经肛门、机器人、开腹和腹腔镜直肠癌切除手术的组织病理学结果。随机对照试验的贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Ejso Pub Date : 2024-11-18 DOI:10.1016/j.ejso.2024.109481
Nicola de'Angelis, Carlo Alberto Schena, Danila Azzolina, Maria Clotilde Carra, Jim Khan, Caroline Gronnier, Sébastien Gaujoux, Paolo Pietro Bianchi, Antonino Spinelli, Philippe Rouanet, Aleix Martínez-Pérez, Patrick Pessaux
{"title":"经肛门、机器人、开腹和腹腔镜直肠癌切除手术的组织病理学结果。随机对照试验的贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Nicola de'Angelis, Carlo Alberto Schena, Danila Azzolina, Maria Clotilde Carra, Jim Khan, Caroline Gronnier, Sébastien Gaujoux, Paolo Pietro Bianchi, Antonino Spinelli, Philippe Rouanet, Aleix Martínez-Pérez, Patrick Pessaux","doi":"10.1016/j.ejso.2024.109481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While total mesorectal excision is the gold standard for rectal cancer, the optimal surgical approach to achieve adequate oncological outcomes remains controversial. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the histopathological outcomes of robotic (R-RR), transanal (Ta-RR), laparoscopic (L-RR), and open (O-RR) resections for rectal cancer.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were screened from inception to June 2024. Of the 4186 articles screened, 27 RCTs were selected. Pairwise comparisons and Bayesian network meta-analyses applying random effects models were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 27 RCTs included a total of 8696 patients. Bayesian pairwise meta-analysis revealed significantly lower odds of non-complete mesorectal excision with Ta-RR (Odds Ratio, OR, 0.60; 95%CI, 0.33, 0.92; P = .02; I<sup>2</sup>:11.7 %) and R-RR (OR, 0.68; 95%CI, 0.46, 0.94; P = .02; I<sup>2</sup>:41.7 %) compared with laparoscopy. Moreover, lower odds of positive CRMs were observed in the Ta-RR group than in the L-RR group (OR, 0.36; 95%CI, 0.13, 0.91; P = .02; I<sup>2</sup>:43.9 %). The R-RR was associated with more lymph nodes harvested compared with L-RR (Mean Difference, MD, 1.24; 95%CI, 0.10, 2.52; P = .03; I<sup>2</sup>:77.3 %). Conversely, Ta-RR was associated with a significantly lower number of lymph nodes harvested compared with all other approaches. SUCRA plots revealed that Ta-RR had the highest probability of being the best approach to achieve a complete mesorectal excision and negative CRM, followed by R-RR, which ranked the best in lymph nodes retrieved.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When comparing the effectiveness of the available surgical approaches for rectal cancer resection, Ta-RR and R-RR are associated with better histopathological outcomes than L-RR.</p>","PeriodicalId":11522,"journal":{"name":"Ejso","volume":" ","pages":"109481"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Histopathological outcomes of transanal, robotic, open, and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection. A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"Nicola de'Angelis, Carlo Alberto Schena, Danila Azzolina, Maria Clotilde Carra, Jim Khan, Caroline Gronnier, Sébastien Gaujoux, Paolo Pietro Bianchi, Antonino Spinelli, Philippe Rouanet, Aleix Martínez-Pérez, Patrick Pessaux\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejso.2024.109481\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While total mesorectal excision is the gold standard for rectal cancer, the optimal surgical approach to achieve adequate oncological outcomes remains controversial. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the histopathological outcomes of robotic (R-RR), transanal (Ta-RR), laparoscopic (L-RR), and open (O-RR) resections for rectal cancer.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were screened from inception to June 2024. Of the 4186 articles screened, 27 RCTs were selected. Pairwise comparisons and Bayesian network meta-analyses applying random effects models were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 27 RCTs included a total of 8696 patients. Bayesian pairwise meta-analysis revealed significantly lower odds of non-complete mesorectal excision with Ta-RR (Odds Ratio, OR, 0.60; 95%CI, 0.33, 0.92; P = .02; I<sup>2</sup>:11.7 %) and R-RR (OR, 0.68; 95%CI, 0.46, 0.94; P = .02; I<sup>2</sup>:41.7 %) compared with laparoscopy. Moreover, lower odds of positive CRMs were observed in the Ta-RR group than in the L-RR group (OR, 0.36; 95%CI, 0.13, 0.91; P = .02; I<sup>2</sup>:43.9 %). The R-RR was associated with more lymph nodes harvested compared with L-RR (Mean Difference, MD, 1.24; 95%CI, 0.10, 2.52; P = .03; I<sup>2</sup>:77.3 %). Conversely, Ta-RR was associated with a significantly lower number of lymph nodes harvested compared with all other approaches. SUCRA plots revealed that Ta-RR had the highest probability of being the best approach to achieve a complete mesorectal excision and negative CRM, followed by R-RR, which ranked the best in lymph nodes retrieved.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When comparing the effectiveness of the available surgical approaches for rectal cancer resection, Ta-RR and R-RR are associated with better histopathological outcomes than L-RR.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11522,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ejso\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"109481\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ejso\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2024.109481\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ejso","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2024.109481","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","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:尽管全直肠系膜切除术是直肠癌的金标准,但采用哪种最佳手术方法可获得充分的肿瘤学结果仍存在争议。本网络荟萃分析旨在比较机器人(R-RR)、经肛门(Ta-RR)、腹腔镜(L-RR)和开腹(O-RR)直肠癌切除术的组织病理学结果:筛选了从开始到 2024 年 6 月的 MEDLINE、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆。在筛选出的 4186 篇文章中,选出了 27 篇 RCT。采用随机效应模型进行配对比较和贝叶斯网络荟萃分析:结果:27 项研究性临床试验共纳入 8696 名患者。贝叶斯配对荟萃分析显示,与腹腔镜相比,Ta-RR(Odds Ratio,OR,0.60;95%CI,0.33,0.92;P = .02;I2:11.7%)和 R-RR(OR,0.68;95%CI,0.46,0.94;P = .02;I2:41.7%)的非完全直肠系膜切除几率明显较低。此外,Ta-RR 组出现 CRM 阳性的几率低于 L-RR 组(OR,0.36;95%CI,0.13,0.91;P = .02;I2:43.9%)。与 L-RR 相比,R-RR 与收获更多淋巴结有关(平均差,MD,1.24;95%CI,0.10,2.52;P = .03;I2:77.3%)。相反,与所有其他方法相比,Ta-RR 的淋巴结切除数量明显较少。SUCRA图显示,Ta-RR是实现完全直肠系膜切除和阴性CRM的最佳方法,概率最高,其次是R-RR,在淋巴结取材方面排名第一:结论:在比较现有直肠癌切除手术方法的有效性时,Ta-RR和R-RR的组织病理学结果优于L-RR。
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
Histopathological outcomes of transanal, robotic, open, and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection. A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: While total mesorectal excision is the gold standard for rectal cancer, the optimal surgical approach to achieve adequate oncological outcomes remains controversial. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the histopathological outcomes of robotic (R-RR), transanal (Ta-RR), laparoscopic (L-RR), and open (O-RR) resections for rectal cancer.

Materials and methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were screened from inception to June 2024. Of the 4186 articles screened, 27 RCTs were selected. Pairwise comparisons and Bayesian network meta-analyses applying random effects models were performed.

Results: The 27 RCTs included a total of 8696 patients. Bayesian pairwise meta-analysis revealed significantly lower odds of non-complete mesorectal excision with Ta-RR (Odds Ratio, OR, 0.60; 95%CI, 0.33, 0.92; P = .02; I2:11.7 %) and R-RR (OR, 0.68; 95%CI, 0.46, 0.94; P = .02; I2:41.7 %) compared with laparoscopy. Moreover, lower odds of positive CRMs were observed in the Ta-RR group than in the L-RR group (OR, 0.36; 95%CI, 0.13, 0.91; P = .02; I2:43.9 %). The R-RR was associated with more lymph nodes harvested compared with L-RR (Mean Difference, MD, 1.24; 95%CI, 0.10, 2.52; P = .03; I2:77.3 %). Conversely, Ta-RR was associated with a significantly lower number of lymph nodes harvested compared with all other approaches. SUCRA plots revealed that Ta-RR had the highest probability of being the best approach to achieve a complete mesorectal excision and negative CRM, followed by R-RR, which ranked the best in lymph nodes retrieved.

Conclusion: When comparing the effectiveness of the available surgical approaches for rectal cancer resection, Ta-RR and R-RR are associated with better histopathological outcomes than L-RR.

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
Ejso
Ejso 医学-外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
2.60%
发文量
1148
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: JSO - European Journal of Surgical Oncology ("the Journal of Cancer Surgery") is the Official Journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and BASO ~ the Association for Cancer Surgery. The EJSO aims to advance surgical oncology research and practice through the publication of original research articles, review articles, editorials, debates and correspondence.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Publisher's Note Calendar of events Artificial Intelligence for context-aware surgical guidance in complex robot-assisted oncological procedures: An exploratory feasibility study A foundation for evaluating the surgical artificial intelligence literature
×
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