盆腔腹膜切除术与直肠乙状结肠切除术治疗累及道格拉斯袋的晚期上皮性卵巢癌:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Martina Aida Angeles, David Viveros-Carreño, Giulio Bonaldo, Vicente Bebia, Núria Agustí, Ana Luzarraga Aznar, Úrsula Acosta, Naia Seminario, René Pareja, Antonio Gil-Moreno
{"title":"盆腔腹膜切除术与直肠乙状结肠切除术治疗累及道格拉斯袋的晚期上皮性卵巢癌:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Martina Aida Angeles, David Viveros-Carreño, Giulio Bonaldo, Vicente Bebia, Núria Agustí, Ana Luzarraga Aznar, Úrsula Acosta, Naia Seminario, René Pareja, Antonio Gil-Moreno","doi":"10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.101983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the oncologic outcomes in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer and Douglas pouch involvement who underwent pelvic peritonectomy vs rectosigmoid resection as part of cytoreductive surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. MEDLINE (through Ovid), Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception until March 2024. We included studies with 2 arms of intervention comparing pelvic peritonectomy and rectosigmoid resection in patients diagnosed with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2014 stage IIB-IVB). Randomized controlled trials and prospective and retrospective observational studies were considered. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024535681).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search identified 821 articles; 598 studies were considered potentially eligible after removing duplicates, and 4 met the selection criteria, including a total of 623 patients. All 4 studies were retrospective. There was no statistically significant difference between patients undergoing pelvic peritonectomy compared to rectosigmoid resection in terms of overall recurrences (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.83, I<sup>2</sup> = 60%, p = .97; 3 studies, 495 participants) or pelvic recurrences (OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.23 to 11.53, I<sup>2</sup> = 88%, p = .63; 3 studies, 495 participants). Similarly, there were no significant differences in 5-year disease-free survival (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.43, I<sup>2</sup> = 91%, p = .93; 2 studies, 317 participants), or 5-year overall survival (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.62, I<sup>2</sup> = 83%, p = .97; 4 studies, 623 participants). Operative time, stoma rate, blood loss, blood transfusion, and length of hospital stay were significantly higher in the rectosigmoid resection group in the studies where these outcomes were assessed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The comparison between pelvic peritonectomy and rectosigmoid resection for the treatment of Douglas pouch carcinomatosis in advanced ovarian cancer revealed no significant differences in overall and pelvic recurrence rates. Disease-free and overall survival were comparable between the 2 surgical techniques. However, pelvic peritonectomy was associated with shorter surgeries, reduced stoma formation, shorter hospital stay, and lower blood loss and transfusion requirements.</p>","PeriodicalId":14097,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Gynecological Cancer","volume":" ","pages":"101983"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pelvic peritonectomy versus rectosigmoid resection in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer with Douglas pouch involvement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Martina Aida Angeles, David Viveros-Carreño, Giulio Bonaldo, Vicente Bebia, Núria Agustí, Ana Luzarraga Aznar, Úrsula Acosta, Naia Seminario, René Pareja, Antonio Gil-Moreno\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.101983\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the oncologic outcomes in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer and Douglas pouch involvement who underwent pelvic peritonectomy vs rectosigmoid resection as part of cytoreductive surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. MEDLINE (through Ovid), Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception until March 2024. We included studies with 2 arms of intervention comparing pelvic peritonectomy and rectosigmoid resection in patients diagnosed with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2014 stage IIB-IVB). Randomized controlled trials and prospective and retrospective observational studies were considered. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024535681).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search identified 821 articles; 598 studies were considered potentially eligible after removing duplicates, and 4 met the selection criteria, including a total of 623 patients. All 4 studies were retrospective. There was no statistically significant difference between patients undergoing pelvic peritonectomy compared to rectosigmoid resection in terms of overall recurrences (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.83, I<sup>2</sup> = 60%, p = .97; 3 studies, 495 participants) or pelvic recurrences (OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.23 to 11.53, I<sup>2</sup> = 88%, p = .63; 3 studies, 495 participants). Similarly, there were no significant differences in 5-year disease-free survival (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.43, I<sup>2</sup> = 91%, p = .93; 2 studies, 317 participants), or 5-year overall survival (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.62, I<sup>2</sup> = 83%, p = .97; 4 studies, 623 participants). Operative time, stoma rate, blood loss, blood transfusion, and length of hospital stay were significantly higher in the rectosigmoid resection group in the studies where these outcomes were assessed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The comparison between pelvic peritonectomy and rectosigmoid resection for the treatment of Douglas pouch carcinomatosis in advanced ovarian cancer revealed no significant differences in overall and pelvic recurrence rates. Disease-free and overall survival were comparable between the 2 surgical techniques. However, pelvic peritonectomy was associated with shorter surgeries, reduced stoma formation, shorter hospital stay, and lower blood loss and transfusion requirements.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14097,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Gynecological Cancer\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"101983\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Gynecological Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.101983\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Gynecological Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.101983","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较晚期上皮性卵巢癌道格拉斯袋受累者行盆腔腹膜切除术与直肠乙状结肠切除术作为细胞减缩手术的一部分的肿瘤预后。方法:根据系统评价和荟萃分析清单的首选报告项目进行系统文献综述和荟萃分析。MEDLINE(通过Ovid)、Embase和Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials从成立到2024年3月进行了检索。我们纳入了两组干预研究,比较晚期上皮性卵巢癌患者盆腔腹膜切除术和直肠乙状结肠切除术(International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2014 stage IIB-IVB)。随机对照试验、前瞻性和回顾性观察性研究被考虑在内。该协议已在PROSPERO (CRD42024535681)中注册。结果:检索到821篇文章;在剔除重复项后,598项研究被认为可能符合条件,其中4项研究符合选择标准,共包括623名患者。所有4项研究均为回顾性研究。与直肠乙状结肠切除术相比,盆腔腹膜切除术患者的总复发率无统计学差异(OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.53 ~ 1.83, I2 = 60%, p = 0.97;3项研究,495名受试者)或盆腔复发(or 1.61, 95% CI 0.23 ~ 11.53, I2 = 88%, p = 0.63;3项研究,495名参与者)。同样,两组5年无病生存率无显著差异(OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.13 ~ 6.43, I2 = 91%, p = 0.93;2项研究,317名受试者)或5年总生存率(or 1.02, 95% CI 0.39 ~ 2.62, I2 = 83%, p = 0.97;4项研究,623名参与者)。在评估这些结果的研究中,直肠乙状结肠切除术组的手术时间、造口率、出血量、输血和住院时间明显更高。结论:盆腔腹膜切除术与直肠乙状结肠切除术治疗晚期卵巢癌道格拉斯袋癌的总体复发率和盆腔复发率无显著差异。两种手术方式的无病生存率和总生存率相当。然而,盆腔腹膜切除术与较短的手术时间、较少的造口形成、较短的住院时间、较低的失血和输血需求相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pelvic peritonectomy versus rectosigmoid resection in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer with Douglas pouch involvement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: To compare the oncologic outcomes in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer and Douglas pouch involvement who underwent pelvic peritonectomy vs rectosigmoid resection as part of cytoreductive surgery.

Methods: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. MEDLINE (through Ovid), Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception until March 2024. We included studies with 2 arms of intervention comparing pelvic peritonectomy and rectosigmoid resection in patients diagnosed with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2014 stage IIB-IVB). Randomized controlled trials and prospective and retrospective observational studies were considered. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024535681).

Results: The search identified 821 articles; 598 studies were considered potentially eligible after removing duplicates, and 4 met the selection criteria, including a total of 623 patients. All 4 studies were retrospective. There was no statistically significant difference between patients undergoing pelvic peritonectomy compared to rectosigmoid resection in terms of overall recurrences (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.83, I2 = 60%, p = .97; 3 studies, 495 participants) or pelvic recurrences (OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.23 to 11.53, I2 = 88%, p = .63; 3 studies, 495 participants). Similarly, there were no significant differences in 5-year disease-free survival (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.43, I2 = 91%, p = .93; 2 studies, 317 participants), or 5-year overall survival (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.62, I2 = 83%, p = .97; 4 studies, 623 participants). Operative time, stoma rate, blood loss, blood transfusion, and length of hospital stay were significantly higher in the rectosigmoid resection group in the studies where these outcomes were assessed.

Conclusions: The comparison between pelvic peritonectomy and rectosigmoid resection for the treatment of Douglas pouch carcinomatosis in advanced ovarian cancer revealed no significant differences in overall and pelvic recurrence rates. Disease-free and overall survival were comparable between the 2 surgical techniques. However, pelvic peritonectomy was associated with shorter surgeries, reduced stoma formation, shorter hospital stay, and lower blood loss and transfusion requirements.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
10.40%
发文量
280
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, the official journal of the International Gynecologic Cancer Society and the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, is the primary educational and informational publication for topics relevant to detection, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of gynecologic malignancies. IJGC emphasizes a multidisciplinary approach, and includes original research, reviews, and video articles. The audience consists of gynecologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, and research scientists with a special interest in gynecological oncology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信