A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing treatments for faecal incontinence.

BACKGROUND: Although numerous treatments exist for fecal incontinence (FI), no consensus exists on the best treatment strategy. The aim was to review the literature and to compare the clinical outcomes and effectiveness of treatments available for FI. MATERIALS AND METHOD: A systematic literature review was performed, from inception to May 2018, of the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, Cochrane Library. The search terms used were "faecal incontinence" and "treatment". Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatments for FI were considered. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method. RESULT: Forty-seven RCTs were included comparing 37 treatments and reporting on 3748 participants. No treatment ranked best or worst with high probability for any outcome of interest. No significant difference was identified between treatments for frequency of FI per week, or in changing the resting pressure, maximum resting pressure, squeeze pressure, and maximum squeeze pressure. Radiofrequency resulted in more adverse events compared to placebo. Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) and zinc-aluminium improved the fecal incontinence quality of life questionnaire (FIQL) lifestyle, coping, and embarrassment domains compared to placebo. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation (TPTNS) improved the FIQL embarrassment domain compared to placebo. Autologous myoblasts and zinc-aluminium improved the FIQL depression domain compared to placebo. SNS, artificial bowel sphincter (ABS), and zinc-aluminium significantly improved incontinence scores compared to placebo. Injection of non-animal stabilized hyaluronic acid/dextranomer (NASHA/Dx) resulted in more patients with ≥50% reduction in FI episodes compared to placebo. CONCLUSION: SNS, ABS, TPTNS, NASHA/Dx, zinc-aluminium, and autologous myoblasts resulted in isolated improvements in specific outcomes of interest. No difference was identified in incontinence episodes, no treatment ranked best persistently or persistently improved outcomes, and many included treatments did not significantly benefit patients compared to placebo. Large multicentre RCTs with long-term follow-up and standardized inclusion criteria and outcome measures are needed.

Sacral nerve stimulation versus percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) and sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) are both second-line treatments for faecal incontinence (FI). To compare the clinical outcomes and effectiveness of SNS versus PTNS for treating FI in adults. METHOD: A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane was performed in order to identify studies comparing SNS and PTNS for treating FI. A risk of bias assessment was performed using The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. A random effects model was used for the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Four studies (one randomised controlled trial and three nonrandomised prospective studies) reported on 302 patients: 109 underwent SNS and 193 underwent PTNS. All included studies noted an improvement in symptoms after treatment, without any significant difference in efficacy between SNS and PTNS. Meta-analysis demonstrated that the Wexner score improved significantly with SNS compared to PTNS (weighted mean difference 2.27; 95% confidence interval 3.42, 1.12; P < 0.01). Moreover, SNS was also associated with a significant reduction in FI episodes per week and a greater improvement in the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life coping and depression domains, compared to PTNS on short-term follow-up. Only two studies reported on adverse events, reporting no serious adverse events with neither SNS nor PTNS. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that SNS results in significantly improved functional outcomes and quality of life compared to PTNS. No serious adverse events were identified with either treatment. Further, high-quality, multi-centre randomised controlled trials with standardised outcome measures and long-term follow-up are required in this field.

Comparison of Western and Asian Guidelines Concerning the Management of Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines are important to standardize treatments and optimize outcomes. Several societies have published authoritative guidelines for patients with colon cancer, and a certain degree of variation can be predicted. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare Western and Asian guidelines for the management of colon cancer. DATA SOURCES: A literature review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for studies published between 2010 and 2017 by the online resources from the official Web sites of the societies/panels. Sources included guidelines by European Society of Medical Oncology, the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. STUDY SELECTION: Only full-text studies and the latest guidelines dealing with colon cancer were included. Studies and guidelines were separately assessed by 2 authors, who independently identified discrepancies and areas for further research. These were discussed and agreed with by all the authors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The recommendations of the guidelines of each society were compared, seeking discrepancies and potential areas for improvement. RESULTS: Endoscopic techniques for the management of early colon cancer are discussed in detail in the Asian guidelines. Asian guidelines advocate extended (D3) lymphadenectomy on a routine basis in T3/T4 and in selected T2 patients, whereas such an approach is still under investigation in Western countries. Only US guidelines describe neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy. All the guidelines recommend adjuvant treatment in selected stage II patients, but agreement exists that this is performed without solid evidence, because better outcomes are hypothesized based on studies including stage III or stage II/III patients. The role of cytoreductive surgery with intra-abdominal chemotherapy is dubious, and European guidelines only recommend it in the setting of trials. Asian guidelines endorse an aggressive surgical approach to peritoneal disease. Only US guidelines include a patient advocate in the drafting panel. LIMITATIONS: Bias may have arisen from country-specific socioeconomic and cultural issues, and from the latest available updates. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical approaches to colon cancer differ significantly among Western and Asian guidelines, reflecting different concepts of treatment. The role of adjuvant treatment in node-negative disease and quality-of-life assessment need further research.

Discrepancies between NCCN and ESMO guidelines in the management of anal cancer: a qualitative review.

There is an ever-growing need, with the ongoing developments in research and the progress towards patient centered care, to delineate standardized protocols of management of anal cancer. However, guidelines from different societies show some degree of disagreement. This is a systematic review of the literature to identify similarities and discrepancies between the guidelines for the management of anal cancer drafted by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). We found essentially similar management for investigation, diagnosis, chemotherapy regimens, and radiotherapy doses in both ESMO and NCCN recommendations in the management of anal cancer. There were few differences, which included the levels of evidence and grades of recommendations, the delineation of radiotherapy fields, and the treatment of the elderly and personalized medicine based on genetics. The follow-up regime is also marginally different in the first 2 years. Even if the observed differences may be justified by a different implementation of evidence-based medicine among different countries for particular management modalities of anal cancer, we identified the grey areas which need further study. In addition, these facets should be assessed more carefully when planning future guidelines.