Association of positive peritoneal cytology in early endometrial cancer with some prognostic factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the sixth most common cancer in women worldwide and its mortality is directly associated with the presence of poor prognostic factors driving tumor recurrence. Stratification systems are based on few molecular, and mostly clinical and pathological parameters, but these systems remain inaccurate. Therefore, identifying prognostic EC biomarkers is crucial for improving risk assessment pre- and postoperatively and to guide treatment decisions. This systematic review gathers all protein biomarkers associated with clinical prognostic factors of EC, recurrence and survival. Relevant studies were identified by searching the PubMed database from 1991 to February 2020. A total number of 398 studies matched our criteria, which compiled 255 proteins associated with the prognosis of EC. MUC16, ESR1, PGR, TP53, WFDC2, MKI67, ERBB2, L1CAM, CDH1, PTEN and MMR proteins are the most validated biomarkers. On the basis of our meta-analysis ESR1, TP53 and WFDC2 showed potential usefulness for predicting overall survival in EC. Limitations of the published studies in terms of appropriate study design, lack of high-throughput measurements, and statistical deficiencies are highlighted, and new approaches and perspectives for the identification and validation of clinically valuable EC prognostic biomarkers are discussed.

Download Full-text

A systematic review and meta-analysis of gastric cancer treatment in patients with positive peritoneal cytology

Gastric Cancer ◽

10.1007/s10120-014-0388-5 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 18 (1) ◽

pp. 11-22 ◽

Cited By ~ 17

Author(s):

Carlos Suhady Cabalag ◽

Steven Tuck Foo Chan ◽

Yui Kaneko ◽

Cuong Phu Duong

Keyword(s):

Gastric Cancer ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Cancer Treatment ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Peritoneal Cytology ◽

Positive Peritoneal Cytology ◽

Gastric Cancer Treatment

Download Full-text

Prognostic significance of peritoneal cytology in low-risk endometrial cancer: comparison of laparoscopic surgery and laparotomy

International Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1007/s10147-020-01854-z ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Satoe Fujiwara ◽

Ruri Nishie ◽

Shoko Ueda ◽

Syunsuke Miyamoto ◽

Shinichi Terada ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Endometrial Cancer ◽

Laparoscopic Surgery ◽

Retrospective Study ◽

Prognostic Significance ◽

Low Risk ◽

Peritoneal Cytology ◽

Chi Square ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Chi Square Test ◽

Positive Peritoneal Cytology

Abstract Background There is uncertainty surrounding the prognostic value of peritoneal cytology in low-risk endometrial cancer, especially in laparoscopic surgery. The objective of this retrospective study is to determine the prognostic significance of positive peritoneal cytology among patients with low-risk endometrial cancer and to compare it between laparoscopic surgery and conventional laparotomy. Methods From August 2008 to December 2019, all cases of pathologically confirmed stage IA grade 1 or 2 endometrial cancer were reviewed at Osaka Medical College. Statistical analyses used the Chi-square test and the Kaplan–Meier log rank. Results A total of 478 patients were identified: 438 with negative peritoneal cytology (232 who underwent laparotomy and 206 who undertook laparoscopic surgery) and 40 with positive peritoneal cytology (20 who underwent laparotomy and 20 who received laparoscopic surgery). Survival was significantly worse among patients with positive peritoneal cytology compared to patients with negative peritoneal cytology. However, there was no significant difference among patients with negative or positive peritoneal cytology between laparoscopic surgery and laparotomy. Conclusion This retrospective study suggests that, while peritoneal cytology is an independent risk factor in patients with low-risk endometrial cancer, laparoscopic surgery does not influence the survival outcome when compared to laparotomy.

Download Full-text

Prognostic factors for chronic post-surgical pain after lung or pleural surgery: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051554 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (6) ◽

pp. e051554

Author(s):

Pascal Richard David Clephas ◽

Sanne Elisabeth Hoeks ◽

Marialena Trivella ◽

Christian S Guay ◽

Preet Mohinder Singh ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Prognostic Factors ◽

Prognostic Factor ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Case Series ◽

Related Factors ◽

Surgical Pain ◽

Literature Reviews ◽

Chronic Post Surgical Pain

IntroductionChronic post-surgical pain (CPSP) after lung or pleural surgery is a common complication and associated with a decrease in quality of life, long-term use of pain medication and substantial economic costs. An abundant number of primary prognostic factor studies are published each year, but findings are often inconsistent, methods heterogeneous and the methodological quality questionable. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are therefore needed to summarise the evidence.Methods and analysisThe reporting of this protocol adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist. We will include retrospective and prospective studies with a follow-up of at least 3 months reporting patient-related factors and surgery-related factors for any adult population. Randomised controlled trials will be included if they report on prognostic factors for CPSP after lung or pleural surgery. We will exclude case series, case reports, literature reviews, studies that do not report results for lung or pleural surgery separately and studies that modified the treatment or prognostic factor based on pain during the observation period. MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, Google Scholar and relevant literature reviews will be searched. Independent pairs of two reviewers will assess studies in two stages based on the PICOTS criteria. We will use the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool for the quality assessment and the CHARMS-PF checklist for the data extraction of the included studies. The analyses will all be conducted separately for each identified prognostic factor. We will analyse adjusted and unadjusted estimated measures separately. When possible, evidence will be summarised with a meta-analysis and otherwise narratively. We will quantify heterogeneity by calculating the Q and I2 statistics. The heterogeneity will be further explored with meta-regression and subgroup analyses based on clinical knowledge. The quality of the evidence obtained will be evaluated according to the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation guideline 28.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be necessary, as all data are already in the public domain. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021227888.

Download Full-text

Efficacy of Surgery for the Treatment of Gastric Cancer Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis of Prognostic Factors

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm10051141 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (5) ◽

pp. 1141

Author(s):

Gianpaolo Marte ◽

Andrea Tufo ◽

Francesca Steccanella ◽

Ester Marra ◽

Piera Federico ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gastric Cancer ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Prognostic Factors ◽

Liver Metastases ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Multidisciplinary Treatment ◽

Review Of The Literature ◽

Term Survival ◽

The Impact

Background: In the last 10 years, the management of patients with gastric cancer liver metastases (GCLM) has changed from chemotherapy alone, towards a multidisciplinary treatment with liver surgery playing a leading role. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy of hepatectomy for GCLM and to analyze the impact of related prognostic factors on long-term outcomes. Methods: The databases PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles from January 2010 to September 2020. We included prospective and retrospective studies that reported the outcomes after hepatectomy for GCLM. A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of prognostic factors was performed. Results: We included 40 studies, including 1573 participants who underwent hepatic resection for GCLM. Post-operative morbidity and 30-day mortality rates were 24.7% and 1.6%, respectively. One-year, 3-years, and 5-years overall survival (OS) were 72%, 37%, and 26%, respectively. The 1-year, 3-years, and 5-years disease-free survival (DFS) were 44%, 24%, and 22%, respectively. Well-moderately differentiated tumors, pT1–2 and pN0–1 adenocarcinoma, R0 resection, the presence of solitary metastasis, unilobar metastases, metachronous metastasis, and chemotherapy were all strongly positively associated to better OS and DFS. Conclusion: In the present study, we demonstrated that hepatectomy for GCLM is feasible and provides benefits in terms of long-term survival. Identification of patient subgroups that could benefit from surgical treatment is mandatory in a multidisciplinary setting.

Download Full-text