Methods of surgical quality assurance in cervical and endometrial cancer trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY International Journal of Gynecological Cancer Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-18 DOI:10.1016/j.ijgc.2024.100018
Freweini Martha Tesfai, Gabriella Yongue, Dhivya Chandrasekaran, Nader Francis
{"title":"Methods of surgical quality assurance in cervical and endometrial cancer trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Freweini Martha Tesfai, Gabriella Yongue, Dhivya Chandrasekaran, Nader Francis","doi":"10.1016/j.ijgc.2024.100018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Surgery quality in gynecology oncology trials varies, potentially biasing results. This systematic review examines methods for assuring surgical quality in multi-center gynecologic oncology trials and the impact on patient outcomes. A systematic search (2000-2023) was conducted in Medline, Embase, and Web of Science. Multi-center randomized controlled trials reporting on surgical endometrial and cervical cancer trials and lymph node harvest, short-term mortality, or conversion rate were included. Studies were assessed using a 10-point checklist to determine surgical quality. This was used to assess the association with variation in lymph node harvest, post-operative mortality, and conversion rate. Overall, 5963 titles and abstracts were screened for their eligibility and 10 studies reporting on 22 surgical-only arms were included for further analysis. The total number of included patients was 7434 from 366 centers. Analysis showed that standardization of surgical approach (β = -6.6, 95%, p = .043), standardization of the extent of lymphadenectomy (β = -2.432, p = .004), video assessment pre-trial (β = -3.492, p = .04) and monitoring of data including clinical outcome measures (β = -4.018, p = .009) were significantly associated with reducing variation in lymph node harvest. It also showed that standardization of the extent of lymphadenectomy (β = -0.718, p < .001) and pre-trial case/procedure volume assessment (β = -0.531, p = .049) were significantly associated with reducing short-term mortality. The regression model showed standardization of the extent of lymphadenectomy (β = -3.123, p = .034) was significantly associated with reducing conversion rate. In conclusion, the heterogeneity of surgical quality measures showed that there is no clear consensus on the approach to delivering surgical quality assurance in gynecology oncology trials. The analysis in this evidence synthesis has shown a potential association between different aspects of surgical quality assurance and clinical outcomes. Further research is required to develop a framework ensuring surgical quality deliverance in gynecology oncology trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":14097,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Gynecological Cancer","volume":" ","pages":"100018"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Gynecological Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgc.2024.100018","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Surgery quality in gynecology oncology trials varies, potentially biasing results. This systematic review examines methods for assuring surgical quality in multi-center gynecologic oncology trials and the impact on patient outcomes. A systematic search (2000-2023) was conducted in Medline, Embase, and Web of Science. Multi-center randomized controlled trials reporting on surgical endometrial and cervical cancer trials and lymph node harvest, short-term mortality, or conversion rate were included. Studies were assessed using a 10-point checklist to determine surgical quality. This was used to assess the association with variation in lymph node harvest, post-operative mortality, and conversion rate. Overall, 5963 titles and abstracts were screened for their eligibility and 10 studies reporting on 22 surgical-only arms were included for further analysis. The total number of included patients was 7434 from 366 centers. Analysis showed that standardization of surgical approach (β = -6.6, 95%, p = .043), standardization of the extent of lymphadenectomy (β = -2.432, p = .004), video assessment pre-trial (β = -3.492, p = .04) and monitoring of data including clinical outcome measures (β = -4.018, p = .009) were significantly associated with reducing variation in lymph node harvest. It also showed that standardization of the extent of lymphadenectomy (β = -0.718, p < .001) and pre-trial case/procedure volume assessment (β = -0.531, p = .049) were significantly associated with reducing short-term mortality. The regression model showed standardization of the extent of lymphadenectomy (β = -3.123, p = .034) was significantly associated with reducing conversion rate. In conclusion, the heterogeneity of surgical quality measures showed that there is no clear consensus on the approach to delivering surgical quality assurance in gynecology oncology trials. The analysis in this evidence synthesis has shown a potential association between different aspects of surgical quality assurance and clinical outcomes. Further research is required to develop a framework ensuring surgical quality deliverance in gynecology oncology trials.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
宫颈癌和子宫内膜癌试验中手术质量保证的方法:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
妇科肿瘤试验的手术质量各不相同,可能导致结果偏倚。本系统综述探讨了保证多中心妇科肿瘤试验手术质量的方法及其对患者预后的影响。在Medline, Embase和Web of Science中进行了系统检索(2000-2023)。纳入了报告手术子宫内膜癌和宫颈癌试验、淋巴结切除、短期死亡率或转换率的多中心随机对照试验。使用10点检查表评估研究,以确定手术质量。这被用来评估与淋巴结收获、术后死亡率和转换率变化的关系。总的来说,我们筛选了5963篇标题和摘要,并纳入了10篇报道22例手术治疗的研究,以供进一步分析。纳入的患者总数为来自366个中心的7434例。分析显示,手术入路标准化(β = -6.6, 95%, p = 0.043)、淋巴结切除程度标准化(β = -2.432, p = 0.004)、试验前视频评估(β = -3.492, p = 0.04)和包括临床结果测量在内的数据监测(β = -4.018, p = 0.009)与减少淋巴结收获变异显著相关。研究还显示,淋巴结切除术范围的标准化(β = -0.718, p < .001)和试验前病例/手术体积评估(β = -0.531, p = .049)与降低短期死亡率显著相关。回归模型显示,淋巴结切除程度标准化(β = -3.123, p = 0.034)与转归率降低显著相关。总之,手术质量测量的异质性表明,在妇科肿瘤试验中提供手术质量保证的方法没有明确的共识。本证据综合分析显示了手术质量保证和临床结果的不同方面之间的潜在关联。需要进一步的研究来制定一个框架,以确保妇科肿瘤试验的手术质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
10.40%
发文量
280
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, the official journal of the International Gynecologic Cancer Society and the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, is the primary educational and informational publication for topics relevant to detection, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of gynecologic malignancies. IJGC emphasizes a multidisciplinary approach, and includes original research, reviews, and video articles. The audience consists of gynecologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, and research scientists with a special interest in gynecological oncology.
期刊最新文献
Let's use an equity framework to improve research, its design, implementation, and community. Proactive assessment of patient reported outcomes in ovarian cancer studies: a systematic review and call for action in future studies. Comparison of survival outcomes and safety between early and late initiation of niraparib maintenance in newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Oncologic outcomes of incidental serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma and associated high-grade serous carcinoma in high-risk patients undergoing risk-reducing surgery. Intraoperative imaging of residual ovarian cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy using indocyanine green.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1