Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for FIGO stage I ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original review that was first published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 4. Laparoscopy has become an increasingly common approach to surgical staging of apparent early-stage ovarian tumours. This review was undertaken to assess the available evidence on the benefits and risks of laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for the management of International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I ovarian cancer. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and risks of laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for the surgical treatment of FIGO stage I ovarian cancer (stages Ia, Ib and Ic). SEARCH METHODS: For the original review, we searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials (CGCRG) Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2007, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Biological Abstracts and CancerLit from 1 January 1990 to 30 November 2007. We also handsearched relevant journals, reference lists of identified studies and conference abstracts. For this updated review, we extended the CGCRG Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS searches to 6 December 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and prospective case-control studies comparing laparoscopic staging with open surgery (laparotomy) in women with stage I ovarian cancer according to FIGO. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: There were no studies to include, therefore we tabulated data from non-randomised studies (NRS) for discussion. MAIN RESULTS: We performed no meta-analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review has found no good-quality evidence to help quantify the risks and benefits of laparoscopy for the management of early-stage ovarian cancer as routine clinical practice.

Adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy for early stage cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3. Most women with early cervical cancer (stages I to IIA) are cured with surgery or radiotherapy, or both. We performed this review originally because it was unclear whether cisplatin-based chemotherapy after surgery, radiotherapy or both, in women with early stage disease with risk factors for recurrence, was associated with additional survival benefits or risks. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of platinum-based chemotherapy after radical hysterectomy, radiotherapy, or both in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer. SEARCH METHODS: For the original 2009 review, we searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 1), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, BIOLOGICAL ABSTRACTS and CancerLit, the National Research Register and Clinical Trials register, with no language restriction. We handsearched abstracts of scientific meetings and other relevant publications. We extended the database searches to November 2011 for this update. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy (after radical surgery, radiotherapy or both) with no adjuvant chemotherapy, in women with early stage cervical cancer (stage IA2-IIA) with at least one risk factor for recurrence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data independently. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model, with death and disease progression as outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: For this updated version, we identified three additional ongoing trials but no new studies for inclusion. Three trials including 368 evaluable women with early cervical cancer were included in the meta-analyses. The median follow-up period in these trials ranged from 29 to 42 months. All women had undergone surgery first. Two trials compared chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy to radiotherapy alone; and one trial compared chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy to radiotherapy alone. It was not possible to perform subgroup analyses by stage or tumour size.Compared with adjuvant radiotherapy, chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy significantly reduced the risk of death (two trials, 297 women; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36 to 0.87) and disease progression (two trials, 297 women; HR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.74), with no heterogeneity between trials (I² = 0% for both meta-analyses). Acute grade 4 toxicity occurred significantly more frequently in the chemotherapy plus radiotherapy group than in the radiotherapy group (risk ratio (RR) 5.66, 95% CI 2.14 to 14.98). We considered this evidence to be of a moderate quality due to small numbers and limited follow-up in the included studies. In addition, it was not possible to separate data for bulky early stage disease.In the one small trial that compared adjuvant chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy with adjuvant radiotherapy alone there was no significant difference in disease recurrence between the groups (HR = 1.34; 95% CI 0.24 to 7.66) and OS was not reported. We considered this evidence to be of a low quality.No trials compared adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy with no adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery for early cervical cancer with risk factors for recurrence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The addition of platinum-based chemotherapy to adjuvant radiotherapy (chemoradiation) may improve survival in women with early stage cervical cancer (IA2-IIA) and risk factors for recurrence. Adjuvant chemoradiation is associated with an increased risk of severe acute toxicity, although it is not clear whether this toxicity is significant in the long-term due to a lack of long-term data. This evidence is limited by the small numbers and poor methodological quality of included studies. We await the results of three ongoing trials, that are likely to have an important impact on our confidence in this evidence.

Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for benign ovarian tumour.

BACKGROUND: Over the last 10 years laparoscopy and minilaparotomy have become increasingly common approaches for the surgical removal of benign ovarian tumours. However, in the event that a tumour is found to be malignant, laparotomy is the appropriate procedure. Careful preoperative assessment including transvaginal ultrasound with morphological scoring, colour doppler assessment of vascular quality, and serum cancer antigen 125 (CA 125) level is desirable. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits, harms, and cost of laparoscopy or minilaparotomy compared with laparotomy in women with benign ovarian tumours. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched electronic databases, trial registers, and reference lists of published trial reports. Reference lists from trials and review articles were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials comparing either laparoscopy or minilaparotomy with laparotomy for benign ovarian tumours. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eight review authors independently assessed the eligibility and quality of each study and extracted the data. MAIN RESULTS: The results of nine randomised controlled trials (N = 482 women) showed that laparoscopic surgery was associated with fewer adverse events of surgery (surgical injury or postoperative complications including fever or infection) (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.5), less postoperative pain (VAS score WMD -2.4, 95% CI -2.7 to -2.0), greater likelihood of being pain free after two days (OR 7.42, 95% CI 4.86 to 11.33), and fewer days in hospital (WMD -2.88, 95% CI -3.1 to -2.7) than with laparotomy.In one study that reported costs, laparoscopy was associated with a significant reduction in costs compared to laparotomy (WMD - USD 1045, 95% CI -1348 to -742) in 1993. Very high levels of heterogeneity made it inappropriate to pool data on duration of surgery.Three RCTs compared laparoscopy versus minilaparotomy and found that laparoscopy was associated with reduced odds of any adverse event (surgical injury or postoperative complications) (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0 to 0.8) and lower VAS scores for pain (WMD -1.0, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.45). Duration of hospital stay ranged between 1 and 2.2 days, with substantial heterogeneity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In women undergoing surgery for benign ovarian tumours, laparoscopy was associated with a reduction in fever, urinary tract infection, postoperative complications, postoperative pain, number of days in hospital, and total cost. These findings should be interpreted with caution since only a small number of studies were identified. These included a total of only 769 women and not all of the important outcomes were reported in each study.

Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for FIGO Stage I ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Over the past ten years laparoscopy has become an increasingly common approach for the surgical removal of early stage ovarian tumours. There remains uncertainty about the value of this intervention. This review has been undertaken to assess the available evidence of the benefits and harms of laparoscopic surgery for the management of early stage ovarian cancer compared to laparotomy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of FIGO stage I ovarian cancer (stages Ia, Ib and Ic) when compared with laparotomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2007, MEDLINE (January 1990 to November 2007), EMBASE (1990 to November 2007), LILACS (1990 to November 2007), BIOLOGICAL ABSTRACTS (1990 to November 2007) and Cancerlit (1990 to November 2007). We also searched our own publication archives, based on prospective handsearching of relevant journals from November 2007. Reference lists of identified studies, gynaecological cancer handbooks and conference abstract were also scanned. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies including patients with histologically proven stage I ovarian cancer according to the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO).Studies comparing laparoscopic surgery with laparotomy for early stage ovarian cancer were only available from 1990. It was anticipated that a very small number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted studying the management of early stage ovarian cancer. Therefore, non-randomised comparative studies, cohort studies and case-controls studies, but not studies with historical controls, were also considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction was performed independently by five review authors (LRM, DDR, MIR, MCB and MIE) who assessed study quality and quality of extracted data. Extracted data included trial characteristics, characteristics of the study participants, interventions and outcomes. The quality of non RCTs was assessed using appropriate quality evaluations tools from the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) and from the Newcastle-Ottawa tool for observational studies (NOS). MAIN RESULTS: No RCTs were identified. Three observational studies were identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review has found no evidence to help quantify the value of laparoscopy for the management of early stage ovarian cancer as routine clinical practice.