-
European Urology Oncology Apr 2021Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) yields the most accurate staging in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa), although it can be... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Impact of Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection and Its Extent on Perioperative Morbidity in Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
CONTEXT
Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) yields the most accurate staging in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa), although it can be associated with morbidity.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically evaluate the impact of PLND extent on perioperative morbidity in patients undergoing RP. A new PLND-related complication assessment tool is proposed.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) was conducted. MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science databases were searched to yield studies discussing perioperative complications following RP and PLND. The extent of PLND was classified according to the European Association of Urology PCa guidelines. Studies were categorized according to the extent of PLND. Intra- and postoperative complications were classified as "strongly," "likely," or "unlikely" related to PLND. Anatomical site of perioperative complications was recorded. A cumulative meta-analysis of comparative studies was conducted using Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Our search generated 3645 papers, with 176 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Details of 77 303 patients were analyzed. Of these studies, 84 (47.7%), combining data on 28 428 patients, described intraoperative complications as an outcome of interest. Overall, 534 (1.8%) patients reported one or more intraoperative complications. Postoperative complications were reported in 151 (85.7%) studies, combining data on 73 629 patients. Overall, 10 401 (14.1%) patients reported one or more postoperative complication. The most reported postoperative complication strongly related to PLND was lymphocele (90.6%). The pooled meta-analysis revealed that RP + limited PLND/standard PLND had a significantly decreased risk of experiencing any intraoperative complication (risk ratio [RR]: 0.55; p = 0.01) and postoperative complication strongly related to PLND (RR: 0.46; p = <0.00001), particularly for lymphocele formation (RR: 0.52; p = 0.0003) and thromboembolic events (RR: 0.59; p = 0.008), when compared with extended/superextended PLND. The extent of PLND was confirmed to be an independent predictor of lymphocele formation (RR: 1.77; p < 0.00001).
CONCLUSIONS
The perioperative morbidity of PLND in patients undergoing RP and PLND for PCa significantly correlates with the extent of PLND. More standardized reporting of intra- and postoperative complications is needed to better estimate the direct impact of PLND extent on perioperative morbidity.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is the most accurate method for staging in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, although it can be associated with complications. This study aims to systematically evaluate the impact of PLND extent on perioperative complications in these patients. We found that intra- and postoperative complications correlate significantly with the extent of PLND. A more rigorous assessment and thorough reporting of perioperative complications are recommended.
Topics: Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Lymphocele; Male; Morbidity; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 33745687
DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.02.001 -
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical... Feb 2014Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) has been performed during radical prostatectomy in nearly all patients with clinically localized prostatic carcinoma (PCa), while the... (Review)
Review
A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies on the efficacy of extended pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with clinically localized prostatic carcinoma.
PURPOSE
Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) has been performed during radical prostatectomy in nearly all patients with clinically localized prostatic carcinoma (PCa), while the specific regions that needed to be removed demonstrated bifurcation among urologist. However, clinical studies comparing extended PLND (ePLND) with standard PLND (sPLND) and limited PLND (lPLND) reveal conflicting, or even opposing results.
METHODS
All controlled trials comparing ePLND with sPLND or lPLND were identified through comprehensive searches of the PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase databases. A systematic review and meta-analysis of these studies were then performed.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies with a total of 8,914 patients were included. Regardless of being compared with sPLND or lPLND, ePLND significantly improved LN retrieval [ePLND vs. sPLND: weighted mean difference (WMD) 11.93, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 9.91-13.95, p < 0.00001; ePLND vs. lPLND: WMD 8.27, 95 % CI 3.53-13.01, p = 0.0006] and the detection of more LNs positive of metastasis [risk ratio (RR) 3.51, 95 % CI 2.14-5.75, p < 0.00001; RR 3.50, 95 % CI 2.20-5.55, p < 0.00001, respectively]. EPLND decreased the complication rate, but the differences were not statistically significant (RR 1.52, 95 % CI 0.87-2.65, p = 0.14; RR 1.52, 95 % CI 0.67-3.45, p = 0.32, respectively). Operating time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay and biochemical recurrence (BCR) were statistically insignificant between techniques.
CONCLUSIONS
ePLND shows benefits associated with increased LNs yield, LNs positivity, and safety, significantly with no risk of side effects. However, ePLND did not decrease BCR. Additional high-quality, well-designed randomized controlled trials and comparative studies with long-term follow-up results are required to define the optimal procedure for patients with clinically localized PCa.
Topics: Humans; Lymph Nodes; Male; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Pelvic Neoplasms; Prognosis; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 24369378
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-013-1574-2 -
BMC Public Health Jun 2023Association of cigarette smoking habits with the risk of prostate cancer is still a matter of debate. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Association of cigarette smoking habits with the risk of prostate cancer is still a matter of debate. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the association between cigarette smoking and prostate cancer risk.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science without language or time restrictions on June 11, 2022. Literature search and study screening were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Prospective cohort studies that assessed the association between cigarette smoking habits and the risk of prostate cancer were included. Quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We used random-effects models to obtain pooled estimates and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
A total of 7296 publications were screened, of which 44 cohort studies were identified for qualitative analysis; 39 articles comprising 3 296 398 participants and 130 924 cases were selected for further meta-analysis. Current smoking had a significantly reduced risk of prostate cancer (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.68-0.80; P < 0.001), especially in studies completed in the prostate-specific antigen screening era. Compared to former smokers, current smokers had a significant lower risk of PCa (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.65-0.75; P < 0.001). Ever smoking showed no association with prostate cancer risk in overall analyses (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-1.00; P = 0.074), but an increased risk of prostate cancer in the pre-prostate-specific antigen screening era (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00-1.10; P = 0.046) and a lower risk of prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen screening era (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99; P = 0.011) were observed. Former smoking did not show any association with the risk of prostate cancer.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings suggest that the lower risk of prostate cancer in smokers can probably be attributed to their poor adherence to cancer screening and the occurrence of deadly smoking-related diseases, and we should take measures to help smokers to be more compliant with early cancer screening and to quit smoking.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022326464).
Topics: Male; Humans; Cigarette Smoking; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prospective Studies; Smoking; Prostatic Neoplasms; Habits
PubMed: 37316851
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-16085-w -
European Urology Focus Jan 2024Symptomatic lymphocele (sLC) occurs at a frequency of 2-10% after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND). Construction of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Impact of Peritoneal Interposition Flap on Patients Undergoing Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
CONTEXT
Symptomatic lymphocele (sLC) occurs at a frequency of 2-10% after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND). Construction of bilateral peritoneal interposition flaps (PIFs) subsequent to completion of RARP + PLND has been introduced to reduce the risk of lymphocele, and was initially evaluated on the basis of retrospective studies.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of PIF on the rate of sLC (primary endpoint) and of overall lymphocele (oLC) and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (secondary endpoints) to provide the best available evidence.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Meta-Analyses statement for observational studies in epidemiology, a systematic literature search using the MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and EMBASE databases up to February 3, 2023 was performed to identify RCTs. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the revised Cochrane RoB tool for randomized trials. Meta-analysis used random-effect models to examine the impact of PIF on the primary and secondary endpoints.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Four RCTs comparing outcomes for patients undergoing RARP + PLND with or without PIF were identified: PIANOFORTE, PerFix, ProLy, and PLUS. PIF was associated with odds ratios of 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-0.93) for sLC, 0.51 (95% CI 0.38-0.68) for oLC, and 0.41 (95% CI 0.21-0.83) for Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications. Functional impairment resulting from PIF construction was not observed. Heterogeneity was low to moderate, and RoB was low.
CONCLUSIONS
PIF should be performed in patients undergoing RARP and simultaneous PLND to prevent or reduce postoperative sLC.
PATIENT SUMMARY
A significant proportion of patients undergoing prostate cancer surgery have regional lymph nodes removed. This part of the surgery is associated with a risk of postoperative lymph collections (lymphocele). The risk of lymphocele can be halved via a complication-free surgical modification called a peritoneal interposition flap.
Topics: Male; Humans; Robotics; Lymphocele; Prostatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Lymph Node Excision; Prostatectomy
PubMed: 37541915
DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2023.07.007 -
International Journal of Radiation... Mar 2024This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the evidence for ultrahypofractionated pelvic nodal irradiation in patients with prostate cancer, with a focus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the evidence for ultrahypofractionated pelvic nodal irradiation in patients with prostate cancer, with a focus on reported acute and late toxicities.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
A comprehensive search was conducted in 5 electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov) from inception until March 23, 2023. Eligible publications included patients with intermediate- and high-risk and node-positive prostate cancer who underwent elective or therapeutic ultrahypofractionated pelvic nodal irradiation. Primary outcomes included the presence of grade ≥2 rates of acute and late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events or Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scales. Quality assessment was performed using National Institutes of Health tools for noncontrolled beforeand after (single arm) clinical trials, as well as single-arm observational studies. Because all outcomes were categorical variables, proportion was calculated to estimate the effect size and compare the outcomes after the intervention.
RESULTS
We identified 16 publications that reported the use of ultrahypofractionated radiation therapy to treat the pelvis in prostate cancer. Seven publications met our criteria and were included in the meta-analysis, including 417 patients. The median total dose to the pelvic lymph nodes was 25 Gy (range, 25-28.5 Gy), with a median of 5 fractions. The prostate received a median dose of 40 Gy (range, 35-47.5 Gy). All studies used androgen deprivation therapy for a median duration of 18 months. The median follow-up period was 3 years (range, 0.5-5.6 years). The rates of acute grade ≥2 gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity were 8% (95% CI, 1%-15%) and 29% (95% CI, 18%-41%), respectively. For late grade ≥2 gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity, the rates were 13% (95% CI, 5%-21%) and 29% (95% CI, 17%-42%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Ultrahypofractionated pelvic nodal irradiation appears to be a safe approach in terms of acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostatic Neoplasms; Androgen Antagonists; Dose Fractionation, Radiation; Pelvis; Urogenital System; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
PubMed: 37863241
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.09.053 -
Oncotarget Feb 2017This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of different imaging techniques and the corresponding diagnostic criteria for preoperative detection of pelvic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of different imaging techniques and the corresponding diagnostic criteria for preoperative detection of pelvic lymph node metastasis from gynecological carcinomas.
METHODS
Six databases were systematically searched for retrieving eligible studies. Study inclusion, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by 2 reviewers independently. STATA 14.0 was used to perform the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Eighty eligible studies were collected. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under curve (AUC) of CT, MRI and DWI were 47%, 93%, 0.7424; 50%, 95%, 0.8039 and 84%, 95%, 0.9523 respectively. As regards PET, PET-CT and US, the pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC were 56%, 97%, 0.9592; 68%, 97%, 0.9363 and 71%, 99%, 0.9008 respectively. The summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve indicated that the systematic diagnostic performances of PET, PET-CT, DWI were superior to other imaging modalities.
CONCLUSIONS
The present work demonstrated that DWI, PET, PET-CT were the top-priority consideration of imaging modalities for detecting metastatic pelvic lymph node in gynecological carcinoma. DWI was recommended as the first choice for metastasis exclusion and all the other imaging techniques including CT and MRI were suitable for metastasis conformation. However, for the early stage lymph node malignancy, PET or PET-CT could represent a better choice. More studies exploring the diagnostic efficacy of detailed criteria are required in the future.
Topics: Area Under Curve; Diagnostic Imaging; Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Humans; Lymphatic Metastasis; Pelvis; ROC Curve; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 27802186
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.12959 -
Minimally invasive surgery techniques in pelvic exenteration: a systematic and meta-analysis review.Surgical Endoscopy Dec 2018Pelvic exenteration is potentially curative for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic cancers. Evolving technology has facilitated the use of minimally invasive surgical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pelvic exenteration is potentially curative for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic cancers. Evolving technology has facilitated the use of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques in selected cases. We aimed to compare outcomes between open and MIS pelvic exenteration.
METHODS
A review of comparative studies was performed. Firstly, we evaluated the differences in surgical techniques with respect to operative time, blood loss, and margin status. Secondly, we assessed differences in 30-day morbidity and mortality rates, and length of hospital stay.
RESULTS
Four studies that directly compared open and MIS exenteration were included. Analysis was performed on 170 patients; 78.1% (n = 133) had open pelvic exenteration, while 21.8% (n = 37) had a MIS exenteration. The median age for open exenteration was 57.7 years versus 63 years for MIS exenteration. Even though the operative time for MIS exenteration was 83 min longer (p < 0.001), it was associated with a median of 1,750mls less blood loss. The morbidity rate for MIS exenterative group was 56.7% (n = 21/37) versus 88.5% (n = 85/96) in the open exenteration group, with pooled analysis observing a 1.17 relative risk increase in 30-day morbidity (p = 0.172) in the open exenteration group. In addition, the MIS cohort had a 6-day shorter length of hospital stay (p = 0.04).
CONCLUSION
MIS exenteration can be performed in highly selective cases, where there is favourable patient anatomy and tumour characteristics. When feasible, it is associated with reduced intra-operative blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced morbidity.
Topics: Humans; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Neoplasm Staging; Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; Patient Selection; Pelvic Exenteration; Pelvic Neoplasms
PubMed: 30019221
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6299-5 -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Aug 2023Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a complex multivisceral surgical procedure indicated for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies. It poses significant technical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparing minimally invasive surgical and open approaches to pelvic exenteration for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies - Systematic review and meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a complex multivisceral surgical procedure indicated for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies. It poses significant technical challenges which account for the high risk of morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure. Developments in minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches and enhanced peri-operative care have facilitated improved long term outcomes. However, the optimum approach to PE remains controversial.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to identify studies comparing MIS (robotic or laparoscopic) approaches for PE versus the open approach for patients with locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed systematically and a meta-analysis was conducted.
RESULTS
11 studies were identified, including 2009 patients, of whom 264 (13.1%) underwent MIS PE approaches. The MIS group displayed comparable R0 resections (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.02, 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI] 0.98, 1.07, p = 0.35)) and Lymph node yield (Weighted Mean Difference [WMD] 1.42, 95% CI -0.58, 3.43, p = 0.16), and although MIS had a trend towards improved towards improved survival and recurrence outcomes, this did not reach statistical significance. MIS was associated with prolonged operating times (WMD 67.93, 95% CI 4.43, 131.42, p < 0.00001) however, this correlated with less intra-operative blood loss, and a shorter length of post-operative stay (WMD -3.89, 955 CI -6.53, -1.25, p < 0.00001). Readmission rates were higher with MIS (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.11, 4.02, p = 0.02), however, rates of pelvic abscess/sepsis were decreased (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21, 0.95, p = 0.04), and there was no difference in overall, major, or specific morbidity and mortality.
CONCLUSION
MIS approaches are a safe and feasible option for PE, with no differences in survival or recurrence outcomes compared to the open approach. MIS also reduced the length of post-operative stay and decreased blood loss, offset by increased operating time.
Topics: Humans; Pelvic Neoplasms; Pelvic Exenteration; Pelvis; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Blood Loss, Surgical
PubMed: 37087374
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2023.04.003 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Feb 2016Lately, the main technical innovations in the field of colorectal surgery have been the introduction of laparoscopic and robotic techniques; the aim of this study is to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Lately, the main technical innovations in the field of colorectal surgery have been the introduction of laparoscopic and robotic techniques; the aim of this study is to investigate the results and the advantages of these two surgical approaches.
METHODS
Twenty-two studies including 1652 laparoscopic and 1120 robotic-assisted resections were analyzed and categorized into right, left, and pelvic resections of the middle/low rectum, aiming to the following outcomes: operating time, blood loss, bowel function recovery, return to oral intake, morbidity, hospital stay, and costs.
RESULTS
The vast majority of the studies were non-randomized investigations (19/22 studies) enrolling small cohorts of patients (median 55.0 laparoscopic and 34.5 robotic-assisted group) with a mean age of 62.2-61.0 years. Funnel plot analysis documented heterogeneity in studies which combined cancers and benign diseases. Our meta-analysis demonstrated a significant difference in favor of laparoscopic procedures regarding costs and operating time (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.686 and 0.493) and in favor of robotic surgery concerning morbidity rate (odds ratio (OR) 0.763), although no benefits were documented when analyzing exclusively randomized trials. When we differentiated approaches by side of resections, a significant difference was found in favor of the laparoscopic group when analyzing operating time in left-sided and pelvic procedures (SMD 0.609 and 0.529) and blood loss in pelvic resections (SMD 0.339).
CONCLUSION
Laparoscopic techniques were documented as the shorter procedures, which provided lower blood loss in pelvic resections, while morbidity rate was more favorable in robotic surgery. However, these results could not be confirmed when we focused the analysis on randomized trials only.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Colectomy; Colonic Diseases; Colorectal Neoplasms; Hospital Costs; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Lymph Node Excision; Operative Time; Recovery of Function; Rectal Diseases; Rectum; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 26410261
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-015-2394-4 -
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Dec 2015Preoperative diagnosis of pelvic lesions remains challenging despite advances in imaging technologies. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided biopsy is an effective... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Preoperative diagnosis of pelvic lesions remains challenging despite advances in imaging technologies. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided biopsy is an effective diagnostic modality for sampling the digestive tract and surrounding areas. However, a meta-analysis summarizing the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-guided biopsy for pelvic lesions has not been published.
AIMS
We aimed to evaluate the utility of EUS-guided biopsy in the diagnosis of pelvic lesions.
METHODS
Articles were identified via structured database search; only studies where pelvic lesions were confirmed by surgery or clinical follow-up were included. Data extracted were selected with strict criteria. A fixed-effects model was used to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). A summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was also constructed.
RESULTS
Ten studies containing a total of 246 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity of EUS-guided biopsy for differential diagnosis of pelvic masses was 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.94), and the specificity was 0.93 (95% CI 0.86-0.97). The area under the SROC was 0.9631. The combined PLR, NLR, and DOR were 11.75 (95% CI 5.90-23.43), 0.12 (95% CI 0.07-0.20), and 100.06 (95% CI 37.48-267.10) respectively. There is potential presence of publication bias in this meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis shows that EUS-guided biopsy is a powerful tool for differentiating pelvic masses with a high sensitivity and specificity. Furthermore, it is a safe procedure with low rate of complication, although more high-quality prospective studies are required to be done.
Topics: Biopsy; Diagnosis, Differential; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Gastrointestinal Neoplasms; Gastrointestinal Tract; Humans; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 26341351
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-015-3831-5