-
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 -
Orthopaedic Surgery May 2015This is a systematic review of articles concerning the morbidity, recurrence rate, treatment and treatment complications of pelvic giant cell tumors (GCTs). The key... (Review)
Review
This is a systematic review of articles concerning the morbidity, recurrence rate, treatment and treatment complications of pelvic giant cell tumors (GCTs). The key words "giant cell tumor, pelvis" were used to identify articles which included data on patients with pelvic GCTs in English and Chinese databases of published reports from 1949-2012. The articles were filtered by title, abstract and full text. Thirty-eight articles and 165 patients were identified for this review. Data on all identified patients were studies; data in different articles on the same patients was not used repeatedly. The following patient data were collected where possible and subjected to systematic analysis; age, location of GCT, treatment, follow-up, complications, recurrence and whether alive or dead. The mean age of onset was 33.2 years (range, 14-73 years), the peak ages of onset being between 21 and 40 years. A pronounced sex difference was identified, the male : female ratio being 1:1.7. The acetabulum was the commonest area for pelvic GCTs. Forty-eight tumors were primarily located in the iliac, 60 in the acetabular and 31 in the ischiopubic area. Twenty-seven patients experienced complications of treatment. Patients who had been treated by wide resection had the most complications; these included incisional infection and delayed healing of incisions. Local recurrence was common, having occurred in 39/158 patients (24.6%), comprising 24/72 (33.3%) who had undergone intralesional surgery only; 9/20 (45.0%) who had undergone radiotherapy only; 1/51 (2.0%) who had undergone wide resection; and 5/14 patients (35.7%) who had undergone radiation therapy or cryotherapy plus intralesional surgery. Mortality was low (3.2%, 5/158). Pelvic GCT is not common, the acetabular area appears to the most frequent site and the peak age is the third and fourth decades. Although the recurrence rate is high for all pelvic GCTs, the mortality is low. Treatment has a critical influence on recurrence. In spite of the associated complications, the lower local recurrence rate makes wide resection a reasonable option for patients with extensive and/or aggressive GCTs.
Topics: Bone Neoplasms; Combined Modality Therapy; Giant Cell Tumor of Bone; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Pelvic Bones; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26033989
DOI: 10.1111/os.12174 -
International Urogynecology Journal Apr 2018Pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) negatively affect quality of life in the general population, and their prevalence in gynecologic cancer survivors has not been... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS
Pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) negatively affect quality of life in the general population, and their prevalence in gynecologic cancer survivors has not been systematically described. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of PFDs in cancer survivors. We hypothesized that the prevalence of PFDs in the gynecologic cancer population would be higher than in the general female population.
METHODS
We searched PubMed (1809 to present), EMBASE (1974 to present), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) through May 2017. The search combined subject headings, title, and abstract words for gynecologic cancer, PFDs, and prevalence. Any studies evaluating the prevalence of PFDs in gynecologic malignancies were included.
RESULTS
A total of 550 articles met the designated search criteria and 31 articles were included in this review. In cervical cancer survivors, before treatment the prevalences of stress urinary incontinence (SUI), urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) and fecal incontinence (FI) were 24-29%, 8-18% and 6%, respectively, and after treatment the prevalences of SUI, UUI, urinary retention, FI, fecal urge, dyspareunia and vaginal dryness were 4-76%, 4-59%, 0.4-39%, 2-34%, 3-49%, 12-58% and 15-47%, respectively. In uterine cancer survivors, before treatment the prevalences of SUI, UUI and FI were 29-36%, 15-25% and 3%, respectively, and after treatment the prevalences of urinary incontinence (UI) and dyspareunia were 2-44% and 7-39%, respectively. In vulvar cancer survivors, after treatment the prevalences of UI, SUI and FI were 4-32%, 6-20% and 1-20%, respectively. In ovarian cancer survivors, the prevalences of SUI, UUI, prolapse and sexual dysfunction were 32-42%, 15-39%, 17% and 62-75%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
PFDs are prevalent in gynecologic cancer survivors and this is an important area of clinical concern and future research.
Topics: Cancer Survivors; Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Humans; Pelvic Floor Disorders; Prevalence
PubMed: 28929201
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-017-3467-4 -
European Urology Mar 2024Lymph node (LN) involvement in penile cancer is associated with poor survival. Early diagnosis and management significantly impact survival, with multimodal treatment...
CONTEXT
Lymph node (LN) involvement in penile cancer is associated with poor survival. Early diagnosis and management significantly impact survival, with multimodal treatment approaches often considered in advanced disease.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the clinical effectiveness of treatment options available for the management of inguinal and pelvic lymphadenopathy in men with penile cancer.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and other databases were searched from 1990 to July 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomised comparative studies (NRCSs), and case series (CSs) were included.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
We identified 107 studies, involving 9582 patients from two RCTs, 28 NRCSs, and 77 CSs. The quality of evidence is considered poor. Surgery is the mainstay of LN disease management, with early inguinal LN dissection (ILND) associated with better outcomes. Videoendoscopic ILND may offer comparable survival outcomes to open ILND with lower wound-related morbidity. Ipsilateral pelvic LN dissection (PLND) in N2-3 cases improves overall survival in comparison to no pelvic surgery. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in N2-3 disease showed a pathological complete response rate of 13% and an objective response rate of 51%. Adjuvant radiotherapy may benefit pN2-3 but not pN1 disease. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy may provide a small survival benefit in N3 disease. Adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy improve outcomes after PLND for pelvic LN metastases.
CONCLUSIONS
Early LND improves survival in nodal disease in penile cancer. Multimodal treatments may provide additional benefit in pN2-3 cases; however, data are limited. Therefore, individualised management of patients with nodal disease should be discussed in a multidisciplinary team setting.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Spread of penile cancer to the lymph nodes is best managed with surgery, which improves survival and has curative potential. Supplementary treatment, including the use of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, may further improve survival in advanced disease. Patients with penile cancer with lymph node involvement should be treated by a multidisciplinary team.
Topics: Humans; Male; Lymph Node Excision; Lymph Nodes; Lymphatic Metastasis; Neoplasm Staging; Penile Neoplasms
PubMed: 37208237
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.04.018 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2010Endometrial carcinoma is the most common gynaecological cancer in western Europe and North America. Lymph node metastases can be found in approximately 10% of women who... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Endometrial carcinoma is the most common gynaecological cancer in western Europe and North America. Lymph node metastases can be found in approximately 10% of women who clinically have cancer confined to the womb prior to surgery and removal of all pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes (lymphadenectomy) is widely advocated. Pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy is part of the FIGO staging system for endometrial cancer. This recommendation is based on non-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) data that suggested improvement in survival following pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy. However, treatment of pelvic lymph nodes may not confer a direct therapeutic benefit, other than allocating women to poorer prognosis groups. Furthermore, a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs of routine adjuvant radiotherapy to treat possible lymph node metastases in women with early-stage endometrial cancer, did not find a survival advantage. Surgical removal of pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes has serious potential short and long-term sequelae and most women will not have positive lymph nodes. It is therefore important to establish the clinical value of a treatment with known morbidity.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of lymphadenectomy for the management of endometrial cancer.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 2, 2009. Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Review Group Trials Register, MEDLINE (1966 to June 2009), Embase (1966 to June 2009). We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs and quasi-RCTs that compared lymphadenectomy with no lymphadenectomy, in adult women diagnosed with endometrial cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently abstracted 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 or no lymphadenectomy were pooled in random effects meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
Two RCTs met the inclusion criteria; they randomised 1945 women, and reported HRs for survival, adjusted for prognostic factors, based on 1851 women.Meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in overall and recurrence-free survival between women who received lymphadenectomy and those who received no lymphadenectomy (pooled HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.43 and HR = 1.23, 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.58 for overall and recurrence-free survival respectively).We found no statistically significant difference in risk of direct surgical morbidity between women who received lymphadenectomy and those who received no lymphadenectomy. However, women who received lymphadenectomy had a significantly higher risk of surgically related systemic morbidity and lymphoedema/lymphocyst formation than those who had no lymphadenectomy (RR = 3.72, 95% CI: 1.04 to 13.27 and RR = 8.39, 95% CI: 4.06, 17.33 for risk of surgically related systemic morbidity and lymphoedema/lymphocyst formation respectively).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no evidence that lymphadenectomy decreases the risk of death or disease recurrence compared with no lymphadenectomy in women with presumed stage I disease. The evidence on serious adverse events suggests that women who receive lymphadenectomy are more likely to experience surgically related systemic morbidity or lymphoedema/lymphocyst formation.
Topics: Adult; Endometrial Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Lymphedema; Lymphocele; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 20091639
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007585.pub2 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Mar 2017To analyze the anatomy of sacral venous plexus flow, the causes of injuries and the methods for controlling presacral hemorrhage during surgery for rectal cancer. (Review)
Review
AIM
To analyze the anatomy of sacral venous plexus flow, the causes of injuries and the methods for controlling presacral hemorrhage during surgery for rectal cancer.
METHODS
A review of the databases MEDLINE and Embase™ was conducted, and relevant scientific articles published between January 1960 and June 2016 were examined. The anatomy of the sacrum and its venous plexus, as well as the factors that influence bleeding, the causes of this complication, and its surgical management were defined.
RESULTS
This is a review of 58 published articles on presacral venous plexus injury during the mobilization of the rectum and on techniques used to treat presacral venous bleeding. Due to the lack of cases published in the literature, there is no consensus on which is the best technique to use if there is presacral bleeding during mobilization in surgery for rectal cancer. This review may provide a tool to help surgeons make decisions regarding how to resolve this serious complication.
CONCLUSION
A series of alternative treatments are described; however, a conventional systematic review in which optimal treatment is identified could not be performed because few cases were analyzed in most publications.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Decision Making; Electrocoagulation; Hemostasis; Hemostasis, Surgical; Humans; Hydrodynamics; Metals; Pelvis; Prostheses and Implants; Rectal Neoplasms; Rectum; Sacrum; Veins
PubMed: 28321171
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i9.1712 -
Danish Medical Journal Jul 2015Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard surgical treatment for mid and low rectal cancer. The procedure is performed by open, laparoscopic or robotic approaches.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard surgical treatment for mid and low rectal cancer. The procedure is performed by open, laparoscopic or robotic approaches. Transanal TME (TaTME) is a new procedure that potentially solves some difficulties in the pelvic part of the dissection. We aimed to evaluate the literature on TaTME.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search of the literature in the PubMed and Embase databases. Both authors assessed the studies. All publications on TaTME were included with the exception of review articles.
RESULTS
A total of 29 studies (336 patients) were included. Only low-quality evidence is available, and the literature consists of case reports and case series. Studies represent the initial experience of surgeons/centres. No precise indication for TaTME is yet specified other than the presence of mid and low rectal tumours, although the potential advantages seem to be related to a bulky mesorectum in the male pelvis. The preliminary results are encouraging and the most serious complication is urethral injury. The oncological results are acceptable, although the follow-up is short.
CONCLUSION
TaTME is a feasible approach for mid and low rectal cancers. Long-term follow-up data are awaited regarding functional results, local recurrence and survival, and to facilitate comparison with standard laparoscopic or robotic rectal resections.
Topics: Dissection; Female; Humans; Male; Rectal Neoplasms; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery
PubMed: 26183050
DOI: No ID Found -
International Journal of Colorectal... Nov 2021The role of lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) during total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer is still controversial. Many reviews were published on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
UNLABELLED
The role of lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) during total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer is still controversial. Many reviews were published on prophylactic LLND in rectal cancer surgery, some biased by heterogeneity of overall associated treatments. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to perform a timeline analysis of different treatments associated to prophylactic LLND vs no-LLND during TME for rectal cancer.
METHODS
A literature search was performed in PubMed, SCOPUS and WOS for publications up to 1 September 2020. We considered RCTs and CCTs comparing oncologic and functional outcomes of TME with or without LLND in patients with rectal cancer.
RESULTS
Thirty-four included articles and 29 studies enrolled 11,606 patients. No difference in 5-year local recurrence (in every subgroup analysis including preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy), 5-year distant and overall recurrence, 5-year overall survival and 5-year disease-free survival was found between LLND group and non LLND group. The analysis of post-operative functional outcomes reported hindered quality of life (urinary, evacuatory and sexual dysfunction) in LLND patients when compared to non LLND.
CONCLUSION
Our publication does not demonstrate that TME with LLND has any oncological advantage when compared to TME alone, showing that with the advent of neoadjuvant therapy, the advantage of LLND is lost. In this review, the most important bias is the heterogeneous characteristics of patients, cancer staging, different neoadjuvant therapy, different radiotherapy techniques and fractionation used in different studies. Higher rate of functional post-operative complications does not support routinely use of LLND.
Topics: Humans; Lymph Node Excision; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Neoplasm Staging; Quality of Life; Rectal Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34125269
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-021-03946-2 -
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 -
Orthopaedic Surgery May 2017Giant cell tumor of the bone (GCTB) is a locally aggressive tumor with a certain distant metastatic rate. For sacral GCT (SGCT) and pelvic GCT (PGCT), surgery has its... (Review)
Review
Giant cell tumor of the bone (GCTB) is a locally aggressive tumor with a certain distant metastatic rate. For sacral GCT (SGCT) and pelvic GCT (PGCT), surgery has its limitations, especially for unresectable or recurrent tumors. Selective arterial embolization (SAE) is reported to be an option for treatment in several cases, but there are few systematic reviews on the effects of SAE on SGCT and/or PGCT. Medline and Embase databases were searched for eligible English articles. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were conducted before searching. All the clinical factors were measured by SPSS software, with P-values ≤0.05 considered statistically significant. A total of 9 articles were retrieved, including 44 patients receiving SAE ranging from 1 to 10 times. During the mean follow-up period of 85.8 months, the radiographic response rate was 81.8%, with a local control and overall survival rate of 75% and 81.8%, respectively. No bowel, bladder, or sexual dysfunction was observed. Three patients developed distant metastases and finally died. Patients with primary tumors tended to have better prognosis than those with recurrence (P = 0.039). The favorable outcomes of SAE suggest that it may be an alternative treatment for SGCT and PGCT patients for whom surgery is not appropriate.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Bone Neoplasms; Embolization, Therapeutic; Female; Giant Cell Tumor of Bone; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pelvic Bones; Pelvic Neoplasms; Sacrum; Spinal Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 28644557
DOI: 10.1111/os.12336