Dataset Information

The Effectiveness of Different Treatment Modalities of Cutaneous Angiosarcoma: Results From Meta-Analysis and Observational Data From SEER Database.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Cutaneous angiosarcoma (cAS) is an aggressive vascular tumor that originates from vascular or lymphatic epithelial cells. To date, the cAS literature has been limited in a small number with single-center experiences or reports due to its rarity and the optimal treatment strategy is still in dispute. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and compare the effect of available treatments retrieved from observational studies and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

Methods

The authors performed a systematic review in the PubMed, Embase and MEDLINE database identifying the researches assessing the treatment for cAS patients. Clinical and treatment information of patients who had been diagnosed with a primary cAS were also obtained from the SEER program.

Results

Thirty-two studies were eligible but only 5 of which with 276 patients were included in meta-analysis since the unclear or unavailable information. The risk ratio of 5-year death for surgery, surgery with radiotherapy and surgery with chemotherapy were 0.84, 0.96, and 0.69. Meanwhile, in SEER database, there are 291 metastatic and 437 localized patients with cAS. The localized patients receiving surgery showed a significantly worse overall survival result when compared with the surgery combined with RT: hazard ratio: 1.6, 95% confidential interval: 1.05, 2.42, P = 0.03.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our study provided a detailed picture of the effectiveness of present treatments for localized and metastatic cAS patients. The CT could be inappropriate in localized patients. For metastatic patients, the surgery combined RT was recommended compared with surgery alone since its enhanced OS prognosis. Yet, more novel-designed clinical trials with specific targeted populations and rigorous conducting are needed for a solid conclusion on which would be a better treatment strategy.

SUBMITTER: Bi S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7947850 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCurrent guidelines recommend hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening in high-risk populations. However, the ideal HCC screening interval and screening modality have not been determined. This study aimed to compare the screening efficacy among different modalities with various intervals.MethodsPubMed and other nine databases were searched through June 30, 2021. Binary outcomes were pooled using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Survival rates were also pooled using RR with 95% CIs because most eligible studies only provided the number of survival patients instead of hazard ratio.ResultsIn all, 13 studies were included. Two random controlled trials (RCTs) and six cohort studies compared screening intervals for ultrasonography (US) screening and found no significant differences between shorter (3- or 4-month) and longer (6- or 12-month) screening intervals in terms of early HCC proportion, HCC significant mortality, 1-year survival rate; screening at 6-month interval significantly increased the proportion of early HCC (RR = 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08-1.26) and prolonged the 5-year survival rate (RR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.07-1.82) relative to the 12-month interval results. Three other RCTs and two cohort studies compared different screening modalities in cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis B, which indicated no statistical differences in the proportion of early HCC (RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.40-1.96) and HCC mortality (RR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.23-2.09) between the biannual US and annual computed tomography (CT screening). Biannual US screening showed a lower proportion of early HCC than biannual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.37-0.97) and biannual US combined with annual CT (RR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.13-1.51) screening. The proportion of early HCC in the contrast-enhanced US group was slightly higher than that in the B-mode US (RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.00-1.23) group.ConclusionsThe evidence suggests that 6 months may be the best HCC screening interval for US screening. The effectiveness of CT and MRI is better than US during same screening intervals. However, MRI and CT are more expensive than US, and CT also can increase the risk of radiation exposure. The selection of CT or MRI instead of US should be carefully considered.RegistrationNo. CRD42020148258 at PROSPERO website ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ).

Project description:It is controversial regarding the treatment allocation for patients with stage I hepatocellular carcinoma (SI-HCC). The aim of the present study was to compare the long-term survival in SI-HCC patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT), liver resection (LR), local tumor destruction (LTD), or none. SI-HCC patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 were extracted from the SEER 18 registry database. Multivariable Cox models and propensity score matching (PSM) method were used to explore the association between surgical methods and long-term prognosis. A total of 5165 patients with stage I (AJCC, 6th or 7th) HCC were included in the study. Only 36.9% of patients diagnosed with HCC in stage I received surgical therapy. The incidence of LT was decreased over time (P?<?.001). In the multivariable-adjusted cohort (n?=?5165), after adjusting potential confounding factors, a clear prognostic advantage of LT was observed in OS (P?<?.0001) compared with patients after LR. Patients undergoing LTD had a worse OS in comparison with patients who underwent LR (P?<?.0001). Patients who received no surgical treatment had the worst OS (P?<?.0001) among 4 treatment groups. In stratified analyses, the salutary effects of LT vs LR on OS were consistent across all subgroups except for a similar result in the noncirrhotic subgroup (P?=?.4414). The inferior survival effects of LTD vs LR on OS were consistent across all subgroups, and even in the subgroup with tumor size?<?3?cm (P?=?.0342). In the PSM cohort, patients in LT group showed a better OS (P?<?.001) than patients in LR group (P?<?.0001) and patients undergoing LTD had a worse OS compared with patients who underwent LR (P?=?.00059). In conclusion, LT offered a survival advantage compared with LR among patients with Stage I HCC. LT is the best surgical treatment for stage I HCC in patients with advanced fibrosis, whereas LR provides comparable long-term outcomes to LT in patients without advanced fibrosis and should be considered as the first-line surgical option. LTD can be used as an alternative method when LR and LT are unavailable.