-
International Urogynecology Journal Jun 2016The objective of this study was to estimate the risk of recurrent obstetric anal sphincter injury (rOASI) in women who have suffered anal sphincter injury in their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study was to estimate the risk of recurrent obstetric anal sphincter injury (rOASI) in women who have suffered anal sphincter injury in their previous pregnancy and analyse risk factors for recurrence through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
A review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Searches were made in Ovid MEDLINE (1996 to May 2015), PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar, including bibliographies and conference proceedings.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
Observational studies (cohort/case-control) evaluating rOASI and risk factors were selected by two reviewers who also analysed methodological quality of those studies. Pooled odds ratios (OR) for rOASI and individual risk factors were calculated using RevMan 5.3.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION AND RESULTS
From the eight studies assessed, overall risk of rOASI was 6.3 % compared with a 5.7 % risk of OASI in the first pregnancy. The risk in parous women with no previous OASI was 1.5 %. Factors that increased the risk in a future pregnancy were instrumental delivery with forceps [OR 3.12, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.42-4.01) or ventouse (OR 2.44, 95 % CI 1.83-3.25), previous fourth-degree tear (OR 1.7, 95 % CI 1.24-2.36) and birth weight ≥4 kg (OR 2.29, 95 % CI 2.06-2.54). Maternal age ≥35 years marginally increased the risk (OR 1.16, 95 % CI 1-1.35).
CONCLUSION
The overall rate of rOASI and associated risk factors for recurrence are similar to the rate and risk factors of primary OASI. Antenatal decisions could be based on assessment of foetal weight and intrapartum decisions based upon the requirement for an instrumental delivery.
Topics: Anal Canal; Anus Diseases; Delivery, Obstetric; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Recurrence; Risk Factors
PubMed: 26676912
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-015-2893-4 -
European Journal of Cancer Prevention :... Nov 2016We systematically reviewed the literature on anal, penile, cervical, and oropharyngeal human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in Greece to provide a comprehensive overview... (Review)
Review
We systematically reviewed the literature on anal, penile, cervical, and oropharyngeal human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in Greece to provide a comprehensive overview of HPV prevalence and to explore the reporting of HPV in Greek men and women. A total of five databases, including PubMed and Scopus, were searched up until 1 January 2015 for studies looking at HPV prevalence, incidence, or risk factors by anatomical site. We identified 50 eligible studies for inclusion. The majority of them were cervical studies (n=26) followed by head and neck studies (n=13) with only two studies exclusively focusing on anal sites and two on penile sites. The remaining studies examined prevalence from multiple sites. Most studies looked at small, high-risk populations, and HPV prevalence ranged from 2.5-43.4% for cervical studies; 0-91% for head and neck studies; 54.6-78.4% for anal studies; and 20.3-66.7% for penile studies. Age, smoking, and number of sexual partners were the commonly assessed risk factors. There were significant sex and anatomic site disparities in the reporting of HPV prevalence. Given the relationship between HPV infection and the increasing incidence of anal cancer in men, more research is needed to reveal the prevalence of HPV at these sites in Greek men, especially given the reports of the declining health of the Greek population.
Topics: Anus Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Incidence; Male; Oropharyngeal Neoplasms; Papillomaviridae; Papillomavirus Infections; Penile Neoplasms; Risk Factors; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 26628088
DOI: 10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000207 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015Colorectal cancer represents 10% of all cancers and is the third most common cause of death in women and men. Almost two-thirds of all bowel cancers are cancers of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Colorectal cancer represents 10% of all cancers and is the third most common cause of death in women and men. Almost two-thirds of all bowel cancers are cancers of the colon and over one-third (34%) are cancers of the rectum, including the anus. Surgery is the cornerstone for curative treatment of rectal cancer. Mesorectal excision decreases the rate of local recurrences; however, it does not improve the overall survival of people with locally advanced rectal cancer. There have been significant research efforts since the mid-1990s to optimise the treatment of rectal cancer. Based on the findings of clinical trials, people with T3/T4 or N+ rectal tumours are now being treated preoperatively with radiation and chemotherapy, mainly fluoropyrimidine. However, the incidence of distant metastases remains as high as 30%. Combination chemotherapy regimens, similar to those used in metastatic disease with the addition of oxaliplatin and irinotecan, have been tested to improve the prognosis of people with rectal cancer.
OBJECTIVES
To compare outcomes (including overall survival, disease-free survival and toxicity) between two 5-fluorouracil-containing chemotherapy regimens in people with stage II and III rectal cancer who are receiving preoperative chemoradiation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Specialised Register (January 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2015, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to January 2015), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to January 2015) and LILACS (1982 to January 2015). We reviewed the reference lists of included studies, checked clinical trials registers and handsearched relevant journal proceedings. We applied no language or publication restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing single-agent chemotherapy (fluoropyrimidine) versus combination chemotherapy (fluoropyrimidine plus another agent including, but not limited to, oxaliplatin) during preoperative radiochemotherapy in people with resectable rectal cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (HMR, EMKS) independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. When necessary, we requested additional information and clarification of published data from the authors of individual trials.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four RCTs involving 3875 people with resectable rectal cancer. In the preoperative period, the participants of these studies were randomised to receive chemoradiation either with a single fluoropyrimidine agent (capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil) or with a combination of drugs (fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin). The only study that reported overall survival and disease-free survival found no significant differences between the intervention and control groups; we considered this evidence very low quality. For pathological complete response after preoperative treatment (ypCR) there was high quality evidence favouring the intervention group (odds ratio (OR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.46), but there was also moderate quality evidence suggesting a higher risk for early toxicity in the intervention group (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.31 to 3.27). Moderate to high quality evidence suggested that the control group had better compliance to radiotherapy (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.75). There were no significant differences between groups in postoperative mortality within 60 days, postoperative morbidity, resection margins, abdominoperineal resection and Hartmann procedures.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was very low quality evidence that people with resectable rectal cancer who receive combination preoperative chemotherapy have no improvements in overall survival or disease-free survival. There was high quality evidence that suggested that combination chemotherapy with oxaliplatin may improve local tumour control in people with resectable rectal cancer, but this regimen also caused more toxicity. The review included four RCTs but only one reported survival; therefore, we cannot make robust conclusions or useful clinical recommendations. The publication of more survival data from these studies will contribute to future analyses.
PubMed: 35658163
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008531.pub2 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Dec 2015Radiochemotherapy is the standard of care for the treatment of anal carcinoma achieving good loco-regional control and sphincter preservation. This approach is however... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Radiochemotherapy is the standard of care for the treatment of anal carcinoma achieving good loco-regional control and sphincter preservation. This approach is however associated with acute and late toxicities including haematological, skin, bowel function and genito-urinary complications. This paper systematically reviews studies addressing the quality of life (QoL) implications of anal cancer and radiochemotherapy. The paper also evaluates how QoL is assessed in anal cancer.
METHODS
Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched for publications (1996-2014) reporting the effects on patients of anal cancer and radiochemotherapy.
RESULTS
Of the 152 papers reporting treatment-related effects on patients, only 11 provided a formal assessment of QoL. In the absence of an anal cancer-specific measure, QoL was assessed using generic cancer instruments such as the core EORTC quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) or colorectal cancer tools such as the EORTC QLQ-CR29. Bowel function, particularly diarrhoea, and sexual problems were the most commonly reported QoL concerns. The review of QoL issues of anal cancer patients treated with radiochemotherapy is limited by the QoL assessment measures used. It is argued that certain treatment-related toxicities, for example skin-induced radiation problems, are overlooked or inadequately represented in existing measures.
CONCLUSIONS
This review emphasises the need to develop an anal cancer-specific QoL measure and to incorporate QoL as an outcome of future trials in anal cancer. The results of this review are informative to clinicians and patients in terms of treatment decision-making.
Topics: Anus Neoplasms; Chemoradiotherapy; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Quality of Life
PubMed: 26289529
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-015-2879-2 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Oct 2015Temporary faecal diversion is sometimes used for management of refractory perianal Crohn's disease (CD) with variable success. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Temporary faecal diversion is sometimes used for management of refractory perianal Crohn's disease (CD) with variable success.
AIMS
To perform a systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness, long-term outcomes and factors associated with success of temporary faecal diversion for perianal CD.
METHODS
Through a systematic literature review through 15 July 2015, we identified 16 cohort studies (556 patients) reporting outcomes after temporary faecal diversion. We estimated pooled rates [with 95% confidence interval (CI)] of early clinical response, attempted and successful restoration of bowel continuity after temporary faecal diversion (without symptomatic relapse), and rates of re-diversion (in patients with attempted restoration) and proctectomy (with or without colectomy and end-ileostomy). We identified factors associated with successful restoration of bowel continuity.
RESULTS
On meta-analysis, 63.8% (95% CI: 54.1-72.5) of patients had early clinical response after faecal diversion for refractory perianal CD. Restoration of bowel continuity was attempted in 34.5% (95% CI: 27.0-42.8) of patients, and was successful in only 16.6% (95% CI: 11.8-22.9). Of those in whom restoration was attempted, 26.5% (95% CI: 14.1-44.2) required re-diversion because of severe relapse. Overall, 41.6% (95% CI: 32.6-51.2) of patients required proctectomy after failure of temporary faecal diversion. There was no difference in the successful restoration of bowel continuity after temporary faecal diversion in the pre-biological or biological era (13.7% vs. 17.6%, P = 0.60), in part due to selection bias. Absence of rectal involvement was the most consistent factor associated with restoration of bowel continuity.
CONCLUSIONS
Temporary faecal diversion may improve symptoms in approximately two-thirds of patients with refractory perianal Crohn's disease, but bowel restoration is successful in only 17% of patients.
Topics: Anus Diseases; Colectomy; Crohn Disease; Feces; Humans; Ileostomy; Proctocolectomy, Restorative; Recurrence
PubMed: 26264359
DOI: 10.1111/apt.13356 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Sep 2015The aim of this study was to systematically review the findings of publications addressing the epidemiology of anal human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, anal... (Review)
Review
The aim of this study was to systematically review the findings of publications addressing the epidemiology of anal human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, anal intraepithelial neoplasia, and anal cancer in women. We conducted a systematic review among publications published from Jan. 1, 1997, to Sept. 30, 2013, to limit to publications from the combined antiretroviral therapy era. Three searches were performed of the National Library of Medicine PubMed database using the following search terms: women and anal HPV, women anal intraepithelial neoplasia, and women and anal cancer. Publications were included in the review if they addressed any of the following outcomes: (1) prevalence, incidence, or clearance of anal HPV infection, (2) prevalence of anal cytological or histological neoplastic abnormalities, or (3) incidence or risk of anal cancer. Thirty-seven publications addressing anal HPV infection and anal cytology remained after applying selection criteria, and 23 anal cancer publications met the selection criteria. Among HIV-positive women, the prevalence of high-risk (HR)-HPV in the anus was 16-85%. Among HIV-negative women, the prevalence of anal HR-HPV infection ranged from 4% to 86%. The prevalence of anal HR-HPV in HIV-negative women with HPV-related pathology of the vulva, vagina, and cervix compared with women with no known HPV-related pathology, varied from 23% to 86% and from 5% to 22%, respectively. Histological anal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (anal intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or greater) was found in 3-26% of the women living with HIV, 0-9% among women with lower genital tract pathology, and 0-3% for women who are HIV negative without known lower genital tract pathology. The incidence of anal cancer among HIV-infected women ranged from 3.9 to 30 per 100,000. Among women with a history of cervical cancer or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3, the incidence rates of anal cancer ranged from 0.8 to 63.8 per 100,000 person-years, and in the general population, the incidence rates ranged from 0.55 to 2.4 per 100,000 person-years. This review provides evidence that anal HPV infection and dysplasia are common in women, especially in those who are HIV positive or have a history of HPV-related lower genital tract pathology. The incidence of anal cancer continues to grow in all women, especially those living with HIV, despite the widespread use of combined antiretroviral therapy.
Topics: Antiretroviral Therapy, Highly Active; Anus Diseases; Anus Neoplasms; Carcinoma in Situ; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Coinfection; Female; HIV Infections; Humans; Incidence; Papillomavirus Infections; Prevalence; Proctitis
PubMed: 25797230
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.03.034 -
American Journal of Public Health Apr 2015We systematically reviewed the literature on anal human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, dysplasia, and cancer among Black and White men who have sex with men (MSM) to... (Review)
Review
We systematically reviewed the literature on anal human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, dysplasia, and cancer among Black and White men who have sex with men (MSM) to determine if a racial disparity exists. We searched 4 databases for articles up to March 2014. Studies involving Black MSM are nearly absent from the literature. Of 25 eligible studies, 2 stratified by race and sexual behavior. Both reported an elevated rate of abnormal anal outcomes among Black MSM. White MSM had a 1.3 times lower prevalence of group-2 HPV (P < .01) and nearly 13% lower prevalence of anal dysplasia than did Black MSM. We were unable to determine factors driving the absence of Black MSM in this research and whether disparities in clinical care exist. Elevated rates of abnormal anal cytology among Black MSM in 2 studies indicate a need for future research in this population.
Topics: Black or African American; Anus Neoplasms; Health Status Disparities; Healthcare Disparities; Homosexuality, Male; Humans; Male; Papillomavirus Infections; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Sexual Behavior; White People
PubMed: 25713941
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302469 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Nov 2014Anal fissures are a common cause of anal pain during, and for 1 to 2 hours after, defecation. The cause is not fully understood, but low intake of dietary fibre may be a... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Anal fissures are a common cause of anal pain during, and for 1 to 2 hours after, defecation. The cause is not fully understood, but low intake of dietary fibre may be a risk factor.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of surgical treatments for chronic anal fissure? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to January 2014 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found nine studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: anal advancement flap, anal stretch/dilation, and internal anal sphincterotomy.
Topics: Anal Canal; Fissure in Ano; Humans; Risk Factors; United States
PubMed: 25391392
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 201430% of people with anogenital warts (AGW) have spontaneous regression of lesions but there is no way to determine whether a specific lesion will remain. There are a wide... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
30% of people with anogenital warts (AGW) have spontaneous regression of lesions but there is no way to determine whether a specific lesion will remain. There are a wide range of options available for treating people with AGW and selection is based on clinician's experience, patient preferences and adverse effects. The imiquimod could offer the advantages of patient-applied therapies without incurring the limitations of provider-administered treatments.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of imiquimod for the treatment of AGW in non-immunocompromised adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Infections Group Specialized Register (15 April 2014), CENTRAL (1991 to 15 April 2014), MEDLINE (1946 to 15 April 2014), EMBASE (1947 to 15 April 2014), LILACS (1982 to 15 April 2014), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry (ICTRP) (15 April 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (15 April 2014), Web of Science (2001 to 15 April 2014) and OpenGrey (15 April 2014). We also handsearched conference proceedings, contacted trial authors and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of imiquimod with placebo, any other patient-applied or any other provider-administered treatment (excluding interferon and 5-fluorouracil which are assessed in other Cochrane Reviews) for the treatment of AGW in non-immunocompromised adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved any disagreements through consensus. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Ten RCTs (1734 participants) met our inclusion criteria of which six were funded by industry. We judged the risk of bias of the included trials as high. Six trials (1294 participants) compared the use of imiquimod versus placebo. There was very low quality evidence that imiquimod was superior to placebo in achieving complete and partial regression (RR 4.03, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.99; RR 2.56, 95% CI 2.05 to 3.20, respectively). When compared with placebo, the effects of imiquimod on recurrence (RR 2.76, 95% CI 0.70 to 10.91), appearance of new warts (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.00) and frequency of systemic adverse reactions (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.32) were imprecise. We downgraded the quality of evidence to low or very low. There was low quality evidence that imiquimod led to more local adverse reactions (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.53) and pain (RR 11.84, 95% CI 3.36 to 41.63).Two trials (105 participants) compared the use of imiquimod versus any other patient-applied treatment (podophyllotoxin and podophyllin). The estimated effects of imiquimod on complete regression (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.48), partial regression (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.47), recurrence (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.11) or the presence of local adverse reactions (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.54) were imprecise (very low quality evidence). There was low quality evidence that systemic adverse reactions were less frequent with imiquimod (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.98).Finally, two trials (335 participants) compared imiquimod with any other provider-administered treatment (ablative methods and cryotherapy). There was very low quality of evidence that imiquimod did not have a lower frequency of complete regression (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28). There was very low quality evidence that imiquimod led to a lower rate of recurrence during six-month follow-up (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.56) but this did not translate in to a lower recurrence from six to 12 months (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.25; very low quality evidence). There was very low quality evidence that imiquimod was associated with less pain (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.54) and fewer local reactions (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.74).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The benefits and harms of imiquimod compared with placebo should be regarded with caution due to the risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency for many of the outcomes we assessed in this Cochrane Review. The evidence for many of the outcomes that show imiquimod and patient-applied treatment (podophyllotoxin or podophyllin) confer similar benefits but fewer systematic reactions with the Imiquimod, is of low or very low quality. The quality of evidence for the outcomes assessing imiquimod and other provider-administered treatment were of very low quality.
Topics: Adult; Aminoquinolines; Anus Diseases; Female; Genital Diseases, Female; Genital Diseases, Male; Humans; Imiquimod; Immunocompetence; Interferon Inducers; Keratolytic Agents; Male; Podophyllin; Podophyllotoxin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Self Administration; Warts
PubMed: 25362229
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010389.pub2 -
BMC Cancer Aug 2014Although anal cancer is common in HIV positive men who have sex with men, few centres offer systematic screening. Regular digital ano-rectal examination (DARE) is a type... (Review)
Review
Regional and national guideline recommendations for digital ano-rectal examination as a means for anal cancer screening in HIV positive men who have sex with men: a systematic review.
BACKGROUND
Although anal cancer is common in HIV positive men who have sex with men, few centres offer systematic screening. Regular digital ano-rectal examination (DARE) is a type of screening that has been recommended by some experts. How widely this forms part of HIV management guidelines is unclear.
METHODS
The protocol was registered prospectively (CRD42013005188; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/). We systematically reviewed 121 regional and national HIV guidelines and searched for guidelines from http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/global?page=cr-00-04#SauguidelineX, PubMed and Web of Science databases up to 5th August 2013 for recommendations of DARE as a means of anal cancer screening in HIV positive MSM. Guidelines were examined in detail if they were clinical guidelines, including both prevention and treatment protocols and were in English. Guidelines were excluded if they were restricted to limited areas (e.g. antiretroviral therapy only, children or pregnant women, strategies for prevention/testing). Information was extracted regarding recommendation of DARE as a screening method, the frequency of DARE recommended, target population for screening and the strength of evidence supporting this.
RESULTS
30 regional and national guidelines were included and examined in detail. Only 2 recommended DARE. The 'European AIDS Clinical Society Guidelines' recommends DARE every 1-3 years for HIV positive MSM whilst the 'US Guideline for prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections in HIV-infected adults and adolescents' recommends an annual DARE for the HIV + population in general. None of these guidelines specify the age of commencing screening. In each case, the highest level of evidence supporting these two recommendations was expert opinion.
CONCLUSIONS
Few HIV guidelines discuss or recommend DARE as a means of anal cancer screening. Studies of the efficacy, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of DARE are needed to assess its role in anal cancer screening.
Topics: Anus Neoplasms; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Digital Rectal Examination; Early Detection of Cancer; Europe; HIV Infections; Homosexuality, Male; Humans; Male; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Retrospective Studies; United States
PubMed: 25081485
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-557