Primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for clinical stage II seminoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of safety and oncological effectiveness

. 2024 Apr ; 42 (4) : 102-109. [epub] 20240214

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké Médium print-electronic

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, metaanalýza, systematický přehled

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/pmid38360519
Odkazy

PubMed 38360519
DOI 10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.01.014
PII: S1078-1439(24)00014-0
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje

To evaluate the oncological outcomes and safety of primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) in patients with clinical stage (CS) II seminomatous testicular germ cell tumor (TGCT). A literature search using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library was conducted on July 2023 to identify relevant studies according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The pooled recurrence rate and treatment-related complications were calculated using a random effects model. Overall 8 studies published between 1997 and 2023 including a total of 355 patients were selected for systematic review and meta-analysis with the overall median follow-up of 38 months. The overall and infield recurrence rate were 0.14 (95% CI: 0.08-0.22) and 0.04 (95% CI: 0.00-0.11), respectively. The overall pooled rate of ≥ Clavien Dindo grade III complications was 0.04 (95% CI: 0.01-0.10); there was no significant heterogeneity (I^2 = 35.10%, P = 0.19). Antegrade ejaculation was preserved with the overall pooled rate of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.95-1.00); there was no significant heterogeneity on Chi-square and I2 tests (I^2 = 0.00%, P = 0.58). Primary RPLND is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with CS II seminomatous TGCT resulting highly promising cure rates combined with low treatment-associated adverse events, at medium-term follow-up. However, owing to the lack of comparative studies to the current standard of care and the limited follow-up, individual decision must be made with the informed patient in a shared decision process together with a multidisciplinary team.

Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria

Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria; Department of Urology Jikei University School of Medicine Tokyo Japan

Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria; Department of Urology Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences Okayama Japan

Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria; Department of Urology Shariati Hospital Tehran University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran

Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria; Department of Urology University Medical Center Hamburg Eppendorf Hamburg Germany

Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria; Department of Urology University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas TX; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health 1 M Sechenov 1st Moscow State Medical University Moscow Russia; Department of Urology 2nd Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prag Czech Republic; Departments of Urology Weill Cornell Medical College New York NY; Division of Urology Department of Special Surgery Jordan University Hospital The University of Jordan Amman Jordan

Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health 1 M Sechenov 1st Moscow State Medical University Moscow Russia

Department of Urology University of California San Diego San Diego CA

Department of Urology University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas TX

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Pouze přihlášení uživatelé

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...