-
Pleura and Peritoneum Sep 2019Early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC) can be used in combination with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC)... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC) can be used in combination with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to treat patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) of multiple origins. The present study is a systematic review to evaluate the role of EPIC after CRS + HIPEC for appendiceal and colorectal cancers with PC.
CONTENT
We conducted a systematic search in PubMed according to the PRISMA guidelines and included all studies published before June 27 of 2019 comparing EPIC to HIPEC or the combination of both. Our search found 79 articles. After excluding non-relevant articles, a total of 13 retrospective clinical studies reporting on the efficacy and safety of EPIC compared to HIPEC or as a combination therapy for lower gastrointestinal neoplasms were analyzed. Initial EPIC reports led to its declined usage because of concerns with increased postoperative morbidity and uncertain added benefit on survival. Recent retrospective studies have been promising, showing significant improvements in OS and fewer issues with complications when adding EPIC to CRS + HIPEC.
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence is entirely retrospective and is conflicting. It is hoped that ongoing clinical trials and additional studies will clarify EPIC's role in the treatment of patients with PC.
PubMed: 31667329
DOI: 10.1515/pp-2019-0007 -
Hernia : the Journal of Hernias and... Dec 2019Totally extraperitoneal (TEP) endoscopic hernioplasty and Lichtenstein hernioplasty are the most commonly used approaches for inguinal hernia repair. However, current... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Total extraperitoneal endoscopic hernioplasty (TEP) versus Lichtenstein hernioplasty: a systematic review by updated traditional and cumulative meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials.
BACKGROUND-PURPOSE
Totally extraperitoneal (TEP) endoscopic hernioplasty and Lichtenstein hernioplasty are the most commonly used approaches for inguinal hernia repair. However, current evidence on which is the preferred approach is inconclusive. This updated meta-analysis was conducted to track the accumulation of evidence over time.
METHODS
Studies were identified by a systematic literature search of the EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases. Fixed- and random-effects models were used to cumulatively assess the accumulation of evidence over time.
RESULTS
The TEP cohort showed significantly higher rates of recurrences and vascular injuries compared to the Lichtenstein cohort; [Peto Odds ratio (OR) = 1.58 (1.22, 2.04), p = 0.005], [Peto OR = 2.49 (1.05, 5.88), p = 0.04], respectively. In contrast, haematoma formation rate, time to return to usual activities, and local paraesthesia were significantly lower in the TEP cohort compared to the Lichtenstein cohort; [Peto OR = 0.26 (0.16, 0.41), p ≤ 0.001], [mean difference = - 6.32 (- 8.17, - 4.48), p ≤ 0.001], [Peto OR = 0.26 (0.17, 0.40), p ≤ 0.001], respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
This study, which is based on randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) of high quality, showed significantly higher rates of recurrences and vascular injuries in the TEP cohort than in the Lichtenstein cohort. In contrast, rate of postoperative haematoma formation, local paraesthesia, and time to return to usual activities were significantly lower in the TEP cohort than in the Lichtenstein cohort. Future multicentre RCTs with strict adherence to the standards recommended in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines will shed further light on the topic.
Topics: Endoscopy; Female; Hernia, Inguinal; Herniorrhaphy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Peritoneum; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Surgical Mesh
PubMed: 31602585
DOI: 10.1007/s10029-019-02049-w -
Pleura and Peritoneum Jun 2019The randomized trial PRODIGE 7 failed to show the benefit of oxaliplatin hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in colorectal peritoneal metastasis treatment... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The randomized trial PRODIGE 7 failed to show the benefit of oxaliplatin hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in colorectal peritoneal metastasis treatment (CR PM). This systematic review focuses on the association of cisplatin (CDDP) with mitomycin C (MMC) in HIPEC in CR PM.
CONTENT
Experimental studies demonstrated that hyperthermia, in addition to CDDP ± MMC treatment, gradually improved the cytotoxic effect by increasing early apoptosis, eATP interaction, intracellular CDDP concentration (by 20%) and p73 expression. Recent studies with highly selected patients reported unusual prolonged survival with a median overall survival (OS) of approximately 60 months, with a HIPEC combination of CDDP (25 mg/m/L) plus MMC (3.3 mg/m/L) at a temperature of 41.5-42.5 °C for 60-90 min. Major complications occurred in less than 30% of patients with limited hematological toxicity (less than 15%). In addition, in a phase 2 trial, an adjuvant HIPEC benefit was demonstrated in colorectal cancer patients with high risk for peritoneal failure (5-year OS: 81.3% vs. 70% for the HIPEC group vs. the control group, respectively, p=0.047). After a recurrence, an iterative procedure permitted similar recurrence-free disease (13 vs. 13.7 months) with an acceptable morbidity (18.7% of severe complications).
SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK
The combination of CDDP and MMC seems to be an interesting protocol as an alternative to high-dose and short-term oxaliplatin.
PubMed: 31388562
DOI: 10.1515/pp-2019-0006 -
Pleura and Peritoneum Mar 2019The quest to cure or to contain the disease in cancer patients leads to new strategies and techniques being added to the armamentarium of oncologists. Pressurized... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The quest to cure or to contain the disease in cancer patients leads to new strategies and techniques being added to the armamentarium of oncologists. Pressurized IntraPeritoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a recently described surgical technique which is being evaluated at many centers for the management of peritoneal metastasis (PM). The present study is a systematic review to evaluate the current role of PIPAC in the management of gastric cancer associated PM.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in Pubmed and EMBASE database using relevant keywords and confirming to the PRISMA guidelines to identify the articles describing the role of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM. All the studies which were published prior to July 1, 2018 in English literature and reported the role of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM were included in the systematic review.
RESULTS
The search yielded 79 articles; there were ten published studies which have reported the use of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM. A total of 129 patients with gastric cancer associated PM were treated in the studies. Only two studies had an exclusive cohort of gastric cancer patients while eight other studies had a heterogeneous population with a small proportion of gastric cancer patients. There was only one study highlighting the role of PIPAC in neoadjuvant setting to downgrade the peritoneal carcinomatosis index. All the studies revealed that PIPAC is feasible and has minimal perioperative morbidity, even after repeated applications.
CONCLUSION
There is a scarcity of English literature related to the role of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM. PIPAC is a safe and well-tolerated procedure which has the potential to contain spreading PM. Further studies are warranted to better define the role of PIPAC in gastric cancer associated PM.
PubMed: 31198852
DOI: 10.1515/pp-2018-0127 -
Revista Da Associacao Medica Brasileira... Jun 2019The Guidelines Project, an initiative of the Brazilian Medical Association, aims to combine information from the medical field in order to standardize producers to...
The Guidelines Project, an initiative of the Brazilian Medical Association, aims to combine information from the medical field in order to standardize producers to assist the reasoning and decision-making of doctors. The information provided through this project must be assessed and criticized by the physician responsible for the conduct that will be adopted, depending on the conditions and the clinical status of each patient.
Topics: Adrenal Gland Neoplasms; Adrenalectomy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Peritoneum; Reproducibility of Results; Retroperitoneal Space; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31166429
DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.65.5.578 -
Pleura and Peritoneum Dec 2018The aim of this review was to analyze preclinical studies and clinical trials evaluating photodynamic therapy (PDT), and photothermal therapy (PTT) in peritoneal... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of this review was to analyze preclinical studies and clinical trials evaluating photodynamic therapy (PDT), and photothermal therapy (PTT) in peritoneal metastasis (PM) treatment.
CONTENT
Systematic review according PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches using PubMed and Clinical Trials.
SUMMARY
A total of 19 preclinical studies analyzing PDT in PM treatment were included. Each new generations of photosensitizers (PS) permitted to improve tumoral targeting. Phase III preclinical studies showed an important tumoral biodistribution (ratio 9.6 vs normal tissue) and significant survival advantage (35.5 vs 52.5 days for cytoreductive surgery vs cytoreductive surgery+PDT, p<0.005). Height clinical trials showed important side effects (capillary leak syndrome and bowel perforation), mainly explained by low tumor-selectivity of the PS used (first generation mainly).Peritoneal mesothelioma apparition with carbon nanotubes first limited the development of PTT. But gold nanoparticles, with a good tolerance, permitted a limitation of tumoral growth (reduction of bioluminescence to 37 % 20 days after PTT), and survival benefit (35, 32, and 26 days for PTT with cisplatine, PTT alone and laser alone, respectively).
OUTLOOK
Recent improvement in tumor-selectivity and light delivery systems is promising but further development would be necessary before PDT and PTT routinely applied for peritoneal carcinomatosis.
PubMed: 30911668
DOI: 10.1515/pp-2018-0124 -
Pleura and Peritoneum Mar 2018The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the accuracy of additional staging laparoscopy (SL) in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) to predict futile... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the accuracy of additional staging laparoscopy (SL) in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) to predict futile laparotomy (FL).
METHODS
Systematic review according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement (PRISMA) criteria. Clinical studies investigating the role of SL in selecting women with AEOC for primary debulking surgery (PDS) were included. Index test: SL. Reference test: laparotomy. Target condition: incomplete cytoreduction (CR) with remaining disease<1 cm.
RESULTS
Nine prospective and retrospective studies reporting on eight cohorts totalizing 778 LS were included. Reference test was completed in 76 % cases. PPV for FL was between 0.69 and 1.0. In three studies examining the value of a predictive index value (PIV) for predicting FL, sensitivity of the index test (LS with PIV ≥8) was between 46% and 70 %, and specificity between 89 % and 100 %. The proportion of patients that received CR during PDS differed widely between studies (from 50 to 91). Using a PIV did not increase the sensitivity and might result in more patients receiving FL. In the only randomized trial, FL occurred in 10 (10 %) of 102 patients in the LS group versus 39 (39 %) of 99 patients in the primary PDS group (relative risk, 0.25; 95 % CI, 0.13-0.47; <0.001). Port-site recurrences occurred in 2%-6 % patients. Overall costs of with or without SL were comparable.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence available from this systematic review supports the inclusion of an additional LS to the conventional initial diagnostic workup in women with AEOC.
PubMed: 30911654
DOI: 10.1515/pp-2018-0106 -
The American Surgeon Jan 2019Metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is associated with a poor 5-year survival rate and high rate of recurrence. Outcomes after resection for patients with limited...
Metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is associated with a poor 5-year survival rate and high rate of recurrence. Outcomes after resection for patients with limited disease remain poorly described. We conducted a PubMed search for articles published between 1950 and 2017 using the terms "ACC," "recurrence," and "surgery." Patients with metastatic ACC at any anatomic site who had undergone surgical resection were included. Thirteen studies met the criteria. Patients were grouped according to the recurrence site. Pulmonary metastasectomy was reported in 50 patients with moderate complications and without perioperative mortality. Disease recurrence rates range from 25 to 42 per cent, with median overall survival of 40 to 50 months. Hepatic metastasectomy was reported in 108 patients with a single perioperative mortality. Disease recurrence rates range from 65 to 100 per cent, with median disease-free survival (DFS) and OS of five to nine months and 22 to 76 months. Peritoneal cytoreduction and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy have been reported for 10 patients with minimal morbidity and without perioperative mortality. The disease recurrence rate was 70 per cent, with DFS of 19 months. For selected patients with recurrent ACC in the lungs, liver, or peritoneum, metastasectomy is safe and can be associated with prolonged survival. However, subsequent disease recurrence is common, and patients should be counseled accordingly.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Neoplasms; Adrenocortical Carcinoma; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
PubMed: 30760340
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2019Laparoscopy is a common procedure in many surgical specialties. Complications arising from laparoscopy are often related to initial entry into the abdomen.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopy is a common procedure in many surgical specialties. Complications arising from laparoscopy are often related to initial entry into the abdomen. Life-threatening complications include injury to viscera (e.g. bowel, bladder) or to vasculature (e.g. major abdominal and anterior abdominal wall vessels). No clear consensus has been reached as to the optimal method of laparoscopic entry into the peritoneal cavity.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and risks of different laparoscopic entry techniques in gynaecological and non-gynaecological surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and trials registers in January 2018. We also checked the references of articles retrieved.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared one laparoscopic entry technique versus another. Primary outcomes were major complications including mortality, vascular injury of major vessels and abdominal wall vessels, visceral injury of bladder or bowel, gas embolism, solid organ injury, and failed entry (inability to access the peritoneal cavity). Secondary outcomes were extraperitoneal insufflation, trocar site bleeding, trocar site infection, incisional hernia, omentum injury, and uterine bleeding.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We expressed findings as Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
The review included 57 RCTs including four multi-arm trials, with a total of 9865 participants, and evaluated 25 different laparoscopic entry techniques. Most studies selected low-risk patients, and many studies excluded patients with high body mass index (BMI) and previous abdominal surgery. Researchers did not find evidence of differences in major vascular or visceral complications, as would be anticipated given that event rates were very low and sample sizes were far too small to identify plausible differences in rare but serious adverse events.Open-entry versus closed-entryTen RCTs investigating Veress needle entry reported vascular injury as an outcome. There was a total of 1086 participants and 10 events of vascular injury were reported. Four RCTs looking at open entry technique reported vascular injury as an outcome. There was a total of 376 participants and 0 events of vascular injury were reported. This was not a direct comparison. In the direct comparison of Veress needle and Open-entry technique, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82; 4 RCTs; n = 915; I² = N/A, very low-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups for visceral injury (Peto OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.08; 4 RCTs; n = 915: I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.42; 3 RCTs; n = 865; I² = 63%; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported mortality with no events in either group. No studies reported gas embolism or solid organ injury.Direct trocar versus Veress needle entryTrial results show a reduction in failed entry into the abdomen with the use of a direct trocar in comparison with Veress needle entry (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.34; 8 RCTs; N = 3185; I² = 45%; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.96; 6 RCTs; n = 1603; I² = 75%; very low-quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 2.02, 95% CI 0.21 to 19.42; 5 RCTs; n = 1519; I² = 25%; very low-quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 0.58, 95% Cl 0.06 to 5.65; 3 RCTs; n = 1079; I² = 61%; very low-quality evidence). Four studies reported mortality with no events in either group. Two studies reported gas embolism, with no events in either group.Direct vision entry versus Veress needle entryEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.85; 1 RCT; n = 186; very low-quality evidence) or visceral injury (Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.34; 2 RCTs; n = 380; I² = N/A; very low-quality evidence). Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Direct vision entry versus open entryEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.50; 2 RCTs; n = 392; I² = N/A; very low-quality evidence), solid organ injury (Peto OR 6.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 316.67; 1 RCT; n = 60; very low-quality evidence), or failed entry (Peto OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.09; 1 RCT; n = 60; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported vascular injury with no events in either arm. Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Radially expanding (STEP) trocars versus non-expanding trocarsEvidence was insufficient to show whether there were differences between groups in rates of vascular injury (Peto OR 0.24, 95% Cl 0.05 to 1.21; 2 RCTs; n = 331; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence), visceral injury (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.37; 2 RCTs; n = 331; very low-quality evidence), or solid organ injury (Peto OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.91; 1 RCT; n = 244; very low-quality evidence). Trials did not report our other primary outcomes.Other studies compared a wide variety of other laparoscopic entry techniques, but all evidence was of very low quality and evidence was insufficient to support the use of one technique over another.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, evidence was insufficient to support the use of one laparoscopic entry technique over another. Researchers noted an advantage of direct trocar entry over Veress needle entry for failed entry. Most evidence was of very low quality; the main limitations were imprecision (due to small sample sizes and very low event rates) and risk of bias associated with poor reporting of study methods.
Topics: Abdominal Wall; Blood Vessels; Female; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Intestines; Intraoperative Complications; Laparoscopy; Male; Peritoneal Cavity; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urinary Bladder
PubMed: 30657163
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006583.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2018Laparoscopic adrenalectomy is an accepted treatment worldwide for adrenal gland disease in adults. The transperitoneal approach is more common. The retroperitoneal...
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic adrenalectomy is an accepted treatment worldwide for adrenal gland disease in adults. The transperitoneal approach is more common. The retroperitoneal approach may be preferred, to avoid entering the peritoneum, but no clear advantage has been demonstrated so far.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of laparoscopic transperitoneal adrenalectomy (LTPA) versus laparoscopic retroperitoneal adrenalectomy (LRPA) for adrenal tumours in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ICTRP Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov to 3 April 2018. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Two review authors independently scanned the abstract, title, or both sections of every record retrieved to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on laparoscopic adrenalectomy for preoperatively assessed adrenal tumours. Participants were affected by corticoid and medullary, benign and malignant, functional and silent tumours or masses of the adrenal gland, which were assessed by both laboratory and imaging studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed trials for risk of bias, and evaluated overall study quality using GRADE criteria. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, or the mean difference (MD) for continuous variables, and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We primarily used a random-effects model for pooling data.
MAIN RESULTS
We examined 1069 publications, scrutinized 42 full-text publications or records, and included five RCTs. Altogether, 244 participants entered the five trials; 127 participants were randomised to retroperitoneal adrenalectomy and 117 participants to transperitoneal adrenalectomy. Two trials had a follow-up of nine months, and three trials a follow-up of 31 to 70 months. Most participants were women, and the average age was around 40 years. Three trials reported all-cause mortality; in two trials, there were no deaths, and in one trial with six years of follow-up, four participants died in the LRPA group and one participant in the LTPA group (164 participants; low-certainty evidence). The trials did not report all-cause morbidity. Therefore, we analysed early and late morbidity, and included specific adverse events under these outcome measures. The results were inconclusive between LRPA and LTPA for early morbidity (usually reported within 30 to 60 days after surgery; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.16; P = 0.12; 5 trials, 244 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Nine out of 127 participants (7.1%) in the LRPA group, compared with 16 out of 117 participants (13.7%) in the LTPA group experienced an adverse event. Participants in the LRPA group may have a lower risk of developing late morbidity (reported as latest available follow-up; RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.92; P = 0.04; 3 trials, 146 participants; very low-quality evidence). None of the 78 participants in the LRPA group, compared with 7 of the 68 participants (10.3%) in the LTPA group experienced an adverse event.None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. The results were inconclusive for socioeconomic effects, assessed as time to return to normal activities and length of hospital stay, between the intervention and comparator groups (very low-certainty evidence). Participants who had LRPA may have had an earlier start on oral fluid or food intake (MD -8.6 hr, 95% CI -13.5 to -3.7; P = 0.0006; 2 trials, 89 participants), and ambulation (MD -5.4 hr, 95% CI -6.8 to -4.0 hr; P < 0.0001; 2 trials, 89 participants) than those in the LTPA groups. Postoperative and operative parameters (duration of surgery, operative blood loss, conversion to open surgery) showed inconclusive results between the intervention and comparator groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The body of evidence on laparoscopic retroperitoneal adrenalectomy compared with laparoscopic transperitoneal adrenalectomy is limited. Late morbidity might be reduced following laparoscopic retroperitoneal adrenalectomy, but we are uncertain about this effect because of very low-quality evidence. The effects on other key outcomes, such as all-cause mortality, early morbidity, socioeconomic effects, and operative and postoperative parameters are uncertain. LRPA might show a shorter time to oral fluid or food intake and time to ambulation, but we are uncertain whether this finding can be replicated. New long-term RCTs investigating additional data, such as health-related quality of life, surgeons' level of experience, treatment volume of surgical centres, and details on techniques used are needed.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Adrenal Gland Neoplasms; Adrenalectomy; Adult; Cause of Death; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Male; Peritoneum; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retroperitoneal Space
PubMed: 30595004
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011668.pub2