Impact of residual disease as a prognostic factor for survival in women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer after primary surgery.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the seventh most common cancer among women and a leading cause of death from gynaecological malignancies. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common type, accounting for around 90% of all ovarian cancers. This specific type of ovarian cancer starts in the surface layer covering the ovary or lining of the fallopian tube. Surgery is performed either before chemotherapy (upfront or primary debulking surgery (PDS)) or in the middle of a course of treatment with chemotherapy (neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and interval debulking surgery (IDS)), with the aim of removing all visible tumour and achieving no macroscopic residual disease (NMRD). The aim of this review is to investigate the prognostic impact of size of residual disease nodules (RD) in women who received upfront or interval cytoreductive surgery for advanced (stage III and IV) epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). OBJECTIVES: To assess the prognostic impact of residual disease after primary surgery on survival outcomes for advanced (stage III and IV) epithelial ovarian cancer. In separate analyses, primary surgery included both upfront primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS). Each residual disease threshold is considered as a separate prognostic factor. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2021, Issue 8), MEDLINE via Ovid (to 30 August 2021) and Embase via Ovid (to 30 August 2021). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included survival data from studies of at least 100 women with advanced EOC after primary surgery. Residual disease was assessed as a prognostic factor in multivariate prognostic models. We excluded studies that reported fewer than 100 women, women with concurrent malignancies or studies that only reported unadjusted results. Women were included into two distinct groups: those who received PDS followed by platinum-based chemotherapy and those who received IDS, analysed separately. We included studies that reported all RD thresholds after surgery, but the main thresholds of interest were microscopic RD (labelled NMRD), RD 0.1 cm to 1 cm (small-volume residual disease (SVRD)) and RD > 1 cm (large-volume residual disease (LVRD)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the data in meta-analysis. To assess the adequacy of adjustment factors used in multivariate Cox models, we used the 'adjustment for other prognostic factors' and 'statistical analysis and reporting' domains of the quality in prognosis studies (QUIPS) tool. We also made judgements about the certainty of the evidence for each outcome in the main comparisons, using GRADE. We examined differences between FIGO stages III and IV for different thresholds of RD after primary surgery. We considered factors such as age, grade, length of follow-up, type and experience of surgeon, and type of surgery in the interpretation of any heterogeneity. We also performed sensitivity analyses that distinguished between studies that included NMRD in RD categories of < 1 cm and those that did not. This was applicable to comparisons involving RD < 1 cm with the exception of RD < 1 cm versus NMRD. We evaluated women undergoing PDS and IDS in separate analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We found 46 studies reporting multivariate prognostic analyses, including RD as a prognostic factor, which met our inclusion criteria: 22,376 women who underwent PDS and 3697 who underwent IDS, all with varying levels of RD. While we identified a range of different RD thresholds, we mainly report on comparisons that are the focus of a key area of clinical uncertainty (involving NMRD, SVRD and LVRD). The comparison involving any visible disease (RD > 0 cm) and NMRD was also important. SVRD versus NMRD in a PDS setting In PDS studies, most showed an increased risk of death in all RD groups when those with macroscopic RD (MRD) were compared to NMRD. Women who had SVRD after PDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (hazard ratio (HR) 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 2.29; I2 = 50%; 17 studies; 9404 participants; moderate-certainty). The analysis of progression-free survival found that women who had SVRD after PDS had nearly twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.16; I2 = 63%; 10 studies; 6596 participants; moderate-certainty). LVRD versus SVRD in a PDS setting When we compared LVRD versus SVRD following surgery, the estimates were attenuated compared to NMRD comparisons. All analyses showed an overall survival benefit in women who had RD < 1 cm after surgery (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; 5 studies; 6000 participants; moderate-certainty). The results were robust to analyses of progression-free survival. SVRD and LVRD versus NMRD in an IDS setting The one study that defined the categories as NMRD, SVRD and LVRD showed that women who had SVRD and LVRD after IDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women who had NMRD (HR 2.09, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.66; 310 participants; I2 = 56%, and HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.34; 343 participants; I2 = 35%; very low-certainty, for SVRD versus NMRD and LVRD versus NMRD, respectively). LVRD versus SVRD + NMRD in an IDS setting Meta-analysis found that women who had LVRD had a greater risk of death and disease progression compared to women who had either SVRD or NMRD (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.11; 6 studies; 1572 participants; I2 = 58% for overall survival and HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.52; 1145 participants; I2 = 60% for progression-free survival; very low-certainty). However, this result is biased as in all but one study it was not possible to distinguish NMRD within the < 1 cm thresholds. Only one study separated NMRD from SVRD; all others included NMRD in the SVRD group, which may create bias when comparing with LVRD, making interpretation challenging. MRD versus NMRD in an IDS setting Women who had any amount of MRD after IDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.29, I2 = 81%; 906 participants; very low-certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In a PDS setting, there is moderate-certainty evidence that the amount of RD after primary surgery is a prognostic factor for overall and progression-free survival in women with advanced ovarian cancer. We separated our analysis into three distinct categories for the survival outcome including NMRD, SVRD and LVRD. After IDS, there may be only two categories required, although this is based on very low-certainty evidence, as all but one study included NMRD in the SVRD category. The one study that separated NMRD from SVRD showed no improved survival outcome in the SVRD category, compared to LVRD. Further low-certainty evidence also supported restricting to two categories, where women who had any amount of MRD after IDS had a significantly greater risk of death compared to women with NMRD. Therefore, the evidence presented in this review cannot conclude that using three categories applies in an IDS setting (very low-certainty evidence), as was supported for PDS (which has convincing moderate-certainty evidence).

Ultra-radical (extensive) surgery versus standard surgery for the primary cytoreduction of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the seventh most common cancer among women and the leading cause of death in women with gynaecological malignancies. Opinions differ regarding the role of ultra-radical (extensive) cytoreductive surgery in ovarian cancer treatment. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and morbidity associated with ultra-radical/extensive surgery in the management of advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2021, Issue 11), MEDLINE Ovid and Embase Ovid up to November 2021. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised studies (NRS), analysed using multivariate methods, that compared ultra-radical/extensive and standard surgery in women with advanced primary epithelial ovarian cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria, abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We identified three NRS and conducted meta-analyses where possible. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three retrospective observational studies for inclusion in the review. Two studies included women exclusively undergoing upfront primary debulking surgery (PDS) and the other study including both PDS and interval debulking surgical (IDS) procedures. All studies were at critical risk of bias due to retrospective and non-randomised study designs. Meta-analysis of two studies, assessing 397 participants, found that women who underwent radical procedures, as part of PDS, may have a lower risk of mortality compared to women who underwent standard surgery (adjusted HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. The results were robust to a sensitivity analysis including women with more-extensive disease (carcinomatosis) (adjusted HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.85; I2 = 0%; n = 283, very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. One study reported a comparison of radical versus standard surgical procedures associated with both PDS and IDS procedures, but a multivariate analysis was only undertaken for disease-free survival (DFS) and therefore the certainty of the evidence was not assessable for overall survival (OS) and remains very low. The lack of reporting of OS meant the study was at high risk of bias for selective reporting of outcomes. One study, 203 participants, found that women who underwent radical procedures as part of PDS may have a lower risk of disease progression or death compared to women who underwent standard surgery (adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.92; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. The results were robust to a sensitivity analysis in one study including women with carcinomatosis (adjusted HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.82; n = 139; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. A combined analysis in one study found that women who underwent radical procedures (using both PDS and IDS) may have an increased chance of disease progression or death than those who received standard surgery (adjusted HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.31; I2 = 0%; n = 527; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. In absolute and unadjusted terms, the DFS was 19.3 months in the standard surgery group, 15.8 in the PDS group and 15.9 months in the IDS group. All studies were at critical risk of bias and we only identified very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes reported in the review. Perioperative mortality, adverse events and quality of life (QoL) outcomes were either not reported or inadequately reported in the included studies. Two studies reported perioperative mortality (death within 30 days of surgery), but they did not use any statistical adjustment. In total, there were only four deaths within 30 days of surgery in both studies. All were observed in the standard surgery group, but we did not report a risk ratio (RR) to avoid potentially misleading results with so few deaths and very low-certainty evidence. Similarly, one study reported postoperative morbidity, but the authors did not use any statistical adjustment. Postoperative morbidity occurred more commonly in women who received ultra-radical surgery compared to standard surgery, but the certainty of the evidence was very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found only very low-certainty evidence comparing ultra-radical surgery and standard surgery in women with advanced ovarian cancer. The evidence was limited to retrospective, NRSs and so is at critical risk of bias. The results may suggest that ultra-radical surgery could result in improved OS, but results are based on very few women who were chosen to undergo each intervention, rather than a randomised study and intention-to-treat analysis, and so the evidence is very uncertain. Results for progression/DFS were inconsistent and evidence was sparse. QoL and morbidity was incompletely or not reported in the three included studies. A separate prognostic review assessing residual disease as a prognostic factor in this area has been addressed elsewhere, which demonstrates the prognostic effect of macroscopic debulking to no macroscopic residual disease. In order to aid existing guidelines, the role of ultra-radical surgery in the management of advanced-stage ovarian cancer could be addressed through the conduct of a sufficiently powered, RCT comparing ultra-radical and standard surgery, or well-designed NRSs, if this is not possible.

Neuropsychiatric Inventory domains cluster into neuropsychiatric syndromes in Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) have observed that neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) tend to co-occur as neuropsychiatric syndromes and have generally shown mixed results regarding the number and composition of syndromes. We systematically reviewed how neuropsychiatric syndromes in AD have been defined and compared the different published definitions in a pooled sample of AD patients using meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM). METHODS: Studies examining the factor structure of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) and published from 1994 to 2021 were included. We contacted the corresponding authors of eligible studies for correlation coefficients between NPI items. We pooled correlations under a random effects MASEM model and fitted and compared measurement models from published studies to identify a best-fitting model. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were included in the systematic review, and correlations were obtained from seven studies for MASEM. For the NPI-10 (seven studies, n = 5185), a five-factor structure was found to have a good fit to the data. For the NPI-12 (four studies, n = 2397), we were unable to identify a factor structure that displayed a good model fit. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis contribute to the development of a theoretical model of neuropsychiatric syndromes in AD and reveals the barriers that accompany MASEM methodology.

Optimal Surveillance Strategies for Early-Stage Cutaneous Melanoma Post Primary Tumor Excision: An Economic Evaluation.

Background. Consensus on standardized active surveillance or follow-up care by clinicians is lacking leading to considerable variation in practice across countries. An important structural modelling consideration is that self-examination by patients and their partners can detect melanoma recurrence outside of active surveillance regimes. Objectives. To identify candidate melanoma surveillance strategies for American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage I disease and compare them with the current recommended practice in a cost-utility analysis framework. Methods. In consultation with UK clinical experts, a microsimulation model was built in TreeAge Pro 2019 R1.0 (Williamstown, MA, USA) to evaluate surveillance strategies for AJCC stage IA and IB melanoma patients separately. The model incorporated patient behaviors such as self-detection and emergency visits to examine suspicious lesions. A National Health Service (NHS) perspective was taken. Model input parameters were taken from the literature and where data were not available, local expert opinion was sought. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis, one-way sensitivity analysis on pertinent parameters and value of information was performed. Results. In the base-case probabilistic sensitivity analysis, less intensive surveillance strategies for AJCC stage IA and IB had lower total lifetime costs than the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended strategy with similar effectiveness in terms of quality-adjusted life years and thereby likely to be cost-effective. Many strategies had similar effectiveness due to the relatively low chance of recurrence and the high rate of self-detection. Sensitivity and scenario analyses did not change these findings. Conclusions. Our model findings suggest that less resource intensive surveillance may be cost-effective compared with the current NICE surveillance guidelines. However, to advocate convincingly for changes, better evidence is required.

Optimal surveillance strategies for patients with stage 1 cutaneous melanoma post primary tumour excision: three systematic reviews and an economic model.

BACKGROUND: Malignant melanoma is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, with rates continuing to rise, resulting in considerable burden to patients and the NHS. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of current and alternative follow-up strategies for stage IA and IB melanoma. REVIEW METHODS: Three systematic reviews were conducted. (1) The effectiveness of surveillance strategies. Outcomes were detection of new primaries, recurrences, metastases and survival. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk-of-Bias 2.0 tool. (2) Prediction models to stratify by risk of recurrence, metastases and survival. Model performance was assessed by study-reported measures of discrimination (e.g. D-statistic, Harrel's c-statistic), calibration (e.g. the Hosmer-Lemeshow 'goodness-of-fit' test) or overall performance (e.g. Brier score, R2). Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). (3) Diagnostic test accuracy of fine-needle biopsy and ultrasonography. Outcomes were detection of new primaries, recurrences, metastases and overall survival. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Review data and data from elsewhere were used to model the cost-effectiveness of alternative surveillance strategies and the value of further research. RESULTS: (1) The surveillance review included one randomised controlled trial. There was no evidence of a difference in new primary or recurrence detected (risk ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.31). Risk of bias was considered to be of some concern. Certainty of the evidence was low. (2) Eleven risk prediction models were identified. Discrimination measures were reported for six models, with the area under the operating curve ranging from 0.59 to 0.88. Three models reported calibration measures, with coefficients of ≥ 0.88. Overall performance was reported by two models. In one, the Brier score was slightly better than the American Joint Committee on Cancer scheme score. The other reported an R2 of 0.47 (95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.49). All studies were judged to have a high risk of bias. (3) The diagnostic test accuracy review identified two studies. One study considered fine-needle biopsy and the other considered ultrasonography. The sensitivity and specificity for fine-needle biopsy were 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 0.97) and 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 0.97), respectively. For ultrasonography, sensitivity and specificity were 1.00 (95% confidence interval 0.03 to 1.00) and 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.96 to 0.99), respectively. For the reference standards and flow and timing domains, the risk of bias was rated as being high for both studies. The cost-effectiveness results suggest that, over a lifetime, less intensive surveillance than recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence might be worthwhile. There was considerable uncertainty. Improving the diagnostic performance of cancer nurse specialists and introducing a risk prediction tool could be promising. Further research on transition probabilities between different stages of melanoma and on improving diagnostic accuracy would be of most value. LIMITATIONS: Overall, few data of limited quality were available, and these related to earlier versions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging. Consequently, there was considerable uncertainty in the economic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite adoption of rigorous methods, too few data are available to justify changes to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations on surveillance. However, alternative strategies warrant further research, specifically on improving estimates of incidence, progression of recurrent disease; diagnostic accuracy and health-related quality of life; developing and evaluating risk stratification tools; and understanding patient preferences. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018086784. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol 25, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Malignant melanoma is the deadliest of skin cancers; in the UK, > 2500 people die from it every year. Initially, the cancer is removed surgically, which cures it for most people, but, for some, the cancer returns. For this reason, after a melanoma is removed, patients are followed up to see if the melanoma reoccurs or if new melanomas have developed. It is felt that early cancer detection improves the chance of future treatment working. A key question is how best to follow up patients after initial melanoma surgery. This study concentrates on the earliest stage of melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I), which accounts for more than 7 out of 10 of all melanoma diagnoses. The study also investigates if new ways of follow-up could be at least as good as current practice and a better use of NHS money. We systematically reviewed studies comparing different ways of organising follow-up, and then methods to identify those patients at high risk of developing a further melanoma and how good different tests are at detecting this cancer. We then compared different possible follow-up strategies. For each strategy, we considered its impact on quality and length of life, and how well it used NHS resources. We found little evidence to support a change in how follow-up should be organised currently. There were some ways of organising follow-up that might be better than current care, but further research is needed. We found that new research on whether or not follow-up should be performed by a cancer nurse specialist, rather than a dermatologist or surgeon, would be worthwhile. We also found that more research could be worthwhile on how frequently melanoma recurs and spreads, as well as how accurately a diagnosis of further cancer is made and how to identify those most at risk of further melanoma spread.

Identifying older adults with frailty approaching end-of-life: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: People with frailty may have specific needs for end-of-life care, but there is no consensus on how to identify these people in a timely way, or whether they will benefit from intervention. AIM: To synthesise evidence on identification of older people with frailty approaching end-of-life, and whether associated intervention improves outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42020462624). DATA SOURCES: Six databases were searched, with no date restrictions, for articles reporting prognostic or intervention studies. Key inclusion criteria were adults aged 65 and over, identified as frail via an established measure. End-of-life was defined as the final 12 months. Key exclusion criteria were proxy definitions of frailty, or studies involving people with cancer, even if also frail. RESULTS: Three articles met the inclusion criteria. Strongest evidence came from one study in English primary care, which showed distinct trajectories in electronic Frailty Index scores in the last 12 months of life, associated with increased risk of death. We found no studies evaluating established clinical tools (e.g. Gold Standards Framework) with existing frail populations. We found no intervention studies; the literature on advance care planning with people with frailty has relied on proxy definitions of frailty. CONCLUSION: Clear implications for policy and practice are hindered by the lack of studies using an established approach to assessing frailty. Future end-of-life research needs to use explicit approaches to the measurement and reporting of frailty, and address the evidence gap on interventions. A focus on models of care that incorporate a palliative approach is essential.

Does health and social care provision for the community dwelling older population help to reduce unplanned secondary care, support timely discharge and improve patient well-being? A mixed method meta-review of systematic reviews.

Background: This study aimed to identify and examine systematic review evidence of health and social care interventions for the community-dwelling older population regarding unplanned hospital admissions, timely hospital discharge and patient well-being. Methods: A meta-review was conducted using Joanna Briggs and PRISMA guidance. A search strategy was developed: eight bibliographic medical and social science databases were searched, and references of included studies checked. Searches were restricted to OECD countries and to systematic reviews published between January 2013-March 2018. Data extraction and quality appraisal was undertaken by one reviewer with a random sample screened independently by two others. Results: Searches retrieved 21,233 records; using data mining techniques, we identified 8,720 reviews. Following title and abstract and full-paper screening, 71 systematic reviews were included: 62 quantitative, seven qualitative and two mixed methods reviews. There were 52 reviews concerned with healthcare interventions and 19 reviews concerned with social care interventions. This meta-review summarises the evidence and evidence gaps of nine broad types of health and social care interventions. It scrutinises the presence of research in combined health and social care provision, finding it lacking in both definition and detail given. This meta-review debates the overlap of some of the person-centred support provided by community health and social care provision. Research recommendations have been generated by this process for both primary and secondary research. Finally, it proposes that research recommendations can be delivered on an ongoing basis if meta-reviews are conducted as living systematic reviews. Conclusions: This meta-review provides evidence of the effect of health and social care interventions for the community-dwelling older population and identification of evidence gaps. It highlights the lack of evidence for combined health and social care interventions and for the impact of social care interventions on health care outcomes. Registration: PROSPERO ID CRD42018087534; registered on 15 March 2018.

Who Should Deliver Primary Care in Long-term Care Facilities to Optimize Resident Outcomes? A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Across the world, health care for residents in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) is provided by a range of different professionals, and there is no consensus on which professional group(s) deliver the best outcomes for residents. The objective of this review is to investigate how the health outcomes of older adults in LTCFs vary according to which professional group(s) provides first-line medical care. DESIGN: A systematic review and narrative synthesis were performed. Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus were searched for studies from high-income countries, of any design, published after 2000. Quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias and ROBINS-I tools. The exposure of interest was the professional group(s) involved in the delivery of first-line primary care. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Older adults living in LTCFs. MEASURES: The principal outcomes were unplanned transfer to hospital, prescribing quality, and mortality. RESULTS: Searches identified 10,532 citations after removing duplicates. Twenty-six publications (across 24 studies) met the inclusion criteria. A narrative synthesis was conducted of the 20 experimental and 4 observational studies, involving approximately 98,000 residents. Seven studies were set in the USA, 6 in Australia, 3 in Canada, 2 in New Zealand, and 6 in European countries. Interventions were varied, complex and multi-faceted. Nineteen interventional studies, including 4 randomized trials, involved the addition of a specialist practitioner, either a doctor or nurse, to supplement usual primary care. The most commonly reported outcomes were unplanned hospital transfer and prescribing quality. Interventions based on specialist nurses were associated with reductions in unplanned hospital transfers in 10 out of 12 publications. There was no consistent evidence of a positive impact of specialist doctor interventions on unplanned hospital transfers. However, specialist doctors were associated with improvements in prescribing quality in all 7 relevant studies. There was a paucity of evidence on the impact of specialist nurse interventions on prescribing, and of specialist practitioners on mortality, and no improvements were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of specialist doctors or nurses to the first-line medical team has the potential to improve key health outcomes for residents in LTCFs.