Robotic radiosurgery in pancreatic cancer: A systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Buwenge M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4541395 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Robotic radiosurgery in pancreatic cancer: A systematic review.
Buwenge Milly M Cellini Francesco F Silvestris Nicola N Cilla Savino S Deodato Francesco F Macchia Gabriella G Mattiucci Gian C GC Valentini Vincenzo V Morganti Alessio G AG
World journal of gastroenterology 20150801 31
<h4>Aim</h4>To present a systematic review of techniques and clinical results.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic review of published literature was performed. Only studies reporting patient outcome after radiosurgery (single fraction) delivered with robotic devices [i.e., robotic radiosurgery (RRS)] have been analyzed.<h4>Results</h4>A total of 96 patients from 5 studies were included. The studies are characterized by small series and different methods in terms of dose, target definition, combination ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:To give a comprehensive review of current literature on robotic rectal cancer surgery.A systematic review of current literature via PubMed and Embase search engines was performed to identify relevant articles from january 2007 to november 2013. The keywords used were: "robotic surgery", "surgical robotics", "laparoscopic computer-assisted surgery", "colectomy" and "rectal resection".After the initial screen of 380 articles, 20 papers were selected for review. A total of 1062 patients (male 64.0%) with a mean age of 61.1 years and body mass index of 24.9 kg/m(2) were included in the review. Out of 1062 robotic-assisted operations, 831 (78.2%) anterior and low anterior resections, 132 (12.4%) intersphincteric resection with coloanal anastomosis, 98 (9.3%) abdominoperineal resections and 1 (0.1%) Hartmann's operation were included in the review. Robotic rectal surgery was associated with longer operative time but with comparable oncological results and anastomotic leak rate when compared with laparoscopic rectal surgery.Robotic colorectal surgery has continued to evolve to its current state with promising results; feasible surgical option with low conversion rate and comparable short-term oncological results. The challenges faced with robotic surgery are for more high quality studies to justify its cost.
| S-EPMC4058726 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundFrameless, non-isocentric irradiation of an extended segment of the trigeminal nerve introduces new concepts in stereotactic radiosurgery for medically resistant trigeminal neuralgia (TN).ObjectiveTo report the results of the largest single-center experience about image-guided robotic radiosurgery for TN.MethodsA cohort of 138 patients treated with CyberKnife® (Accuray Incorporated, Sunnyvale, California) radiosurgery with a minimum follow-up of 36 mo were recruited. Pain relief, medications, sensory disturbances, rate and time of pain recurrence were prospectively analyzed.ResultsMedian follow-up was 52.4 mo; median dose 75 Gy; median target length 5.7-mm; median target volume 40 mm³; median prescription dose 60 Gy (80% isodose line). Actuarial pain control rate (Barrow Neurological Institute [BNI] class I-IIIa) at 6, 12, 24, and 36 mo were 93.5%, 85.8%, 79.7%, and 76%, respectively. Overall, 33 patients (24%) required a second treatment. Overall, 18.1% developed sensory disturbances after 16.4 ± 8.7 mo. One patient (0.7%) developed BNI grade IV dysfunction; 6 (4.3%) developed BNI grade III (somewhat bothersome) hypoesthesia after retreatment; BNI grade II (not bothersome) hypoesthesia was reported by 18 patients (11 after retreatment). Shorter nerve length (<6 mm vs 6 mm), smaller nerve volume (<30 mm3 vs >30 mm3), and lower prescription dose (<58 vs >58 Gy) were associated with treatment failure (P = .01, P = .02, P = .03, respectively). Re-irradiation independently predicted sensory disturbance (P < .001).ConclusionTargeting a 6-mm segment of the trigeminal nerve with a prescribed dose of 60 Gy appears safe and effective. Persistent pain control was achieved in most patients with acceptable risk of sensory complications, which were typically found after re-irradiation.
| S-EPMC6195178 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and Objectives: Gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is the standard surgical treatment with curative intent for patients with gastric cancer (GC). Over the last three decades, surgeons have been increasingly adopting laparoscopic surgery for GC, due to its better short-term outcomes. In particular, laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has been routinely used for early gastric cancer (EGC) treatment. However, LG suffers from technical limitations and drawbacks, such as a two-dimensional surgical field of view, limited movement of laparoscopic tools, unavoidable physiological tremors and discomfort for operating surgeon. Therefore, robotic surgery has been developed to address such limitations. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines in order to investigate the benefits and harms of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared to the LG. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Re-views, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL) and Web of Science (Science and Social Science Citation Index) databases were used to search all related literature. Results: The 7 included meta-analyses covered an approximately 20 years-study period (2000-2020). Almost all studies included in the meta-analyses were retrospective ones and originated from Asian countries (China and Korea, in particular). Examined overall population ranged from 3176 to 17,712 patients. If compared to LG, RG showed both operative advantages (operative time, estimated blood loss, number of retrieved lymph nodes) and perioperative ones (time to first flatus, time to restart oral intake, length of hospitalization, overall complications, Clavien-Dindo (CD) ≥ III complications, pancreatic complications), in the absence of clear differences of oncological outcomes. However, costs of robotic approach appear significant. Conclusions: It is impossible to make strong recommendations, due to the statistical weakness of the included studies. Further randomized, possibly multicenter trials are strongly recommended, if we want to have our results confirmed.
| S-EPMC9231199 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimPancreatic cancer is one of the most fatal cancers. Cytotoxic chemotherapy remains the mainstream treatment for unresectable pancreatic cancer. This systematic review evaluated and compared the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes obtained from recent phase 2 and 3 clinical trials of pancreatic cancer chemotherapy.Materials and methodsThirty-two studies were included and compared based on chemotherapy agents or combinations used. Additionally, outcomes of first-line versus second-line chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer were compared.ResultsIn studies that investigated the treatments in adjuvant settings, the highest OS reported was for S-1 in patients, who received prior surgical resection (46.5 months). In neoadjuvant settings, the combination of gemcitabine, docetaxel, and capecitabine prior to the surgical resection had promising outcomes (OS of 32.5 months). In non-adjuvant settings, the highest OS reported was for the combination of temsirolimus plus bevacizumab (34.0 months). Amongst studies that investigated second-line treatment, the highest OS reported was for the combination of gemcitabine plus cisplatin (35.5 months), then temsirolimus plus bevacizumab (34.0 months).ConclusionsThere is a need to develop further strategies besides chemotherapy to improve the outcomes in pancreatic cancer treatment. Future studies should consider surgical interventions, combination chemotherapy, and individualized second-line treatment based on the prior chemotherapy.
| S-EPMC6122094 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study was performed to examine the quality of planning and treatment modality using a CyberKnife (CK) robotic radiosurgery system with multileaf collimator (MLC)-based plans and IRIS (variable aperture collimator system)-based plans in relation to the dose-response of secondary cancer risk (SCR) in patients with benign intracranial tumors. The study population consisted of 15 patients with benign intracranial lesions after curative treatment using a CyberKnife M6 robotic radiosurgery system. Each patient had a single tumor with a median volume of 6.43 cm3 (range, 0.33-29.72 cm3). The IRIS-based plan quality and MLC-based plan quality were evaluated by comparing the dosimetric indices, taking into account the planning target volume (PTV) coverage, the conformity index (CI), and the dose gradient (R10% and R50%). The dose-response SCR with sarcoma/carcinoma induction was calculated using the concept of the organ equivalent dose (OED). Analyses of sarcoma/carcinoma induction were performed using excess absolute risk (EAR) and various OED models of dose-response type/lifetime attributable risk (LAR). Moreover, analyses were performed using the BEIR VII model. PTV coverage using both IRIS-based plans and MLC-based plans was identical, although the CI values obtained using the MLC-based plans showed greater statistical significance. In comparison with the IRIS-based plans, the MLC-based plans showed better dose falloff for R10% and R50% evaluation. The estimated difference between Schneider's model and BEIR VII in linear-no-threshold (Lnt) cumulative EAR was about twofold. The average values of LAR/EAR for carcinoma, for the IRIS-based plans, were 25% higher than those for the MLC-based plans using four SCR models; for sarcoma, they were 15% better in Schneider's SCR models. MLC-based plans showed slightly better conformity, dose gradients, and SCR reduction. There was a slight increase in SCR with IRIS-based plans in comparison with MLC-based plans. EAR analyses did not show any significant difference between PTV and brainstem analyses, regardless of the tumor volume. Nevertheless, an increase in target volume led to an increase in the probability of SCR. EAR showed statistically significant differences in the soft tissue according to tumor volume (1-10 cc and ≥10 cc).
| S-EPMC6616465 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo depict and analyze learning curves for open, laparoscopic, and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP).BackgroundFormal training is recommended for safe introduction of pancreatic surgery but definitions of learning curves vary and have not been standardized.MethodsA systematic search on PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases identified studies on learning curves in pancreatic surgery. Primary outcome was the number needed to reach the learning curve as defined by the included studies. Secondary outcomes included endpoints defining learning curves, methods of analysis (statistical/arbitrary), and classification of learning phases.ResultsOut of 1115 articles, 66 studies with 14,206 patients were included. Thirty-five studies (53%) based the learning curve analysis on statistical calculations. Most often used parameters to define learning curves were operative time (n = 51), blood loss (n = 17), and complications (n = 10). The number of procedures to surpass a first phase of learning curve was 30 (20-50) for open PD, 39 (11-60) for laparoscopic PD, 25 (8-100) for robotic PD (P = 0.521), 16 (3-17) for laparoscopic DP, and 15 (5-37) for robotic DP (P = 0.914). In a three-phase model, intraoperative parameters improved earlier (first to second phase: operating time -15%, blood loss -29%) whereas postoperative parameters improved later (second to third phase: complications -46%, postoperative pancreatic fistula -48%). Studies with higher sample sizes showed higher numbers of procedures needed to overcome the learning curve (rho = 0.64, P < 0.001).ConclusionsThis study summarizes learning curves for open-, laparoscopic-, and robotic pancreatic surgery with different definitions, analysis methods, and confounding factors. A standardized reporting of learning curves and definition of phases (competency, proficiency, mastery) is desirable and proposed.
| S-EPMC10431463 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery is an effective treatment to obtain weight loss in severely obese patients. The feasibility and safety of bariatric robotic surgery is the topic of this review. METHODS: A search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, BioMed Central, and Web of Science. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included. Anastomotic leak rate was 8.51% in biliopancreatic diversion. 30-day reoperation rate was 1.14% in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and 1.16% in sleeve gastrectomy. Major complication rate in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass resulted higher than in sleeve gastrectomy ( 4,26% vs. 1,2%). The mean hospital stay was longer in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (range 2.6-7.4 days). CONCLUSIONS: The major limitation of our analysis is due to the small number and the low quality of the studies, the small sample size, heterogeneity of the enrolled patients and the lack of data from metabolic and bariatric outcomes. Despite the use of the robot, the majority of these cases are completed with stapled anastomosis. The assumption that robotic surgery is superior in complex cases is not supported by the available present evidence. The major strength of the robotic surgery is strongly facilitating some of the surgical steps (gastro-jejunostomy and jejunojejunostomy anastomosis in the robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or the vertical gastric resection in the robotic sleeve gastrectomy).
| S-EPMC3826835 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:To date, robotic surgery has been widely used worldwide. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic gastrectomy (RG) in gastric cancer patients to determine whether RG can replace laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). METHODS:The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was applied to perform the study. Pubmed, Cochrane Library, WanFang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and VIP databases were comprehensively searched for studies published before May 2020 that compared RG with LG. Next, two independent reviewers conducted literature screening and data extraction. The quality of the literature was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and the data analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3 software. Random effects or fixed effects models were applied according to heterogeneity. RESULTS:A total of 19 studies including 7275 patients were included in the meta-analyses, of which 4598 patients were in the LG group and 2677 in the RG group. Compared with LG, RG was associated with longer operative time (WMD = -32.96, 95% CI -42.08 ~ -23.84, P < 0.001), less blood loss (WMD = 28.66, 95% CI 18.59 ~ 38.73, P < 0.001), and shorter time to first flatus (WMD = 0.16 95% CI 0.06 ~ 0.27, P = 0.003). There was no significant difference between RG and LG in terms of the hospital stay (WMD = 0.23, 95% CI -0.53 ~ 0.98, P = 0.560), overall postoperative complication (OR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 ~ 1.25, P = 0.430), mortality (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.24 ~ 1.90, P = 0.450), the number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD = -0.96, 95% CI -2.12 ~ 0.20, P = 0.100), proximal resection margin (WMD = -0.10, 95% CI -0.29 ~ 0.09, P = 0.300), and distal resection margin (WMD = 0.15, 95% CI -0.21 ~ 0.52, P = 0.410). No significant differences were found between the two treatments in overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 ~ 1.18, P = 0.640), recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 ~ 1.21, P = 0.530), and recurrence rate (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 ~ 1.21, P = 0.500). CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study suggested that RG is as acceptable as LG in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes. RG can be performed as effectively and safely as LG. Moreover, more randomized controlled trials comparing the two techniques with rigorous study designs are still essential to evaluate the value of the robotic surgery for gastric cancer.
| S-EPMC7688002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for benign intracranial meningiomas is an established treatment.ObjectiveTo summarize the literature and provide evidence-based practice guidelines on behalf of the International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS).MethodsArticles in English specific to SRS for benign intracranial meningioma, published from January 1964 to April 2018, were systematically reviewed. Three electronic databases, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register, were searched.ResultsOut of the 2844 studies identified, 305 had a full text evaluation and 27 studies met the criteria to be included in this analysis. All but one were retrospective studies. The 10-yr local control (LC) rate ranged from 71% to 100%. The 10-yr progression-free-survival rate ranged from 55% to 97%. The prescription dose ranged typically between 12 and 15 Gy, delivered in a single fraction. Toxicity rate was generally low.ConclusionThe current literature supporting SRS for benign intracranial meningioma lacks level I and II evidence. However, when summarizing the large number of level III studies, it is clear that SRS can be recommended as an effective evidence-based treatment option (recommendation level II) for grade 1 meningioma.
| S-EPMC7566438 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextThe resection technique used to excise tumor during robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) is of paramount importance in achieving optimal clinical outcomes.ObjectiveTo provide an overview of the different resection techniques used during RPN, and a pooled analysis of comparative studies.Evidence acquisitionThe systematic review was conducted according to established principles (PROSPERO: CRD42022371640) on November 7, 2022. A population (P: adult patients undergoing RPN), intervention (I: enucleation), comparator (C: enucleoresection or wedge resection), outcome (O: outcome measurements of interest), and study design (S) framework was prespecified to assess study eligibility. Studies reporting a detailed description of resection techniques and/or evaluating the impact of resection technique on outcomes of surgery were included.Evidence synthesisResection techniques used during RPN can be broadly classified as resection (non-anatomic) or enucleation (anatomic). A standardized definition for these is lacking. Out of 20 studies retrieved, nine compared "standard" resection versus enucleation. A pooled analysis did not reveal significant differences in terms of operative time, ischemia time, blood loss, transfusions, or positive margins. Significant differences favoring enucleation were found for clamping management (odds ratio [OR] for renal artery clamping 3.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-10.88; p = 0.03), overall complications (OR for occurrence 0.55, 95% CI 0.34-0.87; p = 0.01) major complications (OR for occurrence 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.79; p = 0.009), length of stay (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.72 d, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.45; p < 0.001), and decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (WMD -2.64 ml/min, 95% CI -5.15 to -0.12; p = 0.04).ConclusionsThere is heterogeneity in the reporting of resection techniques used during RPN. The urological community must improve the quality of reporting and research produced accordingly. Positive margins are not specifically related to the resection technique. Focusing on studies comparing standard resection versus enucleation, advantages with tumor enucleation in terms of avoidance of artery clamping, overall/major complications, length of stay, and renal function were found. These data should be considered when planning the RPN resection strategy.Patient summaryWe reviewed studies on robotic surgery for partial kidney removal using different techniques to cut away the kidney tumor. We found that a technique called "enucleation" was associated with similar cancer control outcomes in comparison to the standard technique and had fewer complications, better kidney function after surgery, and a shorter hospital stay.
| S-EPMC10172691 | biostudies-literature