Clinical outcome of post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumour: A systematic review

被引:10
|
作者
Haarsma, Rianne [1 ]
Blok, Joost M. [1 ,2 ]
van Putten, Kim [1 ]
Meijer, Richard P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Med Ctr Utrecht, Dept Oncol Urol, Postbox 85500, NL-3508 GA Utrecht, Netherlands
[2] Netherlands Canc Inst, Dept Urol, Post Box 90203, NL-1006 BE Amsterdam, Netherlands
来源
EJSO | 2020年 / 46卷 / 06期
关键词
Nonseminomatous germ cell tumor; Relapse rate; Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection; Lymph node excision; Testicular germ cell tumor; Systematic review; TESTICULAR CANCER; RESIDUAL MASSES; STAGE-II; TESTIS CANCER; LOW-VOLUME; CHEMOTHERAPY; RESECTION; COMPLICATIONS; MANAGEMENT; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejso.2020.02.035
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (PC-RPLND) is an important element of the management of patients with residual tumour after chemotherapy for disseminated nonseminomatous germ cell tumour (NSGCT). This is a challenging procedure and the outcome varies widely between institutions. There is much debate concerning the anatomical extent of the dissection and the literature is conflicting regarding the outcome of this procedure. In this systematic review we aim to summarise the literature on the relapse rate of PC-RPLND. We performed a search of the literature of the PubMed/ MEDLINE and Embase databases, in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting on the relapse rate of PC-RPLND in NSGCT patients with residual tumour were eligible for inclusion. We calculated the weighted average relapse rates of included studies and assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A total of 33 studies, reporting on 2,379 patients undergoing open PC-RPLND (ORPLND) and 463 patients undergoing minimally invasive PC-RPLND (MI-RPLND) were included. The weighted average relapse rates were 11.4% for O-RPLND, and 3.0% for MI-RPLND. The rates of retroperitoneal relapse were 4.6% and 1.7% after O-RPLND and MI-RPLND, respectively. For O-RPLND specifically, the average retroperitoneal relapse rate was 3.1% after modified dissection and 6.1% after bilateral dissection. We conclude that modified template dissection is oncologically safe in carefully selected patients. Minimally invasive procedures are feasible but long-term data on the oncological outcome are still lacking. PC-RPLND is a complex and challenging procedure, and patients should be treated at highvolume expert centres. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd, BASO similar to The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:999 / 1005
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Treatment Outcomes for Men with Clinical Stage II Nonseminomatous Germ Cell Tumours Treated with Primary Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection: A Systematic Review
    Neuenschwander, Anne
    Lonati, Chiara
    Antonelli, Luca
    Papachristofilou, Alexandros
    Cathomas, Richard
    Rothermundt, Christian
    Templeton, Arnoud J.
    Gulamhusein, Aziz
    Fischer, Stefanie
    Gillessen, Silke
    Hermanns, Thomas
    Lorch, Anja
    Mattei, Agostino
    Fankhauser, Christian D.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2023, 9 (03): : 541 - 546
  • [42] Robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for primary and post-chemotherapy testis cancer
    Nason, G. J.
    Kuhathaas, K.
    Anson-Cartwright, L.
    Jewett, M. A. S.
    O'Malley, M.
    Sweet, J.
    Hansen, A.
    Bedard, P.
    Chung, P.
    Hahn, E.
    Warde, P.
    Hamilton, R. J.
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2022, 16 (02) : 369 - 375
  • [43] Survival Analysis of Pure Seminoma at Post-Chemotherapy Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection
    Rice, Kevin R.
    Beck, Stephen D. W.
    Bihrle, Richard
    Cary, K. Clint
    Einhorn, Lawrence H.
    Foster, Richard S.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2014, 192 (05) : 1397 - 1402
  • [44] Robot-assisted post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in germ cell tumor: is the single-docking with lateral approach relevant?
    Overs, C.
    Beauval, J. B.
    Mourey, L.
    Rischmann, P.
    Soulie, M.
    Roumiguie, M.
    Doumerc, Nicolas
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 36 (04) : 655 - 661
  • [45] Clinical and Pathological Features Predictive of Nephrectomy at Post-Chemotherapy Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection
    Cary, K. Clint
    Beck, Stephen D. W.
    Bihrle, Richard
    Foster, Richard S.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2013, 189 (03) : 812 - 817
  • [46] Complications of post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testis cancer
    Mosharafa, AA
    Foster, RS
    Koch, MO
    Bihrle, R
    Donohue, JP
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2004, 171 (05) : 1839 - 1841
  • [47] Reoperative Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Metastatic Germ Cell Tumors: Analysis of Local Recurrence and Predictors of Survival
    Pedrosa, Jose A.
    Masterson, Timothy A.
    Rice, Kevin R.
    Bihrle, Richard
    Beck, Stephen D. W.
    Foster, Richard S.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2014, 191 (06) : 1777 - 1782
  • [48] Unilateral post-chemotherapy robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in Stage II non-seminomatous germ cell tumor: A tertiary care experience
    Franzese, Dario
    Tufano, Antonio
    Izzo, Alessandro
    Muscariello, Raffaele
    Grimaldi, Giovanni
    Quarto, Giuseppe
    Castaldo, Luigi
    Rossetti, Sabrina
    Pandolfo, Savio Domenico
    Desicato, Sonia
    Del Prete, Paola
    Ferro, Matteo
    Pignata, Sandro
    Perdona, Sisto
    ASIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2023, 10 (04) : 440 - 445
  • [49] Laparoscopic Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Clinical Stage I Nonseminomatous Germ Cell Tumor: A Large Single Institution Experience
    Hyams, Elias S.
    Pierorazio, Phillip
    Proteek, Ornab
    Sroka, Myrna
    Kavoussi, Louis R.
    Allaf, Mohamad E.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2012, 187 (02) : 487 - 492
  • [50] Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in testicular germ cell tumours: indications, complications and special cases
    John, Patricia
    Albers, Peter
    Hiester, Andreas
    Heidenreich, Axel
    AKTUELLE UROLOGIE, 2020, 51 (05) : 475 - 481