外阴癌手术后腹股沟结节转移的辅助放疗:系统性综述

IF 3.1 Q2 ONCOLOGY Oncology Reviews Pub Date : 2024-05-07 DOI:10.3389/or.2024.1389035
Federico Ferrari, L. Ismail, Ahmad Sabbagh, Kieran Hardern, Robert Owens, Elisa Gozzini, H. Soleymani majd
{"title":"外阴癌手术后腹股沟结节转移的辅助放疗:系统性综述","authors":"Federico Ferrari, L. Ismail, Ahmad Sabbagh, Kieran Hardern, Robert Owens, Elisa Gozzini, H. Soleymani majd","doi":"10.3389/or.2024.1389035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Lymph node metastasis in vulvar cancer is a critical prognostic factor associated with higher recurrence and decreased survival. A survival benefit is reported with adjuvant radiotherapy but with potential significant morbidity. We aim to clarify whether there is high-quality evidence to support the use of adjuvant radiotherapy in this setting.Objectives: The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of adjuvant radiotherapy to locoregional metastatic nodal areas.Search Methods: We conducted a comprehensive and systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the National Cancer Institute. We considered only randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Main Results: We identified 1,760 records and finally retrieved only one eligible RCT (114 participants with positive inguinofemoral lymph nodes). All women had undergone radical vulvectomy and bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy and had been randomized to adjuvant radiotherapy or to intraoperative ipsilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy without adjuvant radiotherapy. At 6 years, the overall survival (OS) was 51% versus 41% in favor of radiotherapy (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.30–1.3) without significance and with very low certainty of evidence. At 6 year, the cumulative incidence of cancer-related deaths was 29% versus 51% in favor of adjuvant radiotherapy (HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.28–0.87). Recurrence-free survival at 6 years was 59% after adjuvant radiotherapy versus 48% after pelvic lymphadenectomy (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.17–0.88). Three (5.3%) versus 13 (24.1%) groin recurrences were noted, respectively, in the adjuvant radiotherapy and pelvic lymphadenectomy groups. There was no significant difference in acute toxicities for pelvic lymphadenectomy compared to radiotherapy. In women with positive pelvic lymph nodes (20%), the OS at 6 year was 36% compared with 13% in favor of adjuvant radiotherapy. Late cutaneous toxicity rate appeared to be greater after radiotherapy (19% vs. 15%) but with less chronic lymphedema (16% vs. 22%).Conclusion: There is only very low-quality evidence on administering adjuvant radiotherapy for inguinal lymph node metastases. Although the identified study was a multicenter RCT, there was a reasonable imprecision and inconsistency because of small study numbers, wide confidence intervals in the data, and early trial closure, resulting in downgrading of the evidence.","PeriodicalId":19487,"journal":{"name":"Oncology Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Groin Node Metastases Following Surgery for Vulvar Cancer: A Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"Federico Ferrari, L. Ismail, Ahmad Sabbagh, Kieran Hardern, Robert Owens, Elisa Gozzini, H. Soleymani majd\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/or.2024.1389035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Lymph node metastasis in vulvar cancer is a critical prognostic factor associated with higher recurrence and decreased survival. A survival benefit is reported with adjuvant radiotherapy but with potential significant morbidity. We aim to clarify whether there is high-quality evidence to support the use of adjuvant radiotherapy in this setting.Objectives: The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of adjuvant radiotherapy to locoregional metastatic nodal areas.Search Methods: We conducted a comprehensive and systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the National Cancer Institute. We considered only randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Main Results: We identified 1,760 records and finally retrieved only one eligible RCT (114 participants with positive inguinofemoral lymph nodes). All women had undergone radical vulvectomy and bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy and had been randomized to adjuvant radiotherapy or to intraoperative ipsilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy without adjuvant radiotherapy. At 6 years, the overall survival (OS) was 51% versus 41% in favor of radiotherapy (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.30–1.3) without significance and with very low certainty of evidence. At 6 year, the cumulative incidence of cancer-related deaths was 29% versus 51% in favor of adjuvant radiotherapy (HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.28–0.87). Recurrence-free survival at 6 years was 59% after adjuvant radiotherapy versus 48% after pelvic lymphadenectomy (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.17–0.88). Three (5.3%) versus 13 (24.1%) groin recurrences were noted, respectively, in the adjuvant radiotherapy and pelvic lymphadenectomy groups. There was no significant difference in acute toxicities for pelvic lymphadenectomy compared to radiotherapy. In women with positive pelvic lymph nodes (20%), the OS at 6 year was 36% compared with 13% in favor of adjuvant radiotherapy. Late cutaneous toxicity rate appeared to be greater after radiotherapy (19% vs. 15%) but with less chronic lymphedema (16% vs. 22%).Conclusion: There is only very low-quality evidence on administering adjuvant radiotherapy for inguinal lymph node metastases. Although the identified study was a multicenter RCT, there was a reasonable imprecision and inconsistency because of small study numbers, wide confidence intervals in the data, and early trial closure, resulting in downgrading of the evidence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19487,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oncology Reviews\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oncology Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/or.2024.1389035\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oncology Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/or.2024.1389035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:外阴癌淋巴结转移是一个关键的预后因素,会导致复发率升高和生存率下降。有报道称,辅助放疗可提高生存率,但也可能带来严重的发病率。我们旨在明确是否有高质量的证据支持在这种情况下使用辅助放疗:本研究旨在评估局部转移结节区辅助放疗的有效性和安全性:我们对 MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials、Google Scholar、ClinicalTrials.gov 和美国国家癌症研究所进行了全面系统的文献检索。我们只考虑了随机对照试验(RCT):我们识别了 1,760 条记录,最终只检索到一项符合条件的 RCT(114 名参与者的股沟淋巴结呈阳性)。所有女性都接受了根治性外阴切除术和双侧腹股沟淋巴结切除术,并随机接受辅助放疗或术中同侧盆腔淋巴结切除术,但不接受辅助放疗。6年后,放疗的总生存率(OS)为51%对41%(HR为0.61;95% CI为0.30-1.3),无显著性,证据确定性极低。6年后,癌症相关死亡的累积发生率为29%,而辅助放疗的发生率为51%(HR为0.49;95% CI为0.28-0.87)。辅助放疗后6年无复发生存率为59%,而盆腔淋巴结切除术后为48%(HR为0.39;95% CI为0.17-0.88)。辅助放疗组和盆腔淋巴结切除术组的腹股沟复发率分别为3例(5.3%)和13例(24.1%)。盆腔淋巴结切除术的急性毒性与放疗相比没有明显差异。在盆腔淋巴结阳性(20%)的女性中,6年的OS为36%,而辅助放疗的OS为13%。放疗后的晚期皮肤毒性似乎更大(19% 对 15%),但慢性淋巴水肿较少(16% 对 22%):结论:关于腹股沟淋巴结转移辅助放疗的证据质量很低。虽然所确定的研究是一项多中心 RCT,但由于研究人数较少、数据置信区间较宽以及试验提前结束,因此存在一定的不精确性和不一致性,导致证据降级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Groin Node Metastases Following Surgery for Vulvar Cancer: A Systematic Review
Background: Lymph node metastasis in vulvar cancer is a critical prognostic factor associated with higher recurrence and decreased survival. A survival benefit is reported with adjuvant radiotherapy but with potential significant morbidity. We aim to clarify whether there is high-quality evidence to support the use of adjuvant radiotherapy in this setting.Objectives: The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of adjuvant radiotherapy to locoregional metastatic nodal areas.Search Methods: We conducted a comprehensive and systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the National Cancer Institute. We considered only randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Main Results: We identified 1,760 records and finally retrieved only one eligible RCT (114 participants with positive inguinofemoral lymph nodes). All women had undergone radical vulvectomy and bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy and had been randomized to adjuvant radiotherapy or to intraoperative ipsilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy without adjuvant radiotherapy. At 6 years, the overall survival (OS) was 51% versus 41% in favor of radiotherapy (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.30–1.3) without significance and with very low certainty of evidence. At 6 year, the cumulative incidence of cancer-related deaths was 29% versus 51% in favor of adjuvant radiotherapy (HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.28–0.87). Recurrence-free survival at 6 years was 59% after adjuvant radiotherapy versus 48% after pelvic lymphadenectomy (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.17–0.88). Three (5.3%) versus 13 (24.1%) groin recurrences were noted, respectively, in the adjuvant radiotherapy and pelvic lymphadenectomy groups. There was no significant difference in acute toxicities for pelvic lymphadenectomy compared to radiotherapy. In women with positive pelvic lymph nodes (20%), the OS at 6 year was 36% compared with 13% in favor of adjuvant radiotherapy. Late cutaneous toxicity rate appeared to be greater after radiotherapy (19% vs. 15%) but with less chronic lymphedema (16% vs. 22%).Conclusion: There is only very low-quality evidence on administering adjuvant radiotherapy for inguinal lymph node metastases. Although the identified study was a multicenter RCT, there was a reasonable imprecision and inconsistency because of small study numbers, wide confidence intervals in the data, and early trial closure, resulting in downgrading of the evidence.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Oncology Reviews
Oncology Reviews ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: Oncology Reviews is a quarterly peer-reviewed, international journal that publishes authoritative state-of-the-art reviews on preclinical and clinical aspects of oncology. The journal will provide up-to-date information on the latest achievements in different fields of oncology for both practising clinicians and basic researchers. Oncology Reviews aims at being international in scope and readership, as reflected also by its Editorial Board, gathering the world leading experts in both pre-clinical research and everyday clinical practice. The journal is open for publication of supplements, monothematic issues and for publishing abstracts of scientific meetings; conditions can be obtained from the Editor-in-Chief or the publisher.
期刊最新文献
Tumor therapeutics in the era of "RECIST": past, current insights, and future prospects. Colorectal cancer and associated genetic, lifestyle, cigarette, nargileh-hookah use and alcohol consumption risk factors: a comprehensive case-control study. Environment and gynaecologic cancers. Tracheal Tumors: Clinical Practice Guidelines for Palliative Treatment and Follow-Up. Barriers and Facilitators Related to Undertaking Physical Activities in Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review.
×
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