-
European Urology Jul 2017There is controversy regarding the therapeutic role of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (PCa). (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
There is controversy regarding the therapeutic role of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (PCa).
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the relevant literature assessing the relative benefits and harms of PLND for oncological and non-oncological outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for PCa.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to December 2015. Comparative studies evaluating no PLND, limited, standard, and (super)-extended PLND that reported oncological and non-oncological outcomes were included. Risk-of-bias and confounding assessments were performed. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Overall, 66 studies recruiting a total of 275,269 patients were included (44 full-text articles and 22 conference abstracts). Oncological outcomes were addressed by 29 studies, one of which was a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Non-oncological outcomes were addressed by 43 studies, three of which were RCTs. There were high risks of bias and confounding in most studies. Conflicting results emerged when comparing biochemical and clinical recurrence, while no significant differences were observed among groups for survival. Conversely, the majority of studies showed that the more extensive the PLND, the greater the adverse outcomes in terms of operating time, blood loss, length of stay, and postoperative complications. No significant differences were observed in terms of urinary continence and erectile function recovery.
CONCLUSIONS
Although representing the most accurate staging procedure, PLND and its extension are associated with worse intraoperative and perioperative outcomes, whereas a direct therapeutic effect is still not evident from the current literature. The current poor quality of evidence indicates the need for robust and adequately powered clinical trials.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, this article summarizes the benefits and harms of removing lymph nodes during surgery to remove the prostate because of PCa. Although the quality of the data from the studies was poor, the review suggests that lymph node removal may not have any direct benefit on cancer outcomes and may instead result in more complications. Nevertheless, the procedure remains justified because it enables accurate assessment of cancer spread.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Lymph Nodes; Lymphatic Metastasis; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Grading; Neoplasm Staging; Odds Ratio; Postoperative Complications; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28126351
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.12.003 -
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica = the... Apr 2016Non-urothelial bladder cancer patients represent a rare and challenging group. Advances in bladder cancer to date have largely been driven by studies investigating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Non-urothelial bladder cancer patients represent a rare and challenging group. Advances in bladder cancer to date have largely been driven by studies investigating common urothelial bladder tumors. New evidence is emerging supporting lymphadenectomy in standard surgical management of muscle invasive bladder cancer. We aim to explore the utility of lymphadenectomy in non-urothelial bladder cancer.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic review of the available peer-reviewed literature on PubMed was performed using a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) search strategy. Tumors included in our analysis were squamous cell carcinomas, adenocarcinomas, paragangliomas, melanomas and sarcomas.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Our search strategy identified 8168 unique records and we included 135 full text articles in our final qualitative analysis. No comparative studies comparing lymphadenectomy outcomes in non-urothelial bladder tumors were identified. Practice of lymphadenectomy in combination with partial or radical cystectomy in the treatment of non-urothelial bladder cancer is relatively common. Pelvic recurrence following radical or partial cystectomy of non-urothelial tumors was more commonly reported in non-lymphadenectomy cohorts. The exception to this observation was the adenocarcinoma cohort.
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence supporting lymphadenectomy in the surgical management of bladder cancer is largely based on studies limited to urothelial cancer. Despite this, the practice of lymphadenectomy in non-urothelial cancer is common. We support lymphadenectomy in non-urothelial bladder cancer given the minimal risk associated with the procedure and the potential for improved survival.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Cystectomy; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
PubMed: 26684181
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015This is an update of a previous Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2010. The role of lymphadenectomy in surgical management of endometrial cancer remains... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of a previous Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2010. The role of lymphadenectomy in surgical management of endometrial cancer remains controversial. Lymph node metastases can be found in approximately 10% of women who clinically before surgery have cancer confined to the womb. Removal of all pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes (lymphadenectomy) at initial surgery has been widely advocated, and pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy remains part of the FIGO (International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics) staging system for endometrial cancer. This recommendation is based on data from studies that suggested improvement in survival following pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. However, these studies were not randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and treatment of pelvic lymph nodes may not confer a direct therapeutic benefit, other than allocating women to poorer prognosis groups. Furthermore, the Cochrane review and meta-analysis of RCTs of routine adjuvant radiotherapy to treat possible lymph node metastases in women with early-stage endometrial cancer found no survival advantage. Surgical removal of pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes has serious potential short-term and long-term sequelae. Therefore it is important to investigate the clinical value of this treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of lymphadenectomy for the management of endometrial cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Review Group Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE to June 2009 for the original review and extended the search to June 2015 for this version of the review. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings and reference lists of included studies, and we contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs and quasi-RCTs that compared lymphadenectomy versus no lymphadenectomy in adult women diagnosed with endometrial cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall and progression-free survival and risk ratios (RRs) comparing adverse events in women who received lymphadenectomy versus those with no lymphadenectomy were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Three RCTs met the inclusion criteria; for one small RCT, data were insufficient for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The two RCTs included in the analysis randomly assigned 1945 women, reported HRs for survival adjusted for prognostic factors and based on 1851 women and had an overall low risk of bias, as they satisfied four of the assessment criteria. The third study had an overall unclear risk of bias, as information provided was not adequate concerning random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding or completeness of outcome reporting.Results of the meta-analysis remain unchanged from the previous version of this review and indicate no differences in overall and recurrence-free survival between women who underwent lymphadenectomy and those who did not undergo lymphadenectomy (pooled HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.43; HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.58 for overall and recurrence-free survival, respectively) (1851 participants, two studies; moderate-quality evidence).We found no difference in risk of direct surgical morbidity between women who underwent lymphadenectomy and those who did not undergo lymphadenectomy. However, women who underwent lymphadenectomy had a significantly higher risk of surgery-related systemic morbidity and lymphoedema/lymphocyst formation than those who did not undergo lymphadenectomy (RR 3.72, 95% CI 1.04 to 13.27; RR 8.39, 95% CI 4.06 to 17.33 for risk of surgery-related systemic morbidity and lymphoedema/lymphocyst formation, respectively) (1922 participants, two studies; high-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review found no evidence that lymphadenectomy decreases risk of death or disease recurrence compared with no lymphadenectomy in women with presumed stage I disease. Evidence on serious adverse events suggests that women who undergo lymphadenectomy are more likely to experience surgery-related systemic morbidity or lymphoedema/lymphocyst formation. Currently, no RCT evidence shows the impact of lymphadenectomy in women with higher-stage disease and in those at high risk of disease recurrence.
Topics: Adult; Disease-Free Survival; Endometrial Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Lymphatic Metastasis; Lymphedema; Lymphocele; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26387863
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007585.pub3 -
Oncology Reviews Sep 2014Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced cervix cancer has comparable benefits to... (Review)
Review
Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced cervix cancer has comparable benefits to concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), but with fewer side effects. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive summary of the benefits of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for the management of locally advanced cervix cancer from stage IB2 (tumor >4.0 cm) to IIIB (tumor extending to the pelvic wall and/or hydronephrosis). Our primary objective was to assess benefits in terms of survival. The data source included the USA national library of medicine, Medline search, and the National Cancer Institute PDQ Clinical Protocols. Inclusion criteria for consideration in the current systematic review included studies published between January 1997 and December 2012. In terms of histology, they had to be focused on squamous cell carcinoma, adenosquamous carcinoma, and/or adenocarcinoma. Patients should be either chemotherapy naïve or cervix cancer chemotherapy naïve, and have a performance status ≤2. The search in the above-mentioned scientific websites led to identify 49 publications, 19 of which were excluded, as they did not meet the inclusion criteria of this systematic review. Therefore only 30 studies were deemed eligible. Data was collected from 1760 patients enrolled in the current systematic review study. The mean age was 45.2 years. The mean tumor size was 4.7 cm. The most commonly used chemotherapies were cisplatin doublets. Paclitaxel was the most commonly used chemotherapeutic agent in the doublets. The mean chemotherapy cycles were 2.7. After chemotherapy, patients underwent surgery after a mean time of 2.5 weeks. The standard operation was radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy. Chemotherapy achieved an objective response rate of 84%. The 5-year progression-free survival and overall survival were 61.9% and 72.8% respectively. The treatment protocol was associated with a mild early toxicity profile. Leucopenia and neutropenia were the most common side effects. Late toxicity was also generally mild and mainly associated with bladder dysfunction and vaginal dehiscence. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy achieved comparable survival results to CCRT, and was associated with less toxicity.
PubMed: 25992238
DOI: 10.4081/oncol.2014.250 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2014This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2010. Pelvic lymphadenectomy is associated with significant complications including... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2010. Pelvic lymphadenectomy is associated with significant complications including lymphocyst formation and related morbidities. Retroperitoneal drainage using suction drains has been recommended as a method to prevent such complications. However, this policy has been challenged by the findings from recent studies.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of retroperitoneal drainage versus no drainage after pelvic lymphadenectomy on lymphocyst formation and related morbidities in gynaecological cancer patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 12) in The Cochrane Library, electronic databases MEDLINE (Nov Week 3, 2013), EMBASE (2014, week 1), and the citation lists of relevant publications. The latest searches were performed on 10 January 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effect of retroperitoneal drainage versus no drainage after pelvic lymphadenectomy in gynaecological cancer patients. Retroperitoneal drainage was defined as placement of passive or active suction drains in pelvic retroperitoneal spaces. No drainage was defined as no placement of passive or active suction drains in pelvic retroperitoneal spaces.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed studies using methodological quality criteria. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We examined continuous data using mean difference (MD) and 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
Since the last version of this review, no new studies have been identified for inclusion. The review included four studies with 571 participants. Considering the short-term outcomes (within four weeks after surgery), retroperitoneal drainage was associated with a comparable rate of overall lymphocyst formation when all methods of pelvic peritoneum management were considered together (two studies, 204 patients; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.04 to 13.35). When the pelvic peritoneum was left open, the rates of overall lymphocyst formation (one study, 110 patients; RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.79) and symptomatic lymphocyst formation (one study, 137 patients; RR 3.25, 95% CI 1.26 to 8.37) were higher in the drained group. At 12 months after surgery, the rates of overall lymphocyst formation were comparable between the groups (one study, 232 patients; RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.45). However, there was a trend toward increased risk of symptomatic lymphocyst formation in the group with drains (one study, 232 patients; RR 7.12, 95% CI 0.89 to 56.97). The included trials were of low to moderate risk of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Placement of retroperitoneal tube drains has no benefit in prevention of lymphocyst formation after pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with gynaecological malignancies. When the pelvic peritoneum is left open, the tube drain placement is associated with a higher risk of short and long-term symptomatic lymphocyst formation.
Topics: Drainage; Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Lymphocele; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retroperitoneal Space; Suction
PubMed: 24894643
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007387.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2014Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women up to 65 years of age and is the most frequent cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Women... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women up to 65 years of age and is the most frequent cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Women with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IA2 cervical cancer have measured stromal invasion (when the cancer breaks through the basement membrane of the epithelium) of greater than 3 mm and no greater than 5 mm in depth with a horizontal surface extension of no more than 7 mm. For stage IA2 disease, radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy or radiotherapy is the standard treatment. In order to avoid complications of more radical surgical methods, less invasive options, such as simple hysterectomy, simple trachelectomy or conisation, with or without pelvic lymphadenectomy, may be feasible for stage IA2 disease, considering the relative low risk of local or distant metastatic disease. The evidence for less radical tumour excision and for the role of systematic lymphadenectomy in stage IA2 cervical cancer is not clear.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of less radical surgery in stage IA2 cervical cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group trials register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE up to September 2013. We also searched registers of clinical trials and abstracts of scientific meetings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared surgical techniques in women with stage IA2 cervical cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. We found no trials and, therefore, no data were analysed.
MAIN RESULTS
The search strategy identified 982 unique references, which were all excluded on the basis of title and abstract because it was clear that they did not meet the inclusion criteria. We identified one relevant large ongoing trial, so it is anticipated that we will be able to add this evidence to this review in the future.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no evidence to inform decisions about different surgical techniques in women with stage IA2 cervical cancer. In the future, the results of one large ongoing RCT should allow comparison of different types of surgery.
Topics: Female; Humans; Neoplasm Staging; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 24874726
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010870.pub2 -
Cancer Imaging : the Official... Jul 2013Approximately 72% of endometrial cancers are FIGO stage I at diagnosis and about 10% have lymph node metastases. An ideal diagnostic test for nodal disease would be able... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Approximately 72% of endometrial cancers are FIGO stage I at diagnosis and about 10% have lymph node metastases. An ideal diagnostic test for nodal disease would be able to prevent both overtreatment (i.e. unnecessary lymphadenectomy) and undertreatment (i.e. withholding lymphadenectomy or adjuvant postoperative treatment to patients with lymph node metastases).
OBJECTIVES
In this review we compare the accuracy of preoperative tests (computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography-computed tomography, CA-125 serum levels, and ultrasonography) for the detection of lymph node metastases in endometrial cancers with the final histopathologic diagnosis after complete pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy as the gold standard.
METHOD
A systematic search in MEDLINE (using PubMed), Embase and The Cochrane Library was performed up to 23 July 2012.
RESULTS
We found one article that met our inclusion criteria for computed tomography, none for magnetic resonance imaging, 2 for positron emission tomography/computed tomography), 2 for CA-125 and none for ultrasonography.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the lack of high-quality articles on a preoperative test for lymph node status in endometrial cancer, no proper comparison between these modalities can be made.
Topics: CA-125 Antigen; Endometrial Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Lymphatic Metastasis; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Positron-Emission Tomography; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 23876490
DOI: 10.1102/1470-7330.2013.0032 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2013This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2011.Cervical cancer is the most common cause of death from... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2011.Cervical cancer is the most common cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Locally advanced cervical cancer, FIGO stage (International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics) equal or more than IB1 is treated with chemotherapy and external beam radiotherapy followed by brachytherapy. If there is metastatic para-aortic nodal disease, radiotherapy is extended to cover this area. Due to increased morbidity, ideally extended-field radiotherapy is given only when para-aortic nodal disease is confirmed. Therefore, accurate assessment of the extent of the disease is very important for planning the most appropriate treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pre-treatment surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment for woman with locally advanced cervical cancer (FIGO stage IB2 to IVA).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2012, Issue 10), MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to November 2012). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment and dissection with radiological staging techniques, in adult women diagnosed with locally advanced cervical cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant trials met the inclusion criteria, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. One RCT was identified so no meta-analyses were performed.
MAIN RESULTS
We found only one trial, which included 61 women, that met our inclusion criteria. This trial reported data on surgical versus clinical staging and an assessment of the two surgical staging techniques; laparoscopic (LAP) versus extraperitoneal (EXP) surgical staging. The clinical staging was either a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the abdomen and pelvis to determine nodal status.In this trial, clinical staging appeared to significantly prolong overall and progression-free survival compared to surgical staging. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of women who experienced severe (grade 3 or 4) toxicity.There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of death, disease recurrence or progression, blood loss, severe toxicity and the duration of the operational procedure between LAP and EXP surgical staging techniques.The strength of the evidence is weak in this review as it is based on one small trial that was at moderate risk of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since the last version of this review no new studies were found.From the one available RCT we found insufficient evidence that pre-treatment surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment for locally advanced cervical cancer is beneficial, and it may actually have an adverse effect on survival. However, this conclusion is based on analysis of a small single trial and therefore definitive guidance or recommendations for clinical practice cannot be made.Therefore, the decision to offer surgical pre-treatment assessment of para-aortic lymph nodes in locally advanced cervical cancer needs to be individualised. The uncertainty regarding any impact on survival from pre-treatment para-aortic lymph node assessment should be discussed openly with the women.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aorta, Abdominal; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Lymph Nodes; Lymphatic Metastasis; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Staging; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 23543561
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008217.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2011Cervical cancer is the most common cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Locally advanced cervical cancer, FIGO stage equal or more than IB1 is treated... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cervical cancer is the most common cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. Locally advanced cervical cancer, FIGO stage equal or more than IB1 is treated with chemotherapy and external beam radiotherapy followed by brachytherapy. If there is metastatic para-aortic nodal disease radiotherapy is extended to additionally cover this area. Due to increased morbidity, ideally extended-field radiotherapy is given only when para-aortic nodal disease is proven. Therefore accurate assessment of the extent of the disease is very important for planning the most appropriate treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pre- treatment surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment for woman with locally advanced cervical cancer (FIGO stage IB2 to IVA).
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to January 2011). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment and dissection with radiological staging techniques, in adult women diagnosed with locally advanced cervical cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently assessed whether potentially relevant trials met the inclusion criteria, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. One RCT was identified so no meta-analyses were performed.
MAIN RESULTS
We found only one trial, which included 61 women, that met our inclusion criteria. This trial reported data on surgical versus clinical staging and an assessment of the two surgical staging techniques; laparoscopic (LAP) versus extraperitoneal (EXP) surgical staging. The clinical staging was either a contrast-enhanced CT scan or MRI scan of the abdomen and pelvis to determine nodal status.In this trial, clinical staging appeared to significantly prolong overall and progression-free survival compared to surgical staging. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of women who experienced severe (grade 3 or 4) toxicity.There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of death, disease recurrence or progression, blood loss, severe toxicity and the duration of the operational procedure between LAP and EXP surgical staging techniques.The strength of the evidence is weak in this review as it is based on one small trial which was at moderate risk of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
From the one available RCT we found insufficient evidence that pre-treatment surgical para-aortic lymph node assessment for locally advanced cervical cancer is beneficial, and it may actually have an adverse effect on survival. However this conclusion is based on analysis of a small single trial and therefore definitive guidance or recommendations for clinical practice cannot be made.Therefore the decision to offer surgical pre-treatment assessment of para-aortic lymph nodes in locally advanced cervical cancer needs to be individualised. The uncertainty regarding any impact on survival from pre-treatment para-aortic lymph node assessment should be discussed openly with the women.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aorta, Abdominal; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Lymph Nodes; Lymphatic Metastasis; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Staging; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 21491407
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008217.pub2 -
Cancer Nov 2010Secondary lymphedema is a debilitating, chronic, progressive condition that commonly occurs after the treatment of breast cancer. The purpose of the current study was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Secondary lymphedema is a debilitating, chronic, progressive condition that commonly occurs after the treatment of breast cancer. The purpose of the current study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the oncology-related literature excluding breast cancer to derive estimates of lymphedema incidence and to identify potential risk factors among various malignancies.
METHODS
The authors systematically reviewed 3 major medical indices (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library databases, and Scopus) to identify studies (1972-2008) that included a prospective assessment of lymphedema after cancer treatment. Studies were categorized according to malignancy, and data included treatment, complications, lymphedema measurement criteria, lymphedema incidence, and follow-up interval. A quality assessment of individual studies was performed using established criteria for systematic reviews. Bayesian meta-analytic techniques were applied to derive summary estimates when sufficient data were available.
RESULTS
A total of 47 studies (7779 cancer survivors) met inclusion criteria: melanoma (n = 15), gynecologic malignancies (n = 22), genitourinary cancers (n = 8), head/neck cancers (n = 1), and sarcomas (n = 1). The overall incidence of lymphedema was 15.5% and varied by malignancy (P < .001): melanoma, 16% (upper extremity, 5%; lower extremity, 28%); gynecologic, 20%; genitourinary, 10%; head/neck, 4%; and sarcoma, 30%. Increased lymphedema risk was also noted for patients undergoing pelvic dissections (22%) and radiation therapy (31%). Objective measurement methods and longer follow-up were both associated with increased lymphedema incidence.
CONCLUSIONS
Lymphedema is a common condition affecting cancer survivors with various malignancies. The incidence of lymphedema is related to the type and extent of treatment, anatomic location, heterogeneity of assessment methods, and length of follow-up.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Lymphedema; Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Quality Control; Risk Factors
PubMed: 20665892
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.25458