肌肉浸润性膀胱癌根治性膀胱切除术中适当的盆腔淋巴结清扫:一项比较扩大和有限淋巴结清扫的随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 0.9 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Kumar Madhavan, Rahul Jena, Kapil Rathore, Amrut Phonde, Nikita Shrivastava, Devashish Kaushal, Manupriya Madhavan, Udit Khurana, Ela Haider
{"title":"肌肉浸润性膀胱癌根治性膀胱切除术中适当的盆腔淋巴结清扫:一项比较扩大和有限淋巴结清扫的随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Kumar Madhavan, Rahul Jena, Kapil Rathore, Amrut Phonde, Nikita Shrivastava, Devashish Kaushal, Manupriya Madhavan, Udit Khurana, Ela Haider","doi":"10.4103/iju.iju_33_25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>To compare the efficacy and safety of extended lymph node dissection (eLND) versus standard LND (sLND) in patients with bladder cancer undergoing radical cystectomy, focusing on overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and complications, including symptomatic lymphoceles.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing eLND and sLND. The primary outcomes were OS and RFS, while secondary outcomes included complications such as lymphoceles, sepsis, and urinary tract infections. Data were extracted independently by two authors, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two RCTs (Gschwend <i>et al</i>., 2019; Lerner <i>et al</i>., 2024) were included, with a total of 1,015 patients. No significant differences were observed in OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66-1.37) or RFS (HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.77-1.29) between the eLND and sLND groups. However, eLND was associated with a significantly higher incidence of symptomatic lymphoceles (risk ratio: 2.21, 95% CI 1.13-4.34) and no other major complications. The risk of publication bias was high due to the limited number of included studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While eLND did not show a survival benefit over sLND, it was associated with a higher risk of lymphoceles. eLND may be beneficial in patients with higher-risk disease requiring precise staging, but sLND is a viable and less morbid alternative for most patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":47352,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Urology","volume":"41 3","pages":"176-182"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12312837/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adequate pelvic lymph node dissection during radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive carcinoma urinary bladder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing extended and limited lymph node dissection.\",\"authors\":\"Kumar Madhavan, Rahul Jena, Kapil Rathore, Amrut Phonde, Nikita Shrivastava, Devashish Kaushal, Manupriya Madhavan, Udit Khurana, Ela Haider\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/iju.iju_33_25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>To compare the efficacy and safety of extended lymph node dissection (eLND) versus standard LND (sLND) in patients with bladder cancer undergoing radical cystectomy, focusing on overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and complications, including symptomatic lymphoceles.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing eLND and sLND. The primary outcomes were OS and RFS, while secondary outcomes included complications such as lymphoceles, sepsis, and urinary tract infections. Data were extracted independently by two authors, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two RCTs (Gschwend <i>et al</i>., 2019; Lerner <i>et al</i>., 2024) were included, with a total of 1,015 patients. No significant differences were observed in OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66-1.37) or RFS (HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.77-1.29) between the eLND and sLND groups. However, eLND was associated with a significantly higher incidence of symptomatic lymphoceles (risk ratio: 2.21, 95% CI 1.13-4.34) and no other major complications. The risk of publication bias was high due to the limited number of included studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While eLND did not show a survival benefit over sLND, it was associated with a higher risk of lymphoceles. eLND may be beneficial in patients with higher-risk disease requiring precise staging, but sLND is a viable and less morbid alternative for most patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47352,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":\"41 3\",\"pages\":\"176-182\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12312837/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/iju.iju_33_25\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/iju.iju_33_25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较膀胱癌根治性膀胱切除术患者行扩展淋巴结清扫(eLND)与标准淋巴结清扫(sLND)的疗效和安全性,重点关注总生存期(OS)、无复发生存期(RFS)和并发症,包括症状性淋巴细胞。材料和方法:根据系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目进行了系统评价和荟萃分析。我们检索了PubMed、MEDLINE、Embase、Scopus和Cochrane数据库,查找比较eLND和sLND的随机对照试验(rct)。主要结局是OS和RFS,次要结局包括淋巴细胞瘤、败血症和尿路感染等并发症。数据由两位作者独立提取,并使用Cochrane RoB 2工具评估偏倚风险。结果:两项随机对照试验(Gschwend et al., 2019;Lerner et al., 2024)共纳入1015例患者。eLND组和sLND组的OS(风险比[HR]: 0.95, 95%可信区间[CI]: 0.66-1.37)和RFS(风险比:1.00,95% CI: 0.77-1.29)无显著差异。然而,eLND与症状性淋巴囊肿发生率显著升高相关(风险比:2.21,95% CI 1.13-4.34),且无其他主要并发症。由于纳入的研究数量有限,发表偏倚的风险很高。结论:虽然eLND没有表现出比sLND更大的生存优势,但它与淋巴细胞瘤的高风险相关。对于需要精确分期的高风险疾病患者,eLND可能是有益的,但对于大多数患者来说,sLND是一种可行且发病率较低的替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Adequate pelvic lymph node dissection during radical cystectomy for muscle-invasive carcinoma urinary bladder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing extended and limited lymph node dissection.

Introduction: To compare the efficacy and safety of extended lymph node dissection (eLND) versus standard LND (sLND) in patients with bladder cancer undergoing radical cystectomy, focusing on overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and complications, including symptomatic lymphoceles.

Materials and methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing eLND and sLND. The primary outcomes were OS and RFS, while secondary outcomes included complications such as lymphoceles, sepsis, and urinary tract infections. Data were extracted independently by two authors, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool.

Results: Two RCTs (Gschwend et al., 2019; Lerner et al., 2024) were included, with a total of 1,015 patients. No significant differences were observed in OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66-1.37) or RFS (HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.77-1.29) between the eLND and sLND groups. However, eLND was associated with a significantly higher incidence of symptomatic lymphoceles (risk ratio: 2.21, 95% CI 1.13-4.34) and no other major complications. The risk of publication bias was high due to the limited number of included studies.

Conclusion: While eLND did not show a survival benefit over sLND, it was associated with a higher risk of lymphoceles. eLND may be beneficial in patients with higher-risk disease requiring precise staging, but sLND is a viable and less morbid alternative for most patients.

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
Indian Journal of Urology
Indian Journal of Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
审稿时长
33 weeks
期刊介绍: Indian Journal of Urology-IJU (ISSN 0970-1591) is official publication of the Urological Society of India. The journal is published Quarterly. Bibliographic listings: The journal is indexed with Abstracts on Hygiene and Communicable Diseases, CAB Abstracts, Caspur, DOAJ, EBSCO Publishing’s Electronic Databases, Excerpta Medica / EMBASE, Expanded Academic ASAP, Genamics JournalSeek, Global Health, Google Scholar, Health & Wellness Research Center, Health Reference Center Academic, Hinari, Index Copernicus, IndMed, OpenJGate, PubMed, Pubmed Central, Scimago Journal Ranking, SCOLOAR, SCOPUS, SIIC databases, SNEMB, Tropical Diseases Bulletin, Ulrich’s International Periodical Directory
×
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