Cargando…

Survival outcomes of surgery for retroperitoneal sarcomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Definitive evidence to guide clinical practice on the principles of surgery for retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPSs) is still lacking. This study aims to summarise the available evidence to assess the relative benefits and disadvantages of an aggressive surgical approach with contiguous organ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Guo, Qiang, Zhao, Jichun, Du, Xiaojiong, Huang, Bin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9333279/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35901187
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272044
_version_ 1784758838799368192
author Guo, Qiang
Zhao, Jichun
Du, Xiaojiong
Huang, Bin
author_facet Guo, Qiang
Zhao, Jichun
Du, Xiaojiong
Huang, Bin
author_sort Guo, Qiang
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Definitive evidence to guide clinical practice on the principles of surgery for retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPSs) is still lacking. This study aims to summarise the available evidence to assess the relative benefits and disadvantages of an aggressive surgical approach with contiguous organ resection in patients with RPS, the association between surgical resection margins and survival outcomes, and the role of surgery in recurrent RPS. METHODS: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE for relevant randomised trials and observational studies published from inception up to May 1, 2021. Prospective or retrospective studies, published in the English language, providing outcome data with surgical treatment in patients with RPS were selected. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). FINDINGS: In total, 47 articles were analysed. There were no significant differences in the rates of OS (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.83–1.03; P = 0.574) and recurrence-free survival (HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.74–1.27; P = 0.945) between the extended resection group and the tumour resection alone group. Organ resection did not increase postoperative mortality (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.55–1.81; P = 0.997) but had a relatively higher complication rate (OR: 2.24, 95% CI: 0.94–5.34; P = 0.068). OS was higher in R0 than in R1 resection (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.23–1.44; P < 0.001) and in R1 resection than in R2 resection (HR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.35–2.36; P < 0.001). OS was also higher in R2 resection than in no surgery (HR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.07–1.45; P < 0.001), however, subgroup analysis showed that the pooled HR in the trials reporting primary RPS was similar between the two groups (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.87–1.42; P = 0.42). Surgical treatment achieves a significantly higher OS rate than does conservative treatment (HR: 2.42; 95% CI: 1.21–3.64; P < 0.001) for recurrent RPS. CONCLUSIONS: For primary RPS, curative-intent en bloc resection should be aimed, and adjacent organs with evidence of direct invasion must be resected to avoid R2 resection. For recurrent RPS, surgical resection should be considered as a priority. Incomplete resection remains to have a survival benefit in select patients with unresectable recurrent RPS.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9333279
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93332792022-07-29 Survival outcomes of surgery for retroperitoneal sarcomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis Guo, Qiang Zhao, Jichun Du, Xiaojiong Huang, Bin PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Definitive evidence to guide clinical practice on the principles of surgery for retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPSs) is still lacking. This study aims to summarise the available evidence to assess the relative benefits and disadvantages of an aggressive surgical approach with contiguous organ resection in patients with RPS, the association between surgical resection margins and survival outcomes, and the role of surgery in recurrent RPS. METHODS: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE for relevant randomised trials and observational studies published from inception up to May 1, 2021. Prospective or retrospective studies, published in the English language, providing outcome data with surgical treatment in patients with RPS were selected. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). FINDINGS: In total, 47 articles were analysed. There were no significant differences in the rates of OS (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.83–1.03; P = 0.574) and recurrence-free survival (HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.74–1.27; P = 0.945) between the extended resection group and the tumour resection alone group. Organ resection did not increase postoperative mortality (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.55–1.81; P = 0.997) but had a relatively higher complication rate (OR: 2.24, 95% CI: 0.94–5.34; P = 0.068). OS was higher in R0 than in R1 resection (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.23–1.44; P < 0.001) and in R1 resection than in R2 resection (HR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.35–2.36; P < 0.001). OS was also higher in R2 resection than in no surgery (HR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.07–1.45; P < 0.001), however, subgroup analysis showed that the pooled HR in the trials reporting primary RPS was similar between the two groups (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.87–1.42; P = 0.42). Surgical treatment achieves a significantly higher OS rate than does conservative treatment (HR: 2.42; 95% CI: 1.21–3.64; P < 0.001) for recurrent RPS. CONCLUSIONS: For primary RPS, curative-intent en bloc resection should be aimed, and adjacent organs with evidence of direct invasion must be resected to avoid R2 resection. For recurrent RPS, surgical resection should be considered as a priority. Incomplete resection remains to have a survival benefit in select patients with unresectable recurrent RPS. Public Library of Science 2022-07-28 /pmc/articles/PMC9333279/ /pubmed/35901187 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272044 Text en © 2022 Guo et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Guo, Qiang
Zhao, Jichun
Du, Xiaojiong
Huang, Bin
Survival outcomes of surgery for retroperitoneal sarcomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Survival outcomes of surgery for retroperitoneal sarcomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Survival outcomes of surgery for retroperitoneal sarcomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Survival outcomes of surgery for retroperitoneal sarcomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Survival outcomes of surgery for retroperitoneal sarcomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Survival outcomes of surgery for retroperitoneal sarcomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort survival outcomes of surgery for retroperitoneal sarcomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9333279/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35901187
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272044
work_keys_str_mv AT guoqiang survivaloutcomesofsurgeryforretroperitonealsarcomasasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhaojichun survivaloutcomesofsurgeryforretroperitonealsarcomasasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT duxiaojiong survivaloutcomesofsurgeryforretroperitonealsarcomasasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT huangbin survivaloutcomesofsurgeryforretroperitonealsarcomasasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis