definitions and reporting are warranted and encouraged in ongoing trials and reports generating further evidence to optimize patient benefits.
Topics: Consensus; Diagnostic Imaging; Humans; Neoplasm Metastasis; Neoplasms; Radiation Oncology; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 32388150
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.04.003 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Metastatic breast cancer is not a curable disease, but women with metastatic disease are living longer. Surgery to remove the primary tumour is associated with an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Metastatic breast cancer is not a curable disease, but women with metastatic disease are living longer. Surgery to remove the primary tumour is associated with an increased survival in other types of metastatic cancer. Breast surgery is not standard treatment for metastatic disease, however several recent retrospective studies have suggested that breast surgery could increase the women's survival. These studies have methodological limitations including selection bias. A systematic review mapping all randomised controlled trials addressing the benefits and potential harms of breast surgery is ideal to answer this question.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of breast surgery in women with metastatic breast cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted searches using the MeSH terms 'breast neoplasms', 'mastectomy', and 'analysis, survival' in the following databases: the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (by PubMed) and Embase (by OvidSP) on 22 February 2016. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov (22 February 2016) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (24 February 2016). We conducted an additional search in the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) conference proceedings in July 2016 that included reference checking, citation searching, and contacting study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials of women with metastatic breast cancer at initial diagnosis comparing breast surgery plus systemic therapy versus systemic therapy alone. The primary outcomes were overall survival and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (local and distant control), breast cancer-specific survival, and toxicity from local therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently conducted trial selection, data extraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessment (using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool), which a third review author checked. We used the GRADE tool to assess the quality of the body of evidence. We used the risk ratio (RR) to measure the effect of treatment for dichotomous outcomes and the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes. We calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI) for these measures. We used the random-effects model, as we expected clinical or methodological heterogeneity, or both, among the included studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two trials enrolling 624 women in the review. It is uncertain whether breast surgery improves overall survival as the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.31; 2 studies; 624 women). The two studies did not report quality of life. Breast surgery may improve local progression-free survival (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.57; 2 studies; 607 women; low-quality evidence), while it probably worsened distant progression-free survival (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.86; 1 study; 350 women; moderate-quality evidence). The two included studies did not measure breast cancer-specific survival. Toxicity from local therapy was reported by 30-day mortality and did not appear to differ between the two groups (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.14 to 6.90; 1 study; 274 women; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on existing evidence from two randomised clinical trials, it is not possible to make definitive conclusions on the benefits and risks of breast surgery associated with systemic treatment for women diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. Until the ongoing clinical trials are finalised, the decision to perform breast surgery in these women should be individualised and shared between the physician and the patient considering the potential risks, benefits, and costs of each intervention.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Combined Modality Therapy; Female; Humans; Mastectomy; Neoplasm Metastasis; Prognosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29542106
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011276.pub2 -
BMC Medicine Jun 2020There is a clear need for systematic appraisal of models/factors predicting colorectal cancer (CRC) metastasis and recurrence because clinical decisions about adjuvant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Risk factors and risk prediction models for colorectal cancer metastasis and recurrence: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies.
BACKGROUND
There is a clear need for systematic appraisal of models/factors predicting colorectal cancer (CRC) metastasis and recurrence because clinical decisions about adjuvant treatment are taken on the basis of such variables.
METHODS
We conducted an umbrella review of all systematic reviews of observational studies (with/without meta-analysis) that evaluated risk factors of CRC metastasis and recurrence. We also generated an updated synthesis of risk prediction models for CRC metastasis and recurrence. We cross-assessed individual risk factors and risk prediction models.
RESULTS
Thirty-four risk factors for CRC metastasis and 17 for recurrence were investigated. Twelve of 34 and 4/17 risk factors with p < 0.05 were estimated to change the odds of the outcome at least 3-fold. Only one risk factor (vascular invasion for lymph node metastasis [LNM] in pT1 CRC) presented convincing evidence. We identified 24 CRC risk prediction models. Across 12 metastasis models, six out of 27 unique predictors were assessed in the umbrella review and four of them changed the odds of the outcome at least 3-fold. Across 12 recurrence models, five out of 25 unique predictors were assessed in the umbrella review and only one changed the odds of the outcome at least 3-fold.
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides an in-depth evaluation and cross-assessment of 51 risk factors and 24 prediction models. Our findings suggest that a minority of influential risk factors are employed in prediction models, which indicates the need for a more rigorous and systematic model construction process following evidence-based methods.
Topics: Colorectal Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Male; Neoplasm Metastasis; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Prognosis; Risk Factors
PubMed: 32586325
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-020-01618-6 -
Radiology Jun 2020Axillary lymph node (LN) metastasis is the most important predictor of overall recurrence and survival in patients with breast cancer, and accurate assessment of...
Axillary lymph node (LN) metastasis is the most important predictor of overall recurrence and survival in patients with breast cancer, and accurate assessment of axillary LN involvement is an essential component in staging breast cancer. Axillary management in patients with breast cancer has become much less invasive and individualized with the introduction of sentinel LN biopsy (SLNB). Emerging evidence indicates that axillary LN dissection may be avoided in selected patients with node-positive as well as node-negative cancer. Thus, assessment of nodal disease burden to guide multidisciplinary treatment decision making is now considered to be a critical role of axillary imaging and can be achieved with axillary US, MRI, and US-guided biopsy. For the node-positive patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, restaging of the axilla with US and MRI and targeted axillary dissection in addition to SLNB is highly recommended to minimize the false-negative rate of SLNB. Efforts continue to develop prediction models that incorporate imaging features to predict nodal disease burden and to select proper candidates for SLNB. As methods of axillary nodal evaluation evolve, breast radiologists and surgeons must work closely to maximize the potential role of imaging and to provide the most optimized treatment for patients.
Topics: Axilla; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Image-Guided Biopsy; Interdisciplinary Communication; Intersectoral Collaboration; Lymph Nodes; Lymphatic Metastasis; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Prognosis; Sentinel Lymph Node
PubMed: 32315268
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2020192534 -
European Urology Feb 2021To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy &...
OBJECTIVE
To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
The working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2016-2019). The guidelines were updated, and the levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added based on a systematic review of the literature.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography scanning has developed an increasingly important role in men with biochemical recurrence after local therapy. Early salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy appears as effective as adjuvant radiotherapy and, in a subset of patients, should be combined with androgen deprivation. New treatments have become available for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (PCa), nonmetastatic CRPC, and metastatic CRPC, along with a role for local radiotherapy in men with low-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa. Also included is information on quality of life outcomes in men with PCa.
CONCLUSIONS
The knowledge in the field of advanced and metastatic PCa and CRPC is changing rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines are first endorsed by the EANM and reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. A full version is available from the EAU office or online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/).
PATIENT SUMMARY
This article summarises the guidelines for the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. These guidelines are evidence based and guide the clinician in the discussion with the patient on the treatment decisions to be taken. These guidelines are updated every year; this summary spans the 2017-2020 period of new evidence.
Topics: Humans; Male; Neoplasm Metastasis; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 33039206
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.046 -
Nutricion Hospitalaria Oct 2023Objective: to explore the association between serum vitamin D level and the occurrence and pathological grade of gastric cancer. Material a nd methods: search PubMed,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Objective: to explore the association between serum vitamin D level and the occurrence and pathological grade of gastric cancer. Material a nd methods: search PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane and Chinese database; all articles about the association between serum vitamin D levels and gastric cancer published before July 2021. Results: 10 trials with 1159 cases of gastric cancer patients and 33,387 cases of regular control patients were analyzed. The serum vitamin D level of the gastric cancer group (15.56 ± 7.46 ng/ml) was lower than in the control group (17.60 ± 1.61 ng/ml), and the difference was statistically significant. The patients with gastric cancer, clinical stage III/IV (16.19 ± 8.04 ng/ml) had lower vitamin D levels than those with stage I/II (19.61 ± 9.61 ng/ml), and the patients with low differentiation of gastric cancer (17.5 ± 9.5 ng/ml) had lower levels than those with well- or moderately-differentiated cancer (18.04 ± 7.92 ng/ml). The patients with lymph node metastasis (19.41 ± 8.63 ng/ml) had lower vitamin D levels than the patients without lymph node metastasis (20.65 ± 7.96 ng/ml), and the difference was statistically significant. Conclusion: vitamin D levels were negatively associated with gastric cancer. Vitamin D levels were significantly associated with different clinical stages, degrees of differentiation, and lymph node metastasis, suggesting that low vitamin D levels might predict poor prognosis in gastric cancer.
Topics: Humans; Vitamin D; Lymphatic Metastasis; Stomach Neoplasms; Neoplasm Staging; Vitamins
PubMed: 37334809
DOI: 10.20960/nh.04410 -
Cell Proliferation Oct 2023The liver is a common secondary metastasis site of many malignant tumours, such as the colorectum, pancreas, stomach, breast, prostate, and lung cancer. The clinical... (Review)
Review
The liver is a common secondary metastasis site of many malignant tumours, such as the colorectum, pancreas, stomach, breast, prostate, and lung cancer. The clinical management of liver metastases is challenging because of their strong heterogeneity, rapid progression, and poor prognosis. Now, exosomes, small membrane vesicles that are 40-160 nm in size, are released by tumour cells, namely, tumour-derived exosomes (TDEs), and are being increasingly studied because they can retain the original characteristics of tumour cells. Cell-cell communication via TDEs is pivotal for liver pre-metastatic niche (PMN) formation and liver metastasis; thus, TDEs can provide a theoretical basis to intensively study the potential mechanisms of liver metastasis and new insights into the diagnosis and treatment of liver metastasis. Here, we systematically review current research progress about the roles and possible regulatory mechanisms of TDE cargos in liver metastasis, focusing on the functions of TDEs in liver PMN formation. In addition, we discuss the clinical utility of TDEs in liver metastasis, including TDEs as potential biomarkers, and therapeutic approaches for future research reference in this field.
Topics: Humans; Exosomes; Liver Neoplasms; Cell Communication; Pancreas; Biomarkers, Tumor; Tumor Microenvironment; Neoplasm Metastasis
PubMed: 36941028
DOI: 10.1111/cpr.13452 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Dec 2021To investigate the incidence of ovarian metastasis in endometrial carcinoma (EC) and analyze its risk factors and provide a theoretical basis for whether retention of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the incidence of ovarian metastasis in endometrial carcinoma (EC) and analyze its risk factors and provide a theoretical basis for whether retention of the ovary in patients with EC.
METHODS
A systematic search using synonyms of 'ovarian cancer' and 'metastasis' was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane database, Embase, Google Scholar, and WOS database. Meta-analysis was performed on 7 included studies, comprising 4281 clinical-stage I-IV EC patients. Studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) criteria. Odds risks (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using an inverse variance weighted random-effects model.
RESULTS
The ovarian metastasis risk of EC was significantly higher for patients with myometrial invasion >1/2 (OR = 18.19, 95% CI 5.34 to 61.96 compared to myometrial invasion ≤1/2), any pelvic lymph node invasion (PLNI) (OR = 5.41, 95% CI 2.60-10.97 compared to without PLNI), G3 pathological grade (OR = 2.66, 95%CI 1.35-5.24 compared to G1-G2), non-endometrioid pathological type (OR = 6.46, 95% CI 3.25 to 12.83 compared to endometrioid), lymphatic vascular space invasion (LVSI) (OR = 6.46, 95% CI 3.25 to 12.83 compare to without LVSI), age >45 (OR = 2.01, 95% CI 0.29 to 14.11 compared to age ≤45), and cervical invasion (OR = 4.12, 95% CI 1.87 to 9.08 compared to without cervical invasion).
CONCLUSION
About 4.95% of EC patients develop ovarian metastasis. Age >45, myometrial invasion >1/2, cervical invasion, PLNI, pathological type, G3 pathological grade, and LVSI were the high-risk factors for ovarian metastasis of EC. Ovarian preservation should be carefully selected for patients with EC, and preoperative and intraoperative evaluations should be entirely performed.
Topics: Endometrial Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Lymph Nodes; Lymphatic Metastasis; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Neoplasm Staging; Ovarian Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34837854
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.11.016 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jul 2015Pleomorphic adenoma (PA) is the commonest benign neoplasm of salivary glands.(1) PA can undergo malignant transformation to ex-pleomorphic adenoma (2,3) but rarely, can... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pleomorphic adenoma (PA) is the commonest benign neoplasm of salivary glands.(1) PA can undergo malignant transformation to ex-pleomorphic adenoma (2,3) but rarely, can metastasise without malignant transformation.(4,5) Metastasising pleomorphic adenoma (MPA) is a rare malignant tumour which, histologically, is indistinguishable from PA yet produces secondary tumours in distant sites.(6,7,8) OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to review the literature for all reported cases of MPA and create a virtual series. The age and location of primary tumour with the location and time to metastasise will be reviewed. The prognosis and treatment options will be explored.
METHOD
We conducted a PUBMED search with a combination of keywords: metastasizing/metastasising AND pleomorphic adenoma OR mixed tumour. An author's own case has also been included.
RESULTS
Between 1942 and 2014 there were 80 case reports included in the review, plus the authors own case. Mean age at diagnosis of MPA was 49.5 years (range 11-83). Male-to-female ratio was 34:46. The mean time between PA and MPA was 14.9 years (range 0-51), with three cases reporting simultaneous presentation. 72.8% (n = 59) of cases reported PA local recurrence prior to MPA. The three most common sites for MPA were: bone 36.6% (n = 28), lung 33.8% (n = 26) and neck lymph nodes 20.1% (n = 17). Survival was poorly reported, but 41 (80.4%) were alive at 1-year.
CONCLUSION
Benign MPA is rare. Metastasis occurs years after the initial PA and is associated with multiple local recurrences. Histologically, MPA retain their benign nature yet demonstrate malignant behaviour.
Topics: Adenoma, Pleomorphic; Humans; Neoplasm Metastasis; Prognosis; Salivary Gland Neoplasms
PubMed: 25958295
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.04.084