Perineural invasion is increased in patients receiving colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Balciscueta ◽  
Z. Balciscueta ◽  
N. Uribe ◽  
E. García-Granero
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Perineural Invasion ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Bridge To Surgery ◽  
Colonic Stenting

scholarly journals The role of perineural invasion in penile cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiang Zhou ◽  
Feng Qi ◽  
Ruhua Zhou ◽  
Shangqian Wang ◽  
Yamin Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Penile Cancer ◽  
Perineural Invasion ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oncologic Outcome ◽  
Cancer Specific Survival ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Predictive Role ◽  
The Difference

The significance of perineural invasion (PNI) present in penile cancer (PC) is controversial. In order to clarify the predictive role of PNI in the inguinal lymph node (ILN) metastases (ILNM) and oncologic outcome of patients, we performed this meta-analysis and systematic review. The search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted for appropriate studies, up to 20 January 2018. The pooled odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) with their 95% confidence interval (CI) were applied to evaluate the difference in ILNM and oncologic outcome between patients present with PNI and those who were absent. A total of 298 in 1001 patients present with PNI were identified in current meta-analysis and systematic review. Significant difference was observed in ILNM between PNI present and absent from patients with PC (OR = 2.98, 95% CI = 2.00–4.45). Patients present with PNI had a worse cancer-specific survival (CSS) (HR = 3.58, 95% CI = 1.70–7.55) and a higher cancer-specific mortality (CSM) (HR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.06–3.82) than those cases without PNI. This meta-analysis and systematic review demonstrated the predictive role of PNI in ILNM, CSS, and CSM for PC patients.

Risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients (pts) with perineural invasion (PNI): Systematic review and meta-analysis.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17060-e17060
Author(s):  
Stephanie Fletcher ◽  
Nimer Alsaid ◽  
Chinmayee Katragadda ◽  
Jennifer Martin ◽  
Hani M. Babiker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Biochemical Recurrence ◽  
Perineural Invasion ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals The Safety and Efficiency of Surgery with Colonic Stents in Left-Sided Malignant Colonic Obstruction: A Meta-Analysis

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiang Zhao ◽  
Bo Liu ◽  
Ende Zhao ◽  
Jiliang Wang ◽  
Ming Cai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Site Infection ◽  
Emergency Surgery ◽  
Primary Anastomosis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Colonic Obstruction ◽  
Bridge To Surgery ◽  
Site Infection ◽  
Colonic Stenting ◽  
Malignant Colonic Obstruction ◽  
Colonic Stents

Objective.This meta-analysis is aimed at assessing the safety and efficiency of colonic self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) used as a bridge to surgery in the management of left-sided malignant colonic obstruction (LMCO).Methods.A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Knowledge, OVID, Google Scholar, CNKI, and WANGFANG for relevant randomized trials comparing colonic stenting used as a bridge in semielective surgery versus emergency surgery from January 2001 to September 2013.Result.Five published studies were included in this systematic review, including 273 patients (140 male/133 female). 136 patients received semielective surgery after SEMS installation while 137 patients underwent emergency surgery without SEMS. SEMS intervention resulted in significantly lower overall colostomy rate (41.9% versus 56.2%,P=0.02), surgical site infection rate (10.2% versus 19.7%,P=0.03), and overall complication rate (29.2% versus 60.5%,P=0.05). There was no statistic difference for the rate of primary anastomosis, anastomotic leak and operation-related mortality between two groups.Conclusions.semielective surgery with SEMS as a bridge for proper patients of LMCO can lower the overall rate for colostomy, surgical site infection, and complications.

scholarly journals Current Status of the Self-Expandable Metal Stent as a Bridge to Surgery Versus Emergency Surgery in Colorectal Cancer: Results from an Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature

Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 268
Author(s):  
Roberto Cirocchi ◽  
Alberto Arezzo ◽  
Paolo Sapienza ◽  
Daniele Crocetti ◽  
Davide Cavaliere ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Emergency Surgery ◽  
Primary Anastomosis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Bridge To Surgery ◽  
Metal Stent ◽  
Sems Group ◽  
Short And Long Term

Background: The current use of endoscopic stenting as a bridge to surgery is not always accepted in standard clinical practice to treat neoplastic colonic obstructions. Objectives: The role of colonic self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) positioning as a bridge to resective surgery versus emergency surgery (ES) for malignant obstruction, using all new data and available variables, was studied and we focused on short- and long-term results. Materials and Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases were included. The search comprised only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the interventions that included SEMS positioning versus ES. The primary outcomes were the rates of overall postoperative mortality, clinical and technical success. The secondary outcomes were the short- and long-term results. Results: A total of 12 studies were eligible for further analyses. A laparoscopic colectomy was the most common operation performed in the SEMS group, whereas the traditional open approach was commonly used in the ES group. Intraoperative colonic lavage was seldomly performed during ES. There were no differences in mortality rates between the two groups (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.04; I2 = 0%). In the SEMS group, the rate of successful primary anastomosis was significantly higher in of SEMS (69.75%) than in the ES (55.07%) (RR 1.26, 95% 245 CI 1.01 to 1.57; I2 = 86%). Conversely, the upfront Hartmann procedure was performed more frequently in the ES (39.1%) as compared to the SEMS group (23.4%) (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.85; I2 = 23%). The overall postoperative complications rate was significantly lower in the SEMS group (32.74%) than in the ES group (48.25%) (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; I2 = 65%). Conclusions: In the presence of malignant colorectal obstruction, SEMS is safe and associated with the same mortality and significantly lower morbidity than the ES group. The rate of successful primary anastomosis was significantly higher than the ES group. Nevertheless, recurrence and survival outcomes are not significantly different between the two groups. The analysis of short- and long-term results can suggest the use of SEMS as a bridge to resective surgery when it is performed by an endoscopist with adequate expertise in both colonoscopy and fluoroscopic techniques and who performed commonly colonic stenting.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document