Systemic review and network meta‐analysis comparing minimal surgical techniques for rectal cancer: quality of total mesorectum excision, pathological, surgical, and oncological outcomes

2019 ◽  
Vol 119 (7) ◽  
pp. 987-998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuele Rausa ◽  
Federica Bianco ◽  
Michael E. Kelly ◽  
Alberto Aiolfi ◽  
Fausto Petrelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Systemic Review ◽  
Oncological Outcomes ◽  
Total Mesorectum Excision

AB151. 85. Comparative oncological outcomes of upper third rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. AB151-AB151
Author(s):  
Michael Flanagan ◽  
Cillian Clancy ◽  
Deborah McNamara ◽  
John P. Burke
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oncological Outcomes ◽  
Upper Third

Relationship between disease activity, organ damage and health-related quality of life in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: A systemic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 102691 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yue Shi ◽  
Mucong Li ◽  
Lingshan Liu ◽  
Ziqian Wang ◽  
Yanhong Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Organ Damage ◽  
Systemic Review ◽  
Health Related Quality ◽  
Systemic Lupus ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related

scholarly journals Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery in Lateral Lymph Node Dissection for Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manzhao Ouyang ◽  
Tianyou Liao ◽  
Yan Lu ◽  
Leilei Deng ◽  
Zhentao Luo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Lymph Node ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Advanced Rectal Cancer ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
Lateral Lymph Node ◽  
Oncological Outcomes ◽  
Conventional Open Surgery

Aim. To compare the clinical efficacies between laparoscopic and conventional open surgery in lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) for advanced rectal cancer. Methods. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang Data and performed a cumulative meta-analysis. According to inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria, all eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or retrospective or prospective comparative studies assessing the two techniques were included, and then a meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software to assess the difference in clinical and oncological outcomes between the two treatment approaches. Results. Eight studies involving a total of 892 patients were finally selected, with 394 cases in the laparoscopic surgery group and 498 cases in the traditional open surgery group. Compared with the traditional open group, the laparoscopic group had a longer operative time (WMD=81.56, 95% CI (2.09, 142.03), P=0.008), but less intraoperative blood loss (WMD=−452.18, 95% CI (-652.23, -252.13), P<0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD=−5.30, 95% CI (-8.42, -2.18), P=0.0009), and higher R0 resection rate (OR=2.17, 95% CI (1.14, 4.15), P=0.02). There was no significant difference in the incidence of surgical complications between the two groups (OR=0.52, 95% CI (0.26, 1.07), P=0.08). Lateral lymph node harvest, lateral lymph node metastasis, local recurrence, 3-year overall survival, and 3-year disease-free survival did not differ significantly between the two approaches (P>0.05). Conclusion. Laparoscopic LLND has a similar efficacy in oncological outcomes and postoperative complications to the conventional open surgery, with the advantages of reduced intraoperative blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and higher R0 resection rate, and tumor radical cure is similar to traditional open surgery. Laparoscopic LLND is a safe and feasible surgical approach, and it may be used as a standard procedure in LLND for advanced rectal cancer.

scholarly journals Oncological and quality of life outcomes following extralevator versus standard abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 99 (5) ◽  
pp. 402-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
D Kamali ◽  
A Sharpe ◽  
A Musbahi ◽  
A Reddy
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Abdominoperineal Excision ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
Recurrence Rates ◽  
Oncological Outcomes ◽  
Significant Difference

INTRODUCTION There is increasing and conflicting research debating the oncological benefits of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) compared with standard abdominoperineal excision (SAPE). However, there is very little in the literature on the long-term effects on patients’ wellbeing following the two procedures. The aim of this study was to determine the oncological outcomes and long-term quality of life (QoL) of patients at two hospitals having undergone ELAPE or SAPE. METHODS Consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent either ELAPE or SAPE between January 2009 and June 2015 at a single centre were analysed. Oncological outcomes were determined by histology and follow-up imaging. QoL data were obtained prospectively using the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 questionnaires. RESULTS A total of 48 patients (36 male, 12 female; 27 ELAPE, 21 SAPE) were reviewed. The mean age was 67.4 years and the median follow-up duration was 44 months (range: 6–79 months). Four patients (2 ELAPE, 2 SAPE) developed local recurrence. Rates of distant metastasis were similar (ELAPE: 11%, SAPE: 14%). There was no significant difference in mean global health status score (ELAPE: 77.3, SAPE: 65.3). Impotence was the most frequently reported problem (mean symptom scores of 89.7 and 78.8 for ELAPE and SAPE respectively). CONCLUSIONS This is the largest study with the longest follow-up period that compares QoL after ELAPE with that after SAPE. Although more radical in nature, ELAPE did not demonstrate any significant impact on QoL compared with SAPE. There was no significant difference in long-term oncological outcome between the groups. Impotence remains a significant problem for all patients and they should be well informed of this risk prior to surgery.

scholarly journals Prognostic implications of surgical specimen quality on the oncological outcomes of open and laparoscopic surgery in mid and low rectal cancer

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vicente Pla-Martí ◽  
José Martín-Arévalo ◽  
David Moro-Valdezate ◽  
Stephanie García-Botello ◽  
Leticia Pérez-Santiago ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Laparoscopic Approach ◽  
Low Rectal Cancer ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
Distal Margin ◽  
Surgical Specimen ◽  
Oncological Outcomes

Abstract Purpose Determine differences in pathologic outcomes between laparoscopic (LAP) and open surgery (OPEN) for mid and low rectal cancer and its influence in long-term oncological outcomes. Methods Retrospective case matched study at a tertiary institution. Adults with rectal cancer below 12 cm from the anal verge operated between January 2005 and September 2018 were included. Primary outcomes were quality of specimen, overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local recurrence (LR). Results The study included 311 patients, LAP = 108 (34.7%), OPEN = 203 (65,3%). A successful resection was accomplished in 81% of the LAP group and in 84.5% of the OPEN (p = 0.505). No differences in free distal margin (LAP = 100%, OPEN = 97.5%; p = 0.156) or circumferential resection margin (LAP = 95.2%, OPEN = 93.2%; p = 0.603) were observed. However, mesorectum quality was incomplete in 16.2% for LAP and in 8.1% for OPEN (p = 0.048). OS was 91.1% for LAP and 81.1% for OPEN (p = 0.360). DFS was 81.4% for LAP and 77.5% for OPEN (p = 0.923). Overall, LR was 2.3% without differences between groups. Conclusions Laparoscopic approach could affect the quality of surgical specimen due to technical aspects. However, if principles of surgical oncology are respected, minor pathologic differences in the quality of the mesorectum may not influence on the long-term oncologic outcomes.

scholarly journals Impact of Surgical Approach on Surgical Resection Quality in Mid- and Low Rectal Cancer, A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaojie Wang ◽  
Zhifang Zheng ◽  
Qian Yu ◽  
Waleed M. Ghareeb ◽  
Xingrong Lu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Bayesian Network ◽  
Surgical Resection ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Rectal Cancer ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Mesorectal Excision ◽  
Significant Difference

AimTo evaluate the evidence concerning the quality of surgical resection in laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RobTME) and transanal (TaTME) total mesorectal excision for mid-/low rectal cancer.MethodsA systematic literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases was performed. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was utilized to compare surgical resection involved in these 3 surgical techniques by using ADDIS software. Rates of positive circumferential resection margins (CRMs) were the primary endpoint.ResultsA total of 34 articles, 2 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 32 non-RCTs, were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled data showed CRM positivity in 114 of 1763 LapTME procedures (6.5%), 54 of 1051 RobTME procedures (5.1%) and 60 of 1276 TaTME procedures (4.7%). There was no statistically significant difference among these 3 surgical approaches in terms of CRM involvement rates and all other surgical resection quality outcomes. The incomplete mesorectal excision rates were 9.6% (69/720) in the LapTME group, 1.9% (11/584) in the RobTME group and 5.6% (45/797) in the TaTME group. Pooled network analysis observed a higher but not statistically significant risk of incomplete mesorectum when comparing both LapTME with RobTME (OR = 1.99; 95% CI = 0.48-11.17) and LapTME with TaTME (OR = 1.90; 95% CI = 0.99-5.25). By comparison, RobTME was most likely to be ranked the best or second best in terms of CRM involvement, complete mesorectal excision, rate of distal resection margin (DRM) involvement and length of DRMs. In addition, RobTME achieved a greater mean tumor distance to the CRM than TaTME. It is worth noting that TaTME was most likely to be ranked the worst in terms of CRM involvement for intersphincteric resection of low rectal cancer.ConclusionOverall, RobTME was most likely to be ranked the best in terms of the quality of surgical resection for the treatment of mid-/low rectal cancer. TaTME should be performed with caution in the treatment of low rectal cancer.

The impact of SLE on health-related quality of life assessed with SF-36: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Lupus ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-382 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Gu ◽  
Q Cheng ◽  
X Wang ◽  
F Yuan ◽  
NB Sam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Systemic Review ◽  
Health Related Quality ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related ◽  
The Impact

Objective To evaluate the impact of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessed with SF-36 and explore factors associated with HRQoL in SLE patients. Methods A random-effect meta-analysis was performed to calculate extracted data. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to distinguish sources of heterogeneity. Results A total of 36 articles were finally included in this meta-analysis, including 6510 patients. The pooled mean scores of SF-36 physical component summary and mental component summary were 46.10 (95% confidence interval (CI): 43.09–49.10) and 50.37 (95% CI: 47.78–52.87), respectively. Spearman's correlation analysis found that mean age, proportion of female participants, and publication decades were negatively associated with some of the SF-36 domains. Sample size and SLEDAI were positively associated with some of the SF-36 domains. Patients with SLE have lower HRQoL in comparison to the general population. Conclusions SLE has a significant impact on HRQoL, which proves that the necessity of improving HRQoL in SLE patients cannot be ignored. Measuring HRQoL should be considered as an indispensable part of the overall evaluation of health conditions of SLE patients.

Adjuvant therapy in pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A systemic review and meta-analysis.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 330-330
Author(s):  
Kazi Jannatun Nahar ◽  
David Chan ◽  
Anubhav Mittal ◽  
Jaswinder S. Samra ◽  
Thomas Hugh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Adjuvant Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Systemic Review ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3

330 Background: The “optimal” adjuvant treatment in pancreatic cancer remains undetermined. Chemotherapy (chemo) such as gemcitabine (Gem), 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and chemo-radiotherapy (chemoRT) with either Gem or 5-FU have been investigated in trials. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the overall efficacy of adjuvant treatment. Methods: We searched databases (PubMed, Medline, Cochrane database) and major conference proceedings up until August 2015 for randomized trials comparing chemo or chemoRT versus (vs) observation, two different chemo regimens and chemoRT vs chemo. Primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points were relapse free survival (RFS), grade 3/4 toxic effects and quality of life (QoL). We performed meta-analysis as per the PRISMA guidelines; hazard ratios (HR) for OS and RFS were pooled with random-effects modelling. Results: Fifteen trials were identified evaluating 4348 patients. For trials comparing chemo to observation (7 trials, n = 1383) the OS HR was 0.77 (95% CI 0.67-0.89, p = 0.001) and PFS HR 0.73 (95% CI 0.53-1.01, p = 0.06) both favouring chemo. For trials investigating Gem (2 trials, n = 472), OS was improved with HR 0.76 (95% CI 0.63 -0.92, p = 0.006) as was RFS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46-0.68, p < 0.00001). For trials investigating agents other than Gem (5 trials, n = 911), OS was improved with HR 0.79 (95% CI 0.63-0.99, p = 0.04), but RFS was not (2 trials only, HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73-1.37, p = 0.99). Five trials (n = 1832) compared different chemo regimens to Gem in each case; pooled OS HR was 0.90 (95% CI 0.65-1.25, p = 0.54) and RFS HR 0.88 (95% CI 0.67-1.15, p = 0.35). Insufficient data was available to pool grade 3/4 toxicity for chemo vs observation trials; no significant difference was found in incidence of overall grade 3/4 toxicity for trials comparing two chemo regimens (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.39-2.47, p = 0.96). QoL data was available in 3 trials (ESPAC-1, ESPAC-3, CapRi) with no significant differences noted. Conclusions: Adjuvant chemo vs no chemo for resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma improves OS and RFS. Adjuvant ChemoRT vs no treatment is not beneficial. Overall, novel chemo regimens have not been shown to be superior to Gem. Reporting of QoL is inadequate to make any conclusion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document