Dataset Information

Survival outcomes of surgery for retroperitoneal sarcomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Definitive evidence to guide clinical practice on the principles of surgery for retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPSs) is still lacking. This study aims to summarise the available evidence to assess the relative benefits and disadvantages of an aggressive surgical approach with contiguous organ resection in patients with RPS, the association between surgical resection margins and survival outcomes, and the role of surgery in recurrent RPS.

Methods

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE for relevant randomised trials and observational studies published from inception up to May 1, 2021. Prospective or retrospective studies, published in the English language, providing outcome data with surgical treatment in patients with RPS were selected. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS).

Findings

In total, 47 articles were analysed. There were no significant differences in the rates of OS (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.83-1.03; P = 0.574) and recurrence-free survival (HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.74-1.27; P = 0.945) between the extended resection group and the tumour resection alone group. Organ resection did not increase postoperative mortality (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.55-1.81; P = 0.997) but had a relatively higher complication rate (OR: 2.24, 95% CI: 0.94-5.34; P = 0.068). OS was higher in R0 than in R1 resection (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.23-1.44; P < 0.001) and in R1 resection than in R2 resection (HR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.35-2.36; P < 0.001). OS was also higher in R2 resection than in no surgery (HR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.07-1.45; P < 0.001), however, subgroup analysis showed that the pooled HR in the trials reporting primary RPS was similar between the two groups (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.87-1.42; P = 0.42). Surgical treatment achieves a significantly higher OS rate than does conservative treatment (HR: 2.42; 95% CI: 1.21-3.64; P < 0.001) for recurrent RPS.

Conclusions

For primary RPS, curative-intent en bloc resection should be aimed, and adjacent organs with evidence of direct invasion must be resected to avoid R2 resection. For recurrent RPS, surgical resection should be considered as a priority. Incomplete resection remains to have a survival benefit in select patients with unresectable recurrent RPS.

SUBMITTER: Guo Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9333279 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeConventional thyroidectomy has been standard of care for surgical thyroid nodules. For cosmetic purposes different minimally invasive and remote-access surgical approaches have been developed. At present, the most used robotic and endoscopic thyroidectomy approaches are minimally invasive video assisted thyroidectomy (MIVAT), bilateral axillo-breast approach endoscopic thyroidectomy (BABA-ET), bilateral axillo-breast approach robotic thyroidectomy (BABA-RT), transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy via vestibular approach (TOETVA), retro-auricular endoscopic thyroidectomy (RA-ET), retro-auricular robotic thyroidectomy (RA-RT), gasless transaxillary endoscopic thyroidectomy (GTET) and robot assisted transaxillary surgery (RATS). The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate whether minimally invasive techniques are not inferior to conventional thyroidectomy.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in Medline, Embase and Web of Science to identify original articles investigating operating time, length of hospital stay and complication rates regarding recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and hypocalcemia, of the different minimally invasive techniques.ResultsOut of 569 identified manuscripts, 98 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were retrospective in nature. The results of the systematic review varied. Thirty-one articles were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to the standard of care, the meta-analysis showed no significant difference in length of hospital stay, except a longer stay after BABA-ET. No significant difference in incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and hypocalcemia was seen. As expected, operating time was significantly longer for most minimally invasive techniques.ConclusionsThis is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the eight most commonly used minimally invasive thyroid surgeries individually with standard of care. It can be concluded that minimally invasive techniques do not lead to more complications or longer hospital stay and are, therefore, not inferior to conventional thyroidectomy.

Project description:BackgroundWomen who undergo bariatric surgery prior to pregnancy are less likely to experience comorbidities associated with obesity such as gestational diabetes and hypertension. However, bariatric surgery, particularly malabsorptive procedures, can make patients susceptible to deficiencies in nutrients that are essential for healthy fetal development. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to investigate the association between pregnancy after bariatric surgery and adverse perinatal outcomes.Methods and findingsSearches were conducted in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and Google Scholar from inception to June 2019, supplemented by hand-searching reference lists, citations, and journals. Observational studies comparing perinatal outcomes post-bariatric surgery to pregnancies without prior bariatric surgery were included. Outcomes of interest were perinatal mortality, congenital anomalies, preterm birth, postterm birth, small and large for gestational age (SGA/LGA), and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. Where data were available, results were subgrouped by type of bariatric surgery. We included 33 studies with 14,880 pregnancies post-bariatric surgery and 3,979,978 controls. Odds ratios (ORs) were increased after bariatric surgery (all types combined) for perinatal mortality (1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.85, p = 0.031), congenital anomalies (1.29, 95% CI 1.04-1.59, p = 0.019), preterm birth (1.57, 95% CI 1.38-1.79, p < 0.001), and NICU admission (1.41, 95% CI 1.25-1.59, p < 0.001). Postterm birth decreased after bariatric surgery (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.60, p < 0.001). ORs for SGA increased (2.72, 95% CI 2.32-3.20, p < 0.001) and LGA decreased (0.24, 95% CI 0.14-0.41, p < 0.001) after gastric bypass but not after gastric banding. Babies born after bariatric surgery (all types combined) weighed over 200 g less than those born to mothers without prior bariatric surgery (weighted mean difference -242.42 g, 95% CI -307.43 to -177.40 g, p < 0.001). There was low heterogeneity for all outcomes (I2 < 40%) except LGA. Limitations of our study are that as a meta-analysis of existing studies, the results are limited by the quality of the included studies and available data, unmeasured confounders, and the small number of studies for some outcomes.ConclusionsIn our systematic review of observational studies, we found that bariatric surgery, especially gastric bypass, prior to pregnancy was associated with increased risk of some adverse perinatal outcomes. This suggests that women who have undergone bariatric surgery may benefit from specific preconception and pregnancy nutritional support and increased monitoring of fetal growth and development. Future studies should explore whether restrictive surgery results in better perinatal outcomes, compared to malabsorptive surgery, without compromising maternal outcomes. If so, these may be the preferred surgery for women of reproductive age.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42017051537.