Nagendran Myura, Pallis Athanasios, Patel Kruti, Scarci Marco
Green Templeton College, University of Oxford, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6HG, UK.
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2011 Jul;13(1):66-9. doi: 10.1510/icvts.2011.267252. Epub 2011 Mar 30.
A best evidence topic in thoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether patients diagnosed with mesothelioma by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery should have their intervention sites irradiated to prevent metastatic seeding. Altogether 334 papers were found using the reported search, of which nine represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. There is no general consensus in the literature. Four studies recommend prophylactic irradiation therapy (PIT), while three studies stated that PIT was unnecessary. A systematic review identified only three suitable randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the literature. One trial found that 23% of radiotherapy (RT) patients developed tract metastases compared to 10% of control patients (P=0.748) with an estimated hazard ratio (RT to control) of 1.28 (95% CI: 0.29-5.73). Time from procedure to tract metastases was in fact shorter in patients treated with RT (2.4 months RT vs. 6.4 months control, non-significant). Another trial found that seeding of metastatic tumour to the intervention site occurred in 7% of RT sites vs. 10% of control sites (P=0.53). Freedom from tract metastasis survival was also non-significant between RT and control arms (P=0.82). However, the third trial reported a significantly greater incidence of intervention site metastases in control vs. RT patients (40% vs. 0%, respectively, P<0.001). Non-randomised studies found mixed results. One reported that median survival between patients with and without local metastases was not significantly different (P=0.64) while another article described no local metastases in PIT sites. None of the studies reported significant skin or side reactions and treatment was generally well tolerated. Based on the available evidence, we conclude that PIT is not currently justified.
根据结构化方案撰写了一篇胸外科最佳证据主题文章。探讨的问题是,通过电视辅助胸腔镜手术诊断为间皮瘤的患者,其干预部位是否应接受照射以预防转移性种植。通过报告的检索共找到334篇论文,其中9篇代表回答该临床问题的最佳证据。现将这些论文的作者、期刊、发表日期和国家、研究的患者组、研究类型、相关结局和结果制成表格。文献中尚无普遍共识。四项研究推荐预防性照射治疗(PIT),而三项研究称PIT无必要。一项系统评价仅从文献中确定了三项合适的随机对照试验(RCT)。一项试验发现,放疗(RT)患者中有23%发生术道转移,而对照患者为10%(P = 0.748),估计风险比(RT与对照)为1.28(95%CI:0.29 - 5.73)。实际上,接受RT治疗的患者从手术到术道转移的时间更短(RT组为2.4个月,对照组为6.4个月,无显著性差异)。另一项试验发现,转移性肿瘤在RT部位的种植率为7%,而对照部位为10%(P = 0.53)。RT组和对照组之间术道转移无进展生存期也无显著性差异(P = 0.82)。然而,第三项试验报告称,对照患者与接受RT治疗的患者相比,干预部位转移的发生率显著更高(分别为40%和0%,P < 0.001)。非随机研究结果不一。一项报告称,有局部转移和无局部转移患者的中位生存期无显著差异(P = 0.64),而另一篇文章描述PIT部位无局部转移。所有研究均未报告显著的皮肤或副作用反应,治疗总体耐受性良好。基于现有证据,我们得出结论,目前PIT尚无正当理由。