-
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jun 2024Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an emerging technique for delivering chemotherapy directly to the peritoneum via a pressurized aerosol. Its... (Review)
Review
Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is an emerging technique for delivering chemotherapy directly to the peritoneum via a pressurized aerosol. Its growing attention stems from its effectiveness in treating peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) originating from various primary tumors, with gastric cancer (GC) being among the most prevalent. This study aimed to systematically investigate PIPAC's therapeutic role in gastric cancer peritoneal metastasis (GCPM). The systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, searching Pubmed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases. The meta-analysis of relative risks and mean differences compared patients undergoing one or two PIPAC sessions with those completing three or more, assessing various outcomes. Eighteen studies underwent qualitative analysis, and four underwent quantitative analysis. Patients with three or more PIPAC procedures had shorter hospital stays (MD = -1.2; 95%CI (-1.9; -0.5); < 0.001), higher rates of histopathological response (RR = 1.77, 95%CI 1.08; 2.90; = 0.023), and significantly improved overall survival (MD = 6.0; 95%CI 4.2; 7.8; < 0.001). Other outcomes showed no significant differences. PIPAC demonstrated efficacy in carefully selected patients, enhancing histopathologic response rates and overall survival without prolonging hospital stays. This study underscores the necessity for randomized controlled trials and precise selection criteria to refine PIPAC's implementation in clinical practice.
PubMed: 38893031
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13113320 -
International Journal of Surgery... Dec 2021Omentectomy has been traditionally a part of standard radical gastrectomy. Its clinical benefit for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) remains controversial. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Omentectomy has been traditionally a part of standard radical gastrectomy. Its clinical benefit for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) remains controversial. This study aimed at evaluating the impact of gastrectomy with omentum preservation (GOP) on survival, recurrence, surgical outcomes and postoperative complications by comparing with gastrectomy with omentum resection (GOR).
METHODS
Original studies comparing GOP with GOR in LAGC were searched. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.
RESULTS
Seven studies involving 1879 patients were analyzed. Compared with GOR, GOP achieved significantly better overall survival (HR = 0.75 [0.60, 0.95], P = 0.01), with similar relapse-free survival (HR = 0.84 [0.68, 1.03], P = 0.10). The two groups had similar total recurrence rate (OR = 0.86 [0.68, 1.08], P = 0.19) and no significant differences in rates of peritoneal, hematogenous, locoregional or distant lymph node recurrences. GOP had significantly less blood loss (MD = -83 [-139, -28] ml, P = 0.003) and tended to have shorter operation time (MD = -28 [-58, 2] min, P = 0.06), with similar harvested number of lymph nodes (MD = -0.4 [-2.6, 1.8], P = 0.70). The incidences of total all grade and major complications were similar in GOP and GOR (all grade: 31.8% vs. 30.3%, OR = 1.08 [0.79, 1.46], P = 0.64; major: 9.2% vs. 10.1%, OR = 1.14 [0.55, 2.34], P = 0.73). There were no significant differences in incidences of complication or postoperative mortality.
CONCLUSIONS
Omentum preservation did not affect curability or survival in LAGC. These findings require validation in randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes.
Topics: Gastrectomy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Omentum; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 34763112
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.106176 -
Surgical Endoscopy Sep 2023Despite its extremely low incidence, intra-abdominal herniation through the lesser omentum is associated with a high mortality rate and must be recognized early and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite its extremely low incidence, intra-abdominal herniation through the lesser omentum is associated with a high mortality rate and must be recognized early and treated urgently. To overcome a lack of data on the management of this condition, we collected and reviewed all the reported cases of operated lesser omental hernia and presented the case of a patient treated by laparoscopy for an isolated lesser omental hernia.
METHODS
According to PRISMA guidelines and using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, a systematic literature review of cases of lesser omental hernia treated by surgery was performed on February 12, 2023.
RESULTS
Of 482 articles, 30 were included for analysis and only 9 articles presented an isolated hernia through the lesser omentum. Among these, 4 patients were female and the median age was 38. Upper abdominal pain and vomiting were reported in 7 out of 9 patients. The small bowel was responsible for 78% (7/9) of all lesser omental herniations. All of them were treated by laparotomy. In addition, we describe the case of a 65-year-old woman without prior surgical history who was treated by laparoscopy for a spontaneous closed loop hernia through the lesser omentum without any other associated hernias.
CONCLUSION
Mostly associated with prior surgery or trauma, this type of herniation could sometimes occur spontaneously without any sign of peritonitis. Due to the high mortality rate, internal abdominal hernias should always be ruled out with a CT scan in front of patients presenting with persisting acute abdominal pain and no alternative diagnosis.
Topics: Humans; Female; Adult; Aged; Male; Omentum; Laparoscopy; Liver; Abdominal Pain; Hernia
PubMed: 37479840
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10279-4 -
Pleura and Peritoneum Dec 2022Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) with peritoneal metastasis (PM) is rare and despite treatment with systemic chemotherapy, the prognosis is poor. However, there is... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) with peritoneal metastasis (PM) is rare and despite treatment with systemic chemotherapy, the prognosis is poor. However, there is emerging evidence that cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) may offer a survival benefit over systemic therapy alone. This systematic review will assess the effectiveness of CRS-HIPEC for SBA-PM.
CONTENT
Three databases were searched from inception to 11/10/21. Clinical outcomes were extracted and analysed.
SUMMARY
A total of 164 cases of SBA-PM undergoing CRS-HIPEC were identified in 12 studies. The majority of patients had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (87/164, 53%) and complete cytoreduction (143/164, 87%) prior to HIPEC. The median overall survival was 9-32 months and 5-year survival ranged from 25 to 40%. Clavien-Dindo grade III/IV morbidity ranged between 19.1 and 50%, while overall mortality was low with only 3 treatment-related deaths.
OUTLOOK
CRS-HIPEC has the potential to improve the overall survival in a highly selected group of SBA-PM patients, with 5-year survival rates comparable to those reported in colorectal peritoneal metastases. However, the expected survival benefits need to be balanced against the intrinsic risk of morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure. Further multicentre studies are required to assess the safety and feasibility of CRS-HIPEC in SBA-PM to guide best practice management for this rare disease.
PubMed: 36560970
DOI: 10.1515/pp-2022-0121 -
PloS One 2022Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) before total mesorectal excision (TME) and followed systemic chemotherapy is widely accepted as the standard therapy for locally... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) before total mesorectal excision (TME) and followed systemic chemotherapy is widely accepted as the standard therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). This meta-analysis was to evaluate the current evidence regarding nCRT in combination with induction or consolidation chemotherapy for rectal cancer in terms of oncological outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic search of medical databases (PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) was conducted up to the end of July 1, 2021. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of TNT in terms of pathological complete remission (pCR), nCRT or surgical complications, R0 resection, local recurrence, distant metastasis, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in LARC.
RESULTS
Eight nRCTs and 7 RCTs, including 3579 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The rate of pCR was significantly higher in the TNT group than in the nCRT group, (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.39-2.46, p < 0.0001), DFS (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.92, p = 0.001), OS (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.89, p = 0.002), nCRT complications (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77-1.44, p = 0.75), surgical complications (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83-1.26, p = 0.83), local recurrence (OR 1.82, 95% CI 0.95-3.49, p = 0.07), distant metastasis (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.58-1.03, p = 0.08) did not differ significantly between the TNT and nCRT groups.
CONCLUSION
TNT appears to have advantages over standard therapy for LARC in terms of pCR, R0 resection, DFS, and OS, with comparable nCRT and postoperative complications, and no increase in local recurrence and distant metastasis.
Topics: Humans; Chemoradiotherapy; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Neoplasms, Second Primary; Rectal Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Standard of Care; Proctectomy; Mesentery; Antineoplastic Agents
PubMed: 36331947
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276599 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021There has been extensive debate in the surgical literature regarding the optimum surgical access approach to the infrarenal abdominal aorta during an operation to repair... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There has been extensive debate in the surgical literature regarding the optimum surgical access approach to the infrarenal abdominal aorta during an operation to repair an abdominal aortic aneurysm. The published trials comparing retroperitoneal (RP) and transperitoneal (TP) aortic surgery show conflicting results. This is an update of the review first published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of the retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair on mortality, complications, hospital stay and blood loss.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 30 November 2020. The review authors searched the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and handsearched reference lists of relevant articles to identify additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the RP approach versus the TP approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. There were no restrictions on language or publication status.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. We resolved any disagreements through discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in included trials with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated a pooled estimate of treatment effect by calculating the mean difference (MD) and standard deviation (SD) with corresponding 95% CIs. We pooled data using a fixed-effect model, unless we identified heterogeneity, in which case we used a random-effects model. We used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. We evaluated the outcomes of mortality, complications, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, hospital stay, blood loss, aortic cross-clamp time and operating time.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified no new studies from the updated searches. After reassessment, we included one study which had previously been excluded. Five RCTs with a combined total of 152 participants are included. The overall certainty of the evidence ranged from low to very low because of the low methodological quality of the included trials (unclear random sequence generation method and allocation concealment, and no blinding of outcome assessors), small sample sizes, small number of events, high heterogeneity and inconsistency between the included trials, no power calculations and relatively short follow-up. There was no evidence of a difference between the RP approach and the TP approach regarding mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.25; 3 studies, 110 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there was no evidence of a difference in complications such as hematoma (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.48; 2 studies, 75 participants; very low-certainty evidence), abdominal wall hernia (OR 10.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 211.78; 1 study, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or chronic wound pain (OR 2.20, 95% CI 0.36 to 13.34; 1 study, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence) between the RP and TP approaches in participants undergoing elective open AAA repair. The RP approach may reduce ICU stay (mean difference (MD) -19.02 hours, 95% CI -30.83 to -7.21; 3 studies, 106 participants; low-certainty evidence); hospital stay (MD -3.30 days, 95% CI -4.85 to-1.75; 5 studies, 152 participants; low-certainty evidence); and blood loss (MD -504.87 mL, 95% CI -779.19 to -230.56; 4 studies, 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the RP approach and the TP approach regarding aortic cross-clamp time (MD 0.69 min, 95% CI -7.23 to 8.60; 4 studies, 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or operating time (MD -15.94 min, 95% CI -34.76 to 2.88; 4 studies, 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Very low-certainty evidence from five small RCTs showed no clear evidence of a difference between the RP approach and the TP approach for elective open AAA repair in terms of mortality, or for rates of complications including hematoma (very low-certainty evidence), abdominal wall hernia (very low-certainty evidence), or chronic wound pain (very low-certainty evidence). However, a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay and shorter hospital stay was probably indicated following the RP approach compared to the TP approach (both low-certainty evidence). A possible reduction in blood loss was also shown after the RP approach (very low-certainty evidence). There is no clear difference between the RP approach and TP approach in aortic cross-clamp time or operating time. Further well-designed, large-scale RCTs assessing the RP approach versus TP approach for elective open AAA repair are required.
Topics: Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Bias; Blood Loss, Surgical; Elective Surgical Procedures; Hematoma; Humans; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Pain, Postoperative; Peritoneum; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retroperitoneal Space
PubMed: 34152003
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010373.pub3 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Apr 2024The impact of positive peritoneal cytology has been a matter of controversy in early-stage endometrial cancer for several years. The latest staging systems do not take... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The impact of positive peritoneal cytology has been a matter of controversy in early-stage endometrial cancer for several years. The latest staging systems do not take into consideration its presence; however, emerging evidence about its potential harmful effect on patient survival outcomes suggests otherwise. In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to accumulate current evidence. Medline, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL, Google Scholar and Clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for relevant articles. Effect sizes were calculated in Rstudio using the meta function. A sensitivity analysis was carried out to evaluate the possibility of small-study effects and p-hacking. Trial sequential analysis was used to evaluate the adequacy of the sample size. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Fifteen articles were finally included in the present systematic review that involved 19,255 women with early-stage endometrial cancer. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale indicated that the majority of included studies had a moderate risk of bias in their selection of participants, a moderate risk of bias in terms of the comparability of groups (positive peritoneal cytology vs. negative peritoneal cytology) and a low risk of bias concerning the assessment of the outcome. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that women with early-stage endometrial cancer and positive peritoneal cytology had significantly lower 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) (hazards ratio (HR) 0.26, 95% CI 0.09, 0.71). As a result of the decreased recurrence-free survival, patients with positive peritoneal cytology also exhibited reduced 5-year overall survival outcomes (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27, 0.92). The overall survival of the included patients was considerably higher among those that did not have positive peritoneal cytology (HR 12.76, 95% CI 2.78, 58.51). Positive peritoneal cytology seems to be a negative prognostic indicator of survival outcomes of patients with endometrial cancer. Considering the absence of data related to the molecular profile of patients, further research is needed to evaluate if this factor should be reinstituted in future staging systems.
Topics: Humans; Female; Endometrial Neoplasms; Survival Rate; Neoplasm Staging; Peritoneum; Cytodiagnosis; Cytology
PubMed: 38792916
DOI: 10.3390/medicina60050733 -
Hernia : the Journal of Hernias and... Oct 2023Laparoscopic herniorrhaphy (LH) has become the treatment of choice in many centers for patients with inguinal hernia (IH). Our aim was to compare the morbidity outcomes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Laparoscopic herniorrhaphy (LH) has become the treatment of choice in many centers for patients with inguinal hernia (IH). Our aim was to compare the morbidity outcomes of bilateral vs unilateral IH repair using the laparoscopic total extra-peritoneal (TEP) technique, to determine whether undertaking bilateral IH repair places patients at additional risk.
METHODS
Manuscripts published up to the end of 2021 on PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Patients (> 16 years) undergoing a primary elective unilateral or bilateral TEP operation, using the standard 3-port laparoscopic technique, were identified. Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria. Meta-analysis was conducted where possible. Where this was not possible, vote counting was conducted using effect direction plots.
RESULTS
Eight observational studies, with a total of 18,153 patients were included. Operative time was significantly longer for bilateral operations. There was no significant difference in conversion to open, post-operative seroma, urinary retention, haematoma, and length of hospital stay. There was an increased rate of hernia recurrence in patients undergoing bilateral IH repair.
CONCLUSION
Although limited by the observational nature of the included studies, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest a differential burden of morbidity between unilateral and bilateral TEP IH repair. As all included papers are from observational studies only, evidence from all outcomes is at best very low quality. This manuscript thereby highlights a need for randomized controlled trials to be conducted in this area.
Topics: Humans; Hernia, Inguinal; Herniorrhaphy; Peritoneum; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37010657
DOI: 10.1007/s10029-023-02785-0 -
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 2022Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) is a rare form of histiocytosis. An increasing number of genetic mutations have been associated with this syndrome, confirming its possible...
BACKGROUND
Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) is a rare form of histiocytosis. An increasing number of genetic mutations have been associated with this syndrome, confirming its possible neoplastic origin. Recently, a connection between the BRAF mutational status and a specific phenotype was described; however, no studies have yet evaluated the correlations between other mutations and the clinical features of the disease.
OBJECTIVES
This study aims to clarify the association between the clinical phenotype and genetic mutations identified in the neoplastic cell lines of ECD.
METHODS
We describe a case of ECD characterized by pericardial involvement and a KRAS mutation shared with chronic myelomonocytic leukemia. Hence, through a meta-analysis of individual participant data of all genetically and clinically described cases of ECD in the literature, we aimed to elucidate the association between its clinical phenotype and baseline genetic mutations.
RESULTS
Of the 760 studies screened, our review included 133 articles published from 2012 to April 2021. We identified 311 ECD patients whose genotype and phenotype were described. We found five main genes (BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, PIK3CA, and MAP2K1) whose mutation was reported at least three times. Mutation of BRAF led to a neurological disease (183 of 273 patients, 67%; < 0.001); KRAS- and NRAS-mutated patients mainly showed cutaneous (five of six patients, 83.3%, < 0.004) and pleural (four of nine patients, 44%, = 0.002) involvement, respectively; PIK3CA was not associated with specific organ involvement; and MAP2K1 mutations caused the disease to primarily involve the peritoneum and retroperitoneum (4 of 11, 36.4%, = 0.01).
CONCLUSION
This work implies a possible influence of baseline mutation over the natural history of ECD, underscoring the importance of a thorough genetic analysis in all cases with the ultimate goal of identifying a possible targeted therapy for each patient.
PubMed: 36035941
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.876294 -
BMC Cancer Feb 2020Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is used in the palliative treatment of peritoneal metastasis. The combination of intraperitoneal and systemic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is used in the palliative treatment of peritoneal metastasis. The combination of intraperitoneal and systemic chemotherapy seems rational, and the aim of this systematic review was to compare PIPAC directed monotherapy with a bidirectional treatment approach (PIPAC in combination with systemic chemotherapy). Main outcomes were survival and quality of life.
METHODS
A systematic literature search in Medline, Embase, Cochrane and the "Pleura and Peritoneum" was conducted and analyzed according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies in English reporting on bidirectional treatment with PIPAC and systemic chemotherapy and published before April 2019 were included.
RESULTS
Twelve studies with a total of 386 patients were included. None were specifically designed to compare mono- versus bidirectional treatment, but 44% of the patients received bidirectional treatment. This was more frequent in women (non-gynecological cancers) and one-third of the bidirectional treated patients had received no prior chemotherapy. Data from the included studies provided no conclusions regarding survival or quality of life.
CONCLUSION
Bidirectional treatment with PIPAC and systemic chemotherapy is practised and feasible, and some patients are enrolled having received no prior systemic chemotherapy for their PM. The difficulty in drawing any conclusions based on this systematic review has highlighted the urgent need to improve and standardize reports on PIPAC directed therapy. We have, therefore, constructed a list of items to be considered when reporting on clinical PIPAC research.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO. Registration number: 90352, March 5, 2018.
Topics: Aerosols; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Infusions, Parenteral; Peritoneal Neoplasms; Prognosis; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32041558
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-6572-6