The role systematic lymphadenectomy plays in determining the survival outcome for advanced ovarian cancer patients: a meta-analysis.

4区 医学 Q2 Nursing Annals of palliative medicine Pub Date : 2020-05-01 Epub Date: 2020-04-28 DOI:10.21037/apm.2020.04.01
Dan Xu, Jinling Xue, Rafi Rozan, Li Li
{"title":"The role systematic lymphadenectomy plays in determining the survival outcome for advanced ovarian cancer patients: a meta-analysis.","authors":"Dan Xu,&nbsp;Jinling Xue,&nbsp;Rafi Rozan,&nbsp;Li Li","doi":"10.21037/apm.2020.04.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aims to evaluate the role systematic lymphadenectomy (SL) p l a y s in advanced ovarian cancer (OC) patients. A meta-analysis was done to compare the progression-free survival (PFS) rates and overall survival (OS) rates between SL and unsystematic lymphadenectomy (USL).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An extensive literature search from the dates of January 1, 1994, to today was performed. In total, we analyzed 15 studies [3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 observation studies], which included 33,257 patients with advanced OC who underwent SL or USL. We compared the survival outcomes of PFS and OS between SL and USL stratified by research type, respectively. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were combined and analyzed by using the Revman 5.3 software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For RCTs, SL did not improve the survival outcomes for advanced OC. Only 2 RCTs compared PFS, and 3 RCTs compared the OS rates between SL and USL. Two RCTs demonstrated that there was no difference in PFS between SL and USL (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.81-1.04; P=0.16>0.05); at the same time, 3 RCTs also demonstrated that there were no difference in OS between SL and USL (HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.88-1.00; P=0.07>0.05). However, in observational studies, SL showed increased PFS (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.92-0.95; P<0.00001) and OS (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.89-0.93, P<0.00001) for advanced OC patients. The heterogeneity and publication bias in the included studies were within acceptable thresholds.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings suggest the possibility that SL cannot improve survival outcomes for advanced OC patients. However, we cann ot completely ignore the results of observational studies. More relevant RCTs are needed to investigate the role of SL for advanced OC patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":7956,"journal":{"name":"Annals of palliative medicine","volume":"9 3","pages":"912-920"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.21037/apm.2020.04.01","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of palliative medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/apm.2020.04.01","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/4/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: This study aims to evaluate the role systematic lymphadenectomy (SL) p l a y s in advanced ovarian cancer (OC) patients. A meta-analysis was done to compare the progression-free survival (PFS) rates and overall survival (OS) rates between SL and unsystematic lymphadenectomy (USL).

Methods: An extensive literature search from the dates of January 1, 1994, to today was performed. In total, we analyzed 15 studies [3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 observation studies], which included 33,257 patients with advanced OC who underwent SL or USL. We compared the survival outcomes of PFS and OS between SL and USL stratified by research type, respectively. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were combined and analyzed by using the Revman 5.3 software.

Results: For RCTs, SL did not improve the survival outcomes for advanced OC. Only 2 RCTs compared PFS, and 3 RCTs compared the OS rates between SL and USL. Two RCTs demonstrated that there was no difference in PFS between SL and USL (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.81-1.04; P=0.16>0.05); at the same time, 3 RCTs also demonstrated that there were no difference in OS between SL and USL (HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.88-1.00; P=0.07>0.05). However, in observational studies, SL showed increased PFS (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.92-0.95; P<0.00001) and OS (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.89-0.93, P<0.00001) for advanced OC patients. The heterogeneity and publication bias in the included studies were within acceptable thresholds.

Conclusions: These findings suggest the possibility that SL cannot improve survival outcomes for advanced OC patients. However, we cann ot completely ignore the results of observational studies. More relevant RCTs are needed to investigate the role of SL for advanced OC patients.

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
系统性淋巴结切除术在晚期卵巢癌患者生存预后中的作用:一项荟萃分析。
背景:本研究旨在探讨系统性淋巴结切除术(SL)在晚期卵巢癌(OC)患者中的作用。一项荟萃分析比较了SL和非系统性淋巴结切除术(USL)的无进展生存(PFS)率和总生存(OS)率。方法:广泛检索自1994年1月1日至今的文献资料。我们总共分析了15项研究[3项随机对照试验(RCTs)和12项观察研究],其中包括33,257例接受SL或USL的晚期OC患者。我们分别按研究类型对SL和USL的PFS和OS的生存结果进行了比较。合并风险比(hr)和95%置信区间(ci),采用Revman 5.3软件进行分析。结果:在随机对照试验中,SL并没有改善晚期OC的生存结果。只有2个rct比较PFS, 3个rct比较SL和USL之间的OS率。两项随机对照试验显示,SL和USL在PFS方面没有差异(HR: 0.91;95% ci: 0.81-1.04;P = 0.16 > 0.05);同时,3个rct也显示SL和USL的OS无差异(HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.88-1.00;P = 0.07 > 0.05)。然而,在观察性研究中,SL显示PFS增加(HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.92-0.95;结论:这些发现提示SL可能不能改善晚期OC患者的生存结果。然而,我们不能完全忽视观察性研究的结果。需要更多相关的随机对照试验来研究SL在晚期OC患者中的作用。
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
Annals of palliative medicine
Annals of palliative medicine Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
自引率
0.00%
发文量
231
期刊介绍: Annals of Palliative Medicine (Ann Palliat Med; Print ISSN 2224-5820; Online ISSN 2224-5839) is an open access, international, peer-reviewed journal published quarterly with both online and printed copies since 2012. The aim of the journal is to provide up-to-date and cutting-edge information and professional support for health care providers in palliative medicine disciplines to improve the quality of life for patients and their families and caregivers.
期刊最新文献
Tunnelled catheters for palliative care outcomes: study protocol for a prospective, multicentre observational study (PRO ASEPT). The current landscape of oncologic emergencies: the role of radiotherapy. Active treatment at the end of life-importance of palliative care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a cohort study. Examining the impact of specialty palliative care consultation in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: evaluating use at an NCI designated cancer center. Living with progressive neurological disease and breathing difficulties.
×
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:481959085
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