Psychological and behavioral symptoms in patients with melanoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Improved survival rates have made it increasingly important for clinicians to focus on cancer survivorship issues affecting the quality of life of melanoma patients. To provide a comprehensive overview of the disease and treatment-related issues affecting such patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to estimate the prevalence of symptoms of depression, anxiety, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and cognitive problems among melanoma patients, both uveal and cutaneous, before, during and after treatment. METHODS: The review was preregistered with PROSPERO (#CRD42020189847) and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search of the literature published up until June 2022 was undertaken using PubMed, PsycInfo, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Two independent reviewers screened 1418 records and quality-rated included studies. The reported prevalence rates of symptoms were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Sixty-six studies including a total of 12,400 melanoma patients published between 1992 and 2022 were included. Pooled prevalence rates ranged from 6% to 16% for depression and 7%-30% for anxiety across diagnoses (uveal and cutaneous melanoma) and assessment time points. One third of the patients (35%) reported clinically significant fatigue, 20%-44% had cognitive complaints, while prevalence of sleep disturbance was not reported. Quality assessment indicated that 80% of the studies were of good quality. CONCLUSION: A large body of research shows that depression and anxiety symptoms are prevalent in melanoma patients before, during and after treatment. However, research examining other symptoms known to affect quality of life, such as fatigue, sleep disturbances, and cognitive problems, is still needed.

Sleep During Oncological Treatment - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Associations With Treatment Response, Time to Progression and Survival.

Introduction: Disrupted sleep and sleep-wake activity are frequently observed in cancer patients undergoing oncological treatment. These disruptions are often associated with aggravated symptom burden and diminished health-related quality of life that in turn may compromise treatment adherence and, thus, effectiveness. In addition, disrupted sleep has been linked to carcinogenic processes, which ultimately could result in worse prognostic outcomes. Aims: Our aim was to systematically review and conduct a meta-analysis of studies examining the associations between sleep and sleep-wake activity and prognostic outcomes in cancer patients undergoing oncological treatment. Methods: A comprehensive systematic search of English language papers was undertaken in June 2020 using PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Two reviewers independently screened 4,879 abstracts. A total of 26 papers were included in the narrative review. Thirteen papers reporting hazard ratios reflecting associations between a dichotomized predictor variable (sleep) and prognostic outcomes were subjected to meta-analysis. Results: Nineteen of the 26 eligible studies on a total of 7,092 cancer patients reported associations between poorer sleep and poorer response to treatment, shorter time to progression, and/or reduced overall survival, but were highly heterogeneous with respect to the sleep and outcome parameters investigated. Meta-analysis revealed statistically significant associations between poor self-reported sleep and reduced overall survival (HR = 1.33 [95% CI 1.09-1.62], k = 11), and shorter time to progression (HR = 1.40 [95% CI 1.23-1.59], k = 3) and between poor objectively assessed sleep and reduced overall survival (HR = 1.74 [95% CI 1.05-2.88], k = 4). Conclusion: The current findings indicate that disturbed sleep during treatment may be a relevant behavioral marker of poor cancer prognosis. The limited number of studies, the common use of single item sleep measures, and potential publication bias highlight the need for further high quality and longitudinal studies.

Higher rates of surgical and medical complications and mortality following TKA in patients aged ≥ 80 years: a systematic review of comparative studies.

The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize studies published since the last systematic review in 2015 that compare outcomes of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in older patients (≥ 80 years) and in younger patients (< 80 years), in terms of complication rates and mortality.An electronic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase®, and Cochrane Register. Studies were included if they compared outcomes of primary TKA for osteoarthritis in patients aged 80 years and over to patients aged under 80 years, in terms of complication rates, mortality, or patient-reported outcomes (PROs).Thirteen studies were eligible. Surgical complications in older patients ranged from 0.6-21.1%, while in younger patients they ranged from 0.3-14.6%. Wound complications in older patients ranged from 0.5-20%, while in younger patients they ranged from 0.8-22.0%. Medical complications (cardiac, respiratory, thromboembolic) in older patients ranged from 0.4-17.3%, while in younger patients they ranged from 0.2-11.5%.Mortality within 90 days in older patients ranged between 0-2%, while in younger patients it ranged between 0.0-0.03%.Compared to younger patients, older patients have higher rates of surgical and medical complications, as well as higher mortality following TKA. The literature also reports greater length of stay for older patients, but inconsistent findings regarding PROs. The present findings provide surgeons and older patients with clearer updated evidence, to make informed decisions regarding TKA, considering the risks and benefits within this age group. Patients aged over 80 years should therefore not be excluded from consideration for primary TKA based on age alone. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:1052-1062. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200150.

Does Cup Position at the High Hip Center or Anatomic Hip Center in THA for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip Result in Better Harris Hip Scores and Revision Incidence? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: One goal of THA is to restore the anatomic hip center, which can be achieved in hips with developmental dysplasia by placing cups at the level of the native acetabulum. However, this might require adjuvant procedures such as femoral shortening osteotomy. Another option is to place the cup at the high hip center, potentially reducing surgical complexity. Currently, no clear consensus exists regarding which of these cup positions might offer better functional outcomes or long-term survival. QUESTION/PURPOSE: We performed a systematic review to determine whether (1) functional outcomes as measured by the Harris hip score, (2) revision incidence, and (3) complications that do not result in revision differ based on the position of the acetabular cup (high hip center versus anatomic hip center) in patients undergoing THA for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). METHODS: We performed a systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, including studies comparing the functional outcomes, revision incidence, and complications of primary THA in dysplastic hips with acetabular cups placed at the high hip center versus those placed at the anatomic hip center, over any time frame. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020168183) before commencement. Of 238 records, eight comparative, retrospective nonrandomized studies of interventions were eligible for our systematic review, reporting on 207 hips with cups placed at the high hip center and 268 hips with cups at the anatomic hip center. Risk of bias within eligible studies was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool. Due to low comparability between studies, data could not be pooled, so these studies were assessed without summary effects. RESULTS: Six studies compared Harris hip scores, two of which favored high hip center cup placement and three of which favored anatomic hip center cup placement, although none of the differences between cohorts met the minimum clinically important difference. Five studies reliably compared revision incidence, which ranged from 2% to 9% for high hip center at 7 to 15 years and 0% to 5.9% for anatomic hip center at 6 to 16 years. Five studies reported intra- and postoperative complications, with the high hip center being associated with higher incidence of dislocation and lower incidence of neurological complications. No clear difference was observed in intraoperative complications between the high hip center and anatomic hip center. CONCLUSION: No obvious differences could be observed in Harris hip score or revision incidence after THA for osteoarthritis secondary to DDH between cups placed at the anatomic hip center and those placed at the high hip center. Placement of the acetabular cup in the high hip center may lead to higher risk of dislocation but lower risk of neurologic complications, although no difference in intraoperative complications was observed. Surgeons should be able to achieve satisfactory functional scores and revision incidence using either technique, although they should be aware of how their choice influences hip biomechanics and the need for adjunct procedures and associated risks and operative time. These recommendations should be considered with respect to the several limitations in the studies reviewed, including the presence of serious confounding factors and selection biases, inconsistent definitions of the high hip center, variations in dysplasia severity, small sample sizes, and follow-up periods. These weaknesses should be addressed in well-designed future studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

The diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI for detection and localization of prostate cancer depends on the affected region.

Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for detecting and locating prostate cancer (PCa) on Dickinson's 27-sector map, using histopathology specimens from radical prostatectomy (RP) as the reference standard. Patients and methods: The authors studied a continuous series of 140 patients who underwent RP over three consecutive years. Prior to RP, all patients had mpMRI for detection and localization of PCa and further assessment by biopsy. To minimize the potential of disease progression, 25 patients were excluded because the interval between mpMRI and RP exceeded 6 months, which left 115 patients eligible for analysis. The mpMRI findings were reported using the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2, considering PI-RADS ≥ 3 to indicate PCa. The histopathology findings from RP specimens were graded using the Gleason scoring system, considering Gleason ≥ 6 to indicate PCa. The location of the tumors was mapped on Dickinson's 27-sector map for both mpMRI and histopathology and compared by rigid sector-by-sector matching. Results: The cohort of 115 patients eligible for analysis was aged 66.5 ± 6.0 years at RP. Of the 3105 sectors analyzed, there were 412 true positives (13%), 28 false positives (1%), 68 false negatives (2%), and 2597 true negatives (84%). Across the 27 sectors of the prostate, mpMRI sensitivity ranged from 50% to 100% and specificity from 96% to 100%, while PPV ranged from 50% to 100%, and NPV from 91% to 100%. For the anterior prostate, mpMRI had a sensitivity of 80% (CI, 71%-86%), specificity of 99% (CI, 99%-100%), PPV of 91% (CI, 83%-95%), and NPV of 99% (CI, 98%-99%). For the posterior prostate, mpMRI had a sensitivity of 88% (CI, 84%-91%), specificity of 98% (CI, 97%-99%), PPV of 94% (CI, 92%-96%), and NPV of 96% (CI, 94%-97%). Overall, mpMRI had a sensitivity of 86%, specificity of 99%, PPV of 94%, and NPV of 97%. Conclusions: The accuracy of mpMRI in detecting and locating prostate tumors depends on the affected region, but its high NPV across all sectors suggests that negative findings may not need corroboration by other techniques.