RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Anastomotic leakage is a major concern following total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer, affecting oncological outcomes, morbidity an treatment costs. Body composition has been suggested to influence anastomotic leakage rates. However, literature on how body composition impact anastomotic leakage rates is conflicting. This systematic review aims to evaluate the role of computed tomography derived body composition metrics on anastomotic leakage rates in rectal cancer patients. METHODS: Databases PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, web of science, and EMBASE, will be systematically searched for papers from January 2010 onwards. Study selection, data collection and quality assessment will be independently performed by three research fellows. Outcomes described in three or more studies will be included in the meta-analysis. The Q-test and I2 statistic will be used to assess statistical heterogeneity between studies. Publication bias will be examined by visual inspection of funnel plots and quantified by Egger's test. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted to examine the robustness of the meta-analysis. Reporting of the findings will be in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review will synthesize the current evidence and will identify knowledge gaps. Results of the systematic review will aid health care professional in pre-operative decision making and will be distributed through a peer-reviewed publication and presentation of results at international meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO protocol number: CRD42023471537.
Asunto(s)
Fuga Anastomótica , Composición Corporal , Neoplasias del Recto , Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X , Humanos , Fuga Anastomótica/epidemiología , Metaanálisis como Asunto , Neoplasias del Recto/cirugía , Neoplasias del Recto/diagnóstico por imagenRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision is increasingly being used as an alternative to open surgery in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to compare the total, operative and hospitalization costs of open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision. METHODS: This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) (S1 File) A literature review was conducted (end-of-search date: January 1, 2023) and quality assessment performed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria. RESULTS: 12 studies were included, reporting on 2542 patients (226 open, 1192 laparoscopic, 998 robot-assisted and 126 transanal total mesorectal excision). Total costs of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision were higher compared to the open technique in the majority of included studies. For robot-assisted total mesorectal excision, higher operative costs and lower hospitalization costs were reported compared to the open and laparoscopic technique. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to low study quality and a high level of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was caused by differences in the learning curve and statistical methods used. CONCLUSION: Literature regarding costs of total mesorectal excision techniques is limited in quality and number. Available evidence suggests minimally invasive techniques may be more expensive compared to open total mesorectal excision. High-quality economical evaluations, accounting for the learning curve, are needed to properly assess costs of the different techniques.
Asunto(s)
Laparoscopía , Proctectomía , Neoplasias del Recto , Robótica , Cirugía Endoscópica Transanal , Humanos , Neoplasias del Recto/cirugía , Neoplasias del Recto/complicaciones , Proctectomía/métodos , Laparoscopía/efectos adversos , Hospitalización , Cirugía Endoscópica Transanal/efectos adversos , Cirugía Endoscópica Transanal/métodos , Recto/cirugía , Resultado del Tratamiento , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiologíaRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Nowadays, most rectal tumours are treated open or minimally invasive, using laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal total mesorectal excision. However, insight into the total costs of these techniques is limited. Since all three techniques are currently being performed, including cost considerations in the choice of treatment technique may significantly impact future healthcare costs. Therefore, this systematic review aims to provide an overview of evidence regarding costs in patients with rectal cancer following open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search will be conducted for papers between January 2000 and March 2022. Databases PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases will be searched. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed independently by four reviewers and discrepancies will be resolved through discussion. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria list will be used for assessing risk of bias. Total costs of the different techniques, consisting of but not limited to, theatre, in-hospital and postoperative costs, will be the primary outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required, as there is no collection of patient data at an individual level. Findings will be disseminated widely, through peer-reviewed publication and presentation at relevant national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021261125.
Asunto(s)
Laparoscopía , Proctectomía , Neoplasias del Recto , Robótica , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Humanos , Laparoscopía/métodos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/cirugía , Proctectomía/métodos , Neoplasias del Recto/patología , Neoplasias del Recto/cirugía , Recto/cirugía , Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNST) carry a dismal prognosis and require early detection and complete resection. However, MPNSTs are prone to sampling errors and biopsies or resections are cumbersome and possibly damaging in benign peripheral nerve sheath tumor (BPNST). This study aimed to systematically review and quantify the diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive tests for distinguishing MPNST from BPNST. METHODS: Studies on accuracy of MRI, FDG-PET (fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography), and liquid biopsies were identified in PubMed and Embase from 2000 to 2019. Pooled accuracies were calculated using Bayesian bivariate meta-analyses. Individual level-patient data were analyzed for ideal maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) threshold on FDG-PET. RESULTS: Forty-three studies were selected for qualitative synthesis including data on 1875 patients and 2939 lesions. Thirty-five studies were included for meta-analyses. For MRI, the absence of target sign showed highest sensitivity (0.99, 95% CI: 0.94-1.00); ill-defined margins (0.94, 95% CI: 0.88-0.98); and perilesional edema (0.95, 95% CI: 0.83-1.00) showed highest specificity. For FDG-PET, SUVmax and tumor-to-liver ratio show similar accuracy; sensitivity 0.94, 95% CI: 0.91-0.97 and 0.93, 95% CI: 0.87-0.97, respectively, specificity 0.81, 95% CI: 0.76-0.87 and 0.79, 95% CI: 0.70-0.86, respectively. SUVmax ≥3.5 yielded the best accuracy with a sensitivity of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.93-1.00) and specificity of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.56-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Biopsies may be omitted in the presence of a target sign and the absence of ill-defined margins or perilesional edema. Because of diverse radiological characteristics of MPNST, biopsies may still commonly be required. In neurofibromatosis type 1, FDG-PET scans may further reduce biopsies. Ideal SUVmax threshold is ≥3.5.