Journal of minimally invasive gynecology · 2020
The Role of Minimally Invasive Surgery in the Care of Women with Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Knisely Anne, Gamble Charlotte R, St Clair Caryn M, Hou June Y, Khoury-Collado Fady, Gockley Allison A, Wright Jason D, Melamed Alexander
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To synthesize evidence from studies investigating survival outcomes for patients with ovarian cancer undergoing minimally invasive surgery (traditional or robotic laparoscopy) compared with those for patients with ovarian cancer undergoing laparotomy.
DATA SOURCES: We searched Ovid MEDLINE and Embase (from inception to December 2019).
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Observational cohort studies and randomized controlled trials that compared risk of recurrence or death between women undergoing minimally invasive and open procedures for staging (10), interval cytoreduction (4), secondary cytoreduction (2), and evaluation of resectability (1) were included.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Data on the number of participants, number of deaths and recurrences, and results of analyses of overall or progression-free survival were abstracted for all studies. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool the results of studies comparing minimally invasive staging and open staging. The surgical approach (minimally invasive versus open) was not significantly associated with hazard of death or recurrence (pooled hazard ratio 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.38) or all-cause mortality (pooled hazard ratio 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-1.89). One randomized trial demonstrated that diagnostic laparoscopy could triage patients to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and avoid suboptimal primary surgery, without affecting recurrence-free or overall survival. Most studies included in this review were observational and at high risk for bias, and few studies accounted for potential confounding.
CONCLUSION: Although existing studies do not demonstrate deleterious survival effects associated with minimally invasive surgery for ovarian cancer, these data must be viewed with caution given the significant methodologic shortcomings in the existing literature.
DATA SOURCES: We searched Ovid MEDLINE and Embase (from inception to December 2019).
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Observational cohort studies and randomized controlled trials that compared risk of recurrence or death between women undergoing minimally invasive and open procedures for staging (10), interval cytoreduction (4), secondary cytoreduction (2), and evaluation of resectability (1) were included.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Data on the number of participants, number of deaths and recurrences, and results of analyses of overall or progression-free survival were abstracted for all studies. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool the results of studies comparing minimally invasive staging and open staging. The surgical approach (minimally invasive versus open) was not significantly associated with hazard of death or recurrence (pooled hazard ratio 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.38) or all-cause mortality (pooled hazard ratio 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-1.89). One randomized trial demonstrated that diagnostic laparoscopy could triage patients to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and avoid suboptimal primary surgery, without affecting recurrence-free or overall survival. Most studies included in this review were observational and at high risk for bias, and few studies accounted for potential confounding.
CONCLUSION: Although existing studies do not demonstrate deleterious survival effects associated with minimally invasive surgery for ovarian cancer, these data must be viewed with caution given the significant methodologic shortcomings in the existing literature.