Assessment and Reporting of Perioperative Adverse Events and Complications in Patients Undergoing Inguinal Lymphadenectomy for Melanoma, Vulvar Cancer, and Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Journal
World journal of surgery
ISSN: 1432-2323
Titre abrégé: World J Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7704052
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2023
04 2023
Historique:
accepted:
14
12
2022
pubmed:
29
1
2023
medline:
3
3
2023
entrez:
28
1
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) plays a crucial role in the oncological management of patients with melanoma, penile, and vulvar cancer. This study aims to systematically evaluate perioperative adverse events (AEs) in patients undergoing ILND and its reporting. A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA. PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase were queried to identify studies discussing perioperative AEs in patients with melanoma, penile, and vulvar cancer following ILND. Our search generated 3.469 publications, with 296 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Details of 14.421 patients were analyzed. Of these studies, 58 (19.5%) described intraoperative AEs (iAEs) as an outcome of interest. Overall, 68 (2.9%) patients reported at least one iAE. Postoperative AEs were reported in 278 studies, combining data on 10.898 patients. Overall, 5.748 (52.7%) patients documented ≥1 postoperative AEs. The most reported ILND-related AEs were lymphatic AEs, with a total of 4.055 (38.8%) events. The pooled meta-analysis confirmed that high BMI (RR 1.09; p = 0.006), ≥1 comorbidities (RR 1.79; p = 0.01), and diabetes (RR 1.81; p = < 0.00001) are independent predictors for any AEs after ILND. When assessing the quality of the AEs reporting, we found 25% of studies reported at least 50% of the required criteria. ILND performed in melanoma, penile, and vulvar cancer patients is a morbid procedure. The quality of the AEs reporting is suboptimal. A more standardized AEs reporting system is needed to produce comparable data across studies for furthering the development of strategies to decrease AEs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) plays a crucial role in the oncological management of patients with melanoma, penile, and vulvar cancer. This study aims to systematically evaluate perioperative adverse events (AEs) in patients undergoing ILND and its reporting.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA. PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase were queried to identify studies discussing perioperative AEs in patients with melanoma, penile, and vulvar cancer following ILND.
RESULTS
Our search generated 3.469 publications, with 296 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Details of 14.421 patients were analyzed. Of these studies, 58 (19.5%) described intraoperative AEs (iAEs) as an outcome of interest. Overall, 68 (2.9%) patients reported at least one iAE. Postoperative AEs were reported in 278 studies, combining data on 10.898 patients. Overall, 5.748 (52.7%) patients documented ≥1 postoperative AEs. The most reported ILND-related AEs were lymphatic AEs, with a total of 4.055 (38.8%) events. The pooled meta-analysis confirmed that high BMI (RR 1.09; p = 0.006), ≥1 comorbidities (RR 1.79; p = 0.01), and diabetes (RR 1.81; p = < 0.00001) are independent predictors for any AEs after ILND. When assessing the quality of the AEs reporting, we found 25% of studies reported at least 50% of the required criteria.
CONCLUSION
ILND performed in melanoma, penile, and vulvar cancer patients is a morbid procedure. The quality of the AEs reporting is suboptimal. A more standardized AEs reporting system is needed to produce comparable data across studies for furthering the development of strategies to decrease AEs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36709215
doi: 10.1007/s00268-022-06882-6
pii: 10.1007/s00268-022-06882-6
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
962-974Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Société Internationale de Chirurgie.
Références
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A (2022) Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin 72(1):7–33
doi: 10.3322/caac.21708
pubmed: 35020204
Clark PE, Spiess PE, Agarwal N, Biagioli MC, Eisenberger MA, Greenberg RE et al (2013) Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 11(5):22
Greer BE, Koh WJ (2016) New NCCN Guidelines for Vulvar Cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 14(5S):656–658
pubmed: 27226506
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0184
Swetter SM, Thompson JA, Albertini MR, Barker CA, Baumgartner J, Boland G et al (2021) NCCN Guidelines® insights: melanoma: cutaneous, Version 2.2021: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 19(4):364–376
pubmed: 33845460
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2021.0018
Matin SF, Cormier JN, Ward JF, Pisters LL, Wood CG, Dinney CPN et al (2013) Phase 1 prospective evaluation of the oncological adequacy of robotic assisted video-endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy in patients with penile carcinoma: robotic assisted video-endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy. BJU Int 111(7):1068–1074
pubmed: 23551693
pmcid: 3651805
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11729.x
Catalona WJ (1988) Modified inguinal lymphadenectomy for carcinoma of the penis with preservation of saphenous veins: technique and preliminary results. J Urol 140(2):306–310
pubmed: 3398125
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)41589-8
Bishoff JT, Du K (2018) Endoscopic subcutaneous modified inguinal lymph node dissection for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. In: Smith AD, Preminger GM, Kavoussi LR, Badlani GH, Rastinehad AR (eds) Smith’s textbook of endourology [Internet]. Chichester, UK: Wiley [cited 2022 Jul 11]. 1060–1065. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119245193.ch90
Sotelo R, Sánchez-Salas R, Carmona O, Garcia A, Mariano M, Neiva G et al (2007) Endoscopic lymphadenectomy for penile carcinoma. J Endourol 21(4):364–367
pubmed: 17451323
doi: 10.1089/end.2007.9971
Gopman JM, Djajadiningrat RS, Baumgarten AS, Espiritu PN, Horenblas S, Zhu Y et al (2015) Predicting postoperative complications of inguinal lymph node dissection for penile cancer in an international multicentre cohort. BJU Int 116(2):196–201
pubmed: 25777366
doi: 10.1111/bju.13009
Martin RCG, Brennan MF, Jaques DP (2002) Quality of complication reporting in the surgical literature. Ann Surg 235(6):803–813
pubmed: 12035036
pmcid: 1422509
doi: 10.1097/00000658-200206000-00007
Mitropoulos D, Artibani W, Graefen M, Remzi M, Rouprêt M, Truss M (2012) Reporting and grading of complications after urologic surgical procedures: an ad hoc EAU guidelines panel assessment and recommendations. Eur Urol 61(2):341–349
pubmed: 22074761
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.033
Zorzela L, Loke YK, Ioannidis JP, Golder S, Santaguida P, Altman DG et al (2016) PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. BMJ 1:i157
doi: 10.1136/bmj.i157
Cacciamani GE, Maas M, Nassiri N, Ortega D, Gill K, Dell’Oglio P et al (2021) Impact of pelvic lymph node dissection and its extent on perioperative morbidity in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol 4(2):134–149
pubmed: 33745687
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.02.001
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Review 8:336–341
Dell’Oglio P, Andras I, Ortega D, Galfano A, Artibani W, Autorino R et al (2021) Impact of the implementation of the EAU guidelines recommendation on reporting and grading of complications in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 80(2):129–133
pubmed: 34020829
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.04.030
Tellini R, Mari A, Muto G, Cacciamani GE, Ferro M, Stangl-Kremser J et al (2021) Impact of smoking habit on perioperative morbidity in patients treated with radical cystectomy for urothelial bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol 4(4):580–593
pubmed: 33160975
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.10.006
Nassiri N, Maas M, Basin M, Cacciamani GE, Doumanian LR (2021) Urethral complications after gender reassignment surgery: a systematic review. Int J Impot Res 33(8):793–800
doi: 10.1038/s41443-020-0304-y
Cacciamani GE, Tafuri A, Iwata A, Iwata T, Medina L, Gill K et al (2020) Quality assessment of intraoperative adverse event reporting during 29 227 robotic partial nephrectomies: a systematic review and cumulative analysis. Eur Urol Oncol 3(6):780–783
pubmed: 32474006
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.04.003
Cacciamani GE, Medina LG, Tafuri A, Gill T, Baccaglini W, Blasic V et al (2020) Impact of implementation of standardized criteria in the assessment of complication reporting after robotic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review. Eur Urol Focus 6(3):513–517
pubmed: 30587445
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.12.004
Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Chandler J, Welch VA, Higgins JP et al (2019) Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Editorial Unit, editor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2019 Oct 3 [cited 2022 Jul 11]; https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000142
Cacciamani GE, Sholklapper T, Dell’Oglio P, Rocco B, Annino F, Antonelli A et al (2022) The intraoperative complications assessment and reporting with universal standards (ICARUS) global surgical collaboration project: development of criteria for reporting adverse events during surgical procedures and evaluating their impact on the postoperative course. Eur Urol Focus 8:1847–1858
pubmed: 35177353
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2022.01.018
Cacciamani G, Sholklapper T, Sotelo R, Desai M, Gill I (2021) A protocol for the development of the intraoperative complications assessment and reporting with universal standards criteria: the ICARUS project. Int J Surg Protoc 25(1):160–164
pubmed: 34430764
pmcid: 8344953
doi: 10.29337/ijsp.155
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD et al (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196
pubmed: 19638912
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2
Kaafarani HMA, Mavros MN, Hwabejire J, Fagenholz P, Yeh DD, Demoya M et al (2014) Derivation and validation of a novel severity classification for intraoperative adverse events. J Am Coll Surg 218(6):1120–1128
pubmed: 24702887
doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.12.060
Biyani CS, Pecanka J, Rouprêt M, Jensen JB, Mitropoulos D (2020) Intraoperative Adverse Incident Classification (EAUiaiC) by the European association of urology ad hoc complications guidelines panel. Eur Urol 77(5):601–610
pubmed: 31787430
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.11.015
Dell-Kuster S, Gomes NV, Gawria L, Aghlmandi S, Aduse-Poku M, Bissett I et al (2020) Prospective validation of classification of intraoperative adverse events (ClassIntra): international, multicentre cohort study. BMJ 25:m2917
doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2917
On behalf of the EAES committees, Francis NK, Curtis NJ, Conti JA, Foster JD, Bonjer HJ et al (2018) EAES classification of intraoperative adverse events in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 32(9):3822–3829
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6108-1
Cacciamani GE (2022) Intraoperative adverse events grading tools and their role in honest and accurate reporting of surgical outcomes. Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2022.04.029
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2022.04.029
pubmed: 35597615
Soliman C, Mulholland CJ, Santaguida P, Sathianathen NJ, Lawrentschuk N, Giannarini G et al (2022) Protocol for CAMUS Delphi study: a consensus on comprehensive reporting and grading of complications after urological surgery. Eur Urol Focus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2022.01.016
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2022.01.016
pubmed: 35221259
ICARUS Classification System Working Group, Cacciamani GE, Sholklapper TN, Dell-Kuster S, Biyani CS, Francis N et al (2022) Assessing, grading, and reporting intraoperative adverse events during and after surgery. Br J Surg 109(4):301–302
doi: 10.1093/bjs/znab438
Enrico Cacciamani G, Sholklapper T, Dell-Kuster S, Biyani SC, Francis N, Kaafarani HM et al (2022) Standardizing the intraoperative adverse events assessment to create a positive culture of reporting errors in surgery and anesthesiology. Ann Surg 276(2):e75–e76
pubmed: 36036993
Artibani W (2018) what you measure depends on the tool you use: a short step from incorrect measurements to fake data. Eur Urol 74(1):8–9
pubmed: 29673713
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.03.027
Document C. The diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema: 2020 consensus document of the international society of lymphology. Lymphology [Internet]. 2020 Jun 2 [cited 2022 Apr 6];53(1). Available from: https://journals.librarypublishing.arizona.edu/lymph/article/id/4649/
Cormier JN, Askew RL, Mungovan KS, Xing Y, Ross MI, Armer JM (2010) Lymphedema beyond breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cancer-related secondary lymphedema. Cancer 116(22):5138–5149
pubmed: 20665892
doi: 10.1002/cncr.25458
Yamamoto T, Yamamoto N, Doi K, Oshima A, Yoshimatsu H, Todokoro T et al (2011) Indocyanine green-enhanced lymphography for upper extremity lymphedema: a novel severity staging system using dermal backflow patterns. Plast Reconstr Surg 128(4):941–947
pubmed: 21681123
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182268cd9
Yamamoto T, Matsuda N, Doi K, Oshima A, Yoshimatsu H, Todokoro T et al (2011) The earliest finding of indocyanine green lymphography in asymptomatic limbs of lower extremity lymphedema patients secondary to cancer treatment: the modified dermal backflow stage and concept of subclinical lymphedema. Plast Reconstr Surg 128(4):314e-e321
pubmed: 21921744
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182268da8
Leone A, Diorio GJ, Pettaway C, Master V, Spiess PE (2017) Contemporary management of patients with penile cancer and lymph node metastasis. Nat Rev Urol 14(6):335–347
pubmed: 28401957
doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2017.47
Rabe E, Partsch H, Hafner J, Lattimer C, Mosti G, Neumann M et al (2018) Indications for medical compression stockings in venous and lymphatic disorders: an evidence-based consensus statement. Phlebol J Venous Dis 33(3):163–184
doi: 10.1177/0268355516689631
US Department of Health and Human Services (2017) Common terminology criteria for adverse events. Version 5.0
Tobias-Machado M, Tavares A, Molina WR Jr, Forseto PH Jr, Juliano RV, Wroclawski ER (2006) Video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL): minimally invasive resection of inguinal lymph nodes. Int Braz J Urol 32(3):316–321
pubmed: 16813678
doi: 10.1590/S1677-55382006000300012
Loughlin KR (2006) Surgical atlas surgical management of penile carcinoma: the inguinal nodes. BJU Int 97(5):1125–1134
pubmed: 16643509
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06178.x
Koifman L, Hampl D, Koifman N, Vides AJ, Ornellas AA (2013) Radical open inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile carcinoma: surgical technique, early complications and late outcomes. J Urol 190(6):2086–2092
pubmed: 23770135
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.06.016
Bevan-Thomas R, Slaton JW, Pettaway CA (2002) COntemporary morbidity from lymphadenectomy for penile squamous cell carcinoma: the M.D. Anderson cancer center experience. Comparative study 167(4):1638–42
Spiess PE, Hernandez MS, Pettaway CA (2009) Contemporary inguinal lymph node dissection: minimizing complications. World J Urol 27(2):205–212
pubmed: 18762945
doi: 10.1007/s00345-008-0324-6
Sood A, Rudzinski JK, Spiess PE, Pettaway CA (2022) The acute complications after surgery for penile carcinoma and strategies for their management: a systematic review of the literature. Semin Oncol Nurs 38(3):151285
pubmed: 35597731
doi: 10.1016/j.soncn.2022.151285
Solar IN, Gipponi MA, Franco DSCRI, Rè FE, Sonia O, Bertog Lio S et al (2016) Videoscopic Inguinal-iliac-obturator lymph-node dissection: new videoscopic technique for regional lymphadenectomy in patients with Melanom. Anticancer Res 36(12):6579–84
Tobias-Machado M, Tavares A, Silva MNR, Molina WR Jr, Forseto PH, Juliano RV et al (2008) Can Video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy achieve a lower morbidity than open lymph node dissection in penile cancer patients? J Endourol 22(8):1687–1692
pubmed: 18657031
doi: 10.1089/end.2007.0386
Kumar V, Sethia KK (2017) Prospective study comparing video-endoscopic radical inguinal lymph node dissection (VEILND) with open radical ILND (OILND) for penile cancer over an 8-year period. BJU Int 119(4):530–534
pubmed: 27628265
doi: 10.1111/bju.13660
Nabavizadeh R, Petrinec B, Necchi A, Tsaur I, Albersen M, Master V (2020) Utility of minimally invasive technology for inguinal lymph node dissection in penile cancer. J Clin Med 9(8):2501
pubmed: 32756502
pmcid: 7465352
doi: 10.3390/jcm9082501
Renner P, Torzewski M, Zeman F, Babilas P, Kroemer A, Schlitt HJ et al (2017) Increasing morbidity with extent of lymphadenectomy for primary malignant melanoma. Lymphat Res Biol 15(2):146–152
pubmed: 28617648
doi: 10.1089/lrb.2016.0018
Faut M, Heidema RM, Hoekstra HJ, van Ginkel RJ, Been SLB, Kruijff S et al (2017) Morbidity after inguinal lymph node dissections: it is time for a change. Ann Surg Oncol 24(2):330–339
pubmed: 27519351
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5461-3
Stuiver MM, Djajadiningrat RS, Graafland NM, Vincent AD, Lucas C, Horenblas S (2013) Early wound complications after inguinal lymphadenectomy in penile cancer: a historical cohort study and risk-factor analysis. Eur Urol 64(3):486–492
pubmed: 23490726
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.02.037
Sars C, Gillgren P, Schultz I, Lindqvist EK (2020) Risk factors for complications and long-term outcomes following completion lymph node dissection for cutaneous melanoma: a retrospective cohort study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 73(8):1540–1546
pubmed: 32467082
doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2020.02.038
Wevers KP, Poos HPAM, van Ginkel RJ, van Etten B, Hoekstra HJ (2013) Early mobilization after ilio-inguinal lymph node dissection for melanoma does not increase the wound complication rate. Eur J Surg Oncol EJSO 39(2):185–190
pubmed: 22981748
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2012.08.018