Dataset Information

A meta-analysis of extended versus standard lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Lymph node involvement in pancreatic adenocarcinoma is a key prognostic factor. Therefore, extending the number of lymph node stations excised in pancreatoduodenectomy may be beneficial to patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the outcomes of extended versus standard lymphadenectomy in the published literature.

Methods

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extended with standard lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma was performed. Perioperative outcomes were assessed as pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences. Overall survival was analysed for patients with positive and negative lymph nodes. Results were reported according to the PRISMA statement.

Results

Five RCTs were included, accounting for 724 patients. Extended lymphadenectomy was associated with greater operative time [mean difference: 63 min, 95% confidence interval (CI) 29-96; P < 0.001], increased need for blood transfusions (mean difference: 0.20, 95% CI 0.01-0.30; P = 0.030) and greater postoperative morbidity (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.25-2.00; P = 0.030), as well as with prolonged diarrhoea after circumferential autonomic nerve dissection around major vessels (OR 12.2, 95% CI 5.3-28.5; P < 0.001). Median survival was similar across the groups in the whole cohort, as well as in subgroups of patients with, respectively, positive and negative lymph nodes.

Conclusions

Extended lymphadenectomy has a harmful impact on patients undergoing oncological pancreatoduodenectomy compared with standard lymphadenectomy.

SUBMITTER: Orci LA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4474502 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A meta-analysis of extended versus standard lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Orci Lorenzo A LA Meyer Jeremy J Combescure Christophe C Bühler Leo L Berney Thierry T Morel Philippe P Toso Christian C

HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association 20150423 7

<h4>Background</h4>Lymph node involvement in pancreatic adenocarcinoma is a key prognostic factor. Therefore, extending the number of lymph node stations excised in pancreatoduodenectomy may be beneficial to patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the outcomes of extended versus standard lymphadenectomy in the published literature.<h4>Methods</h4>A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extended with standard lymphadenect ...[more]

PMID: 25913578

Similar Datasets

Project description:Despite that pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PPaLND) is recommended as part of accurate surgical staging by International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) in endometrial cancer, the impact of para-aortic lymphadenectomy on survival remains controversial. The aim of this work is to evaluate the survival benefits or risks in endometrial cancer patients who underwent surgical staging with or without para-aortic lymphadenectomy using meta-analysis.Literature search was undertaken using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant articles published between January 1, 1990, and January 1, 2017, without language restriction. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS); progression-free survival (PFS)/recurrence-free survival (RFS)/disease-free survival (DFS)/disease-related survival (DRS) was also analyzed. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted to investigate the source of heterogeneity. Quality assessments were performed by Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). Publication bias was evaluated by using Begg and Egger tests. The hazard ratio (HR) was pooled with random-effects or fixed-effects model as appropriate.Eight studies with a total of 2793 patients were included. OS was significantly longer in PPaLND group than in pelvic lymphadenectomy (PLND) group for patients with endometrial cancer [HR 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.84, P?<?.001, I?=?12.2%]. Subgroup analysis by recurrence risk explored the same association in patients at intermediate- or high-risk (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.39-0.69, P?<?.001, I?=?41.4%), but not for low-risk patients (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.21-1.08, P?=?.077, I?=?0). PPaLND with systematic resection of all para-aortic nodes up to renal vein also improved PFS/RFS/DFS/DRS, compared with PLND (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37-0.72, P?<?.001, I?=?0). No publication bias was observed among included studies.PPaLND is associated with favorable survival outcomes in endometrial cancer patients with intermediate- or high-risk of recurrence compared with PLND, particularly with regards to OS. PPaLND with systematic resection of all para-aortic nodes up to renal vein also improve PFS compared with PLND. Further large-scale randomized clinical trials are required to validate our findings.

Project description:Background and aimsMost patients with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed at a late stage and are not candidates for surgical resection. Many have jaundice requiring biliary drainage, which can be accomplished using ERCP or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). To date, no studies have evaluated the impact of ERCP or PTBD on survival among patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. The aims of our study were to compare overall survival between patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer receiving ERCP with those receiving PTBD, to compare overall survival between patients who received a biliary intervention (ERCP or PTBD) versus those who received no biliary intervention, and to compare secondary outcomes, such as length of hospital stay and costs, between ERCP and PTBD.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database. Patients with known pancreatic cancer were included if they had a pancreatic head mass and/or evidence of biliary obstruction. We used a time-varying Cox proportional hazards model to estimate overall survival of patients receiving ERCP versus PTBD and overall survival among patients who received a biliary intervention versus no biliary drainage. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, costs, and admissions within 30 days.ResultsOf 14,808 patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer, 8898 patients (60.0%) underwent biliary drainage and 5910 patients (39.9%) received no biliary intervention. ERCP accounted for most biliary interventions (8271, 93.0%), whereas 623 patients (7.0%) underwent PTBD. In multivariable analysis, ERCP was associated with reduced mortality compared with PTBD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], .67; 95% confidence interval [CI], .60-.75). When ERCP or PTBD was compared with no biliary intervention, both procedures were associated with a survival benefit (aHR, .51 [95% CI, .49-.54] and .53 [95% CI, .48-.59], respectively). Compared with patients receiving PTBD, those who underwent ERCP had shorter mean length of hospital stay (7.0 ± 5.7 days vs 9.6 ± 6.6 days, respectively; P < .001) and lower hospital charges ($54,899.25 vs $75,246.00, P < .001) but no significant difference in hospitalization or 30-day readmissions.ConclusionsERCP is associated with reduced mortality compared with PTBD in pancreatic cancer patients, highlighting the critical role of ERCP in the management of biliary obstruction from pancreatic cancer.

Project description:It is unclear whether or not ultrasound-guided cannulation (UGC) of the femoral artery is superior to the standard approach (SA) in reducing vascular complications and improving access success. We sought to compare procedural and clinical outcomes of femoral UGC versus SA in patients undergoing percutaneous cardiovascular intervention (PCvI). We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus and web sources for randomized trials comparing UGC versus SA. We estimated risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Primary efficacy endpoint was the success rate at the first attempt, while secondary efficacy endpoints were access time and number of attempts. Primary safety endpoints were the rates of vascular complications, while secondary endpoints were major bleeding, as well as access site hematoma, venepuncture, pseudoaneurysms and retroperitoneal hematoma. This meta-analysis has been registered on Centre for Open Science (OSF) (osf.io/fy82e). Seven trials were included, randomizing 3180 patients to UGC (n = 1564) or SA (n = 1616). Efficacy between UGC and SA was the main metric assessed in most of the trials, in which one third of the enrolled patients underwent interventional procedures. The success rate of the first attempt was significantly higher with UGC compared to SA, (82.0% vs. 58.7%; RR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.57; p < 0.0001; I2 = 88%). Time to access and number of attempts were significantly reduced with UGC compared to SA (SMD: -0.19; 95% CI: -0.28 to -0.10; p < 0.0001; I2 = 22%) and (SMD: -0.40; 95% CI: -0.58 to -0.21; p < 0.0001; I2 = 82%), respectively. Compared with SA, use of UGC was associated with a significant reduction in vascular complications (1.3% vs. 3.0%; RR: 0.48; CI 95%: 0.25 to 0.91; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%) and access-site hematoma (1.2% vs. 3.3%; RR: 0.41; CI 95%: 0.20 to 0.83; p = 0.01; I2 = 27%), but there were non-significant differences in major bleeding (0.7% vs. 1.4%; RR: 0.57; CI 95%: 0.24 to 1.32; p = 0.19; I2 = 0%). Rates of venepuncture were lower with UGC (3.6% vs. 12.1%; RR: 0.32; CI 95%: 0.20 to 0.52; p < 0.00001; I2 = 55%). This study, which included all available data to date, demonstrated that, compared to a standard approach, ultrasound-guided cannulation of the femoral artery is associated with lower access-related complications and higher efficacy rates. These results could be of great clinical relevance especially in the femoral cannulation of high risk patients.

Dataset Information

A meta-analysis of extended versus standard lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A meta-analysis of extended versus standard lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets