Cargando…

Comparison of efficacy between brachytherapy and penectomy in patients with penile cancer: a meta-analysis

We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of brachytherapy and penectomy in patients with penile cancer. We searched the published articles in the PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases up to March 20, 2017. Twenty-two studies entered the fi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hu, Xiheng, Huang, Jianghai, Wen, Sailan, Fu, Jun, Chen, Minfeng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Impact Journals LLC 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5725035/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29245993
http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.18761
Descripción
Sumario:We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of brachytherapy and penectomy in patients with penile cancer. We searched the published articles in the PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases up to March 20, 2017. Twenty-two studies entered the final analyses. We used five-year overall survival rate, five-year local control rate, disease-free progression and lymph node positive rate to assess the efficacy. The meta-analysis found that patients who received penectomy had higher five-year local control rate (85% vs 80%, odds ratio = 0.72, 95% confidence interval: 0.58–0.90), five-year disease-free progression rate (77% vs 72%, odds ratio = 0.77, 95% confidence interval: 0.63–0.93) and lymph node positive rates (24% vs 20%, odds ratio = 0.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.64–0.98) than brachytherapy. No significant difference was observed for two group in five-year overall survival rate (76% vs 74%, odds ratios = 1.11 with the 95% confidence interval: 0.91–1.36). Both of penectomy and brachytherapy can improve the survival status. Penectomy provided better control efficacy, and not improved the survival status compared with brachytherapy solely. However, further research was required because of retrospective nature and potential bias of the data.