Clinical impact of low-volume lymph node metastases in early-stage cervical cancer: A comprehensive meta-analysis
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, metaanalýza, systematický přehled
Odkazy
PubMed
34949436
DOI
10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.12.015
PII: S0090-8258(21)01672-3
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- Cervical cancer, Low-volume lymph node metastasis, Sentinel lymph node, Ultrastaging,
- MeSH
- adenokarcinom patologie terapie MeSH
- biopsie sentinelové lymfatické uzliny MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- lymfatické metastázy MeSH
- lymfatické uzliny patologie MeSH
- mikrometastázy patologie MeSH
- míra přežití MeSH
- nádory děložního čípku patologie terapie MeSH
- přežití po terapii bez příznaků nemoci MeSH
- sentinelová uzlina patologie MeSH
- spinocelulární karcinom patologie terapie MeSH
- staging nádorů MeSH
- tumor burden MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- metaanalýza MeSH
- systematický přehled MeSH
OBJECTIVE: In order to define the clinical significance of low-volume metastasis, a comprehensive meta-analysis of published data and individual data obtained from articles mentioning micrometastases (MIC) and isolated tumor cells (ITC) in cervical cancer was performed, with a follow up of at least 3 years. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis, following Cochrane's review methods guide and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The primary outcome was the disease-free survival (DFS), and the secondary outcome was the overall survival (OS). The hazard ratio (HR) was taken as the measure of the association between the low-volume metastases (MIC+ITC and MIC alone) and DFS or OS; it quantified the hazard of an event in the MIC (+/- ITC) group compared to the hazard in node-negative (N0) patients. A random-effect meta-analysis model using the inverse variance method was selected for pooling. Forest plots were used to display the HRs and risk differences within individual trials and overall. RESULTS: Eleven articles were finally retained for the meta-analysis. In the analysis of DFS in patients with low-volume metastasis (MIC + ITC), the HR was increased to 2.60 (1.55-4.34) in the case of low-volume metastasis vs. N0. The presence of MICs had a negative prognostic impact, with an HR of 4.10 (2.71-6.20) compared to N0. Moreover, this impact was worse than that of MIC pooled with ITCs. Concerning OS, the meta-analysis shows an HR of 5.65 (2.81-11.39) in the case of low-volume metastases vs. N0. The presence of MICs alone had a negative effect, with an HR of 6.94 (2.56-18.81). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the presence of MIC seems to be associated with a negative impact on both the DFS and OS and should be treated as MAC.
Breast Gynecology and Reconstructive Surgery Unit Institut Curie Paris France
Department of Gynecology Oncology Michele e Pietro Ferrero Hospital Verduno Italy