Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for the treatment of solid abdominal and thoracic neoplasms in children.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is an accepted surgical technique for the treatment of a variety of benign diseases. Presently, the use of MIS in patients with cancer is progressing. However, the role of MIS in children with solid neoplasms is less clear than it is in adults. Although the use of diagnostic MIS to obtain biopsy specimens for pathology is accepted in paediatric surgical oncology, there is limited evidence to support the use of MIS for the resection of malignancies. This review is the second update of a previously published Cochrane review. OBJECTIVES: To ascertain differences in outcome between the minimally invasive and open surgical approaches for the treatment of solid intra-abdominal or intra-thoracic neoplasms in children. The primary outcomes of interest are OS, EFS, port-site metastases and recurrence rate; the secondary outcome of interest is surgical morbidity. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE/PubMed (from 1966 to February 2014) and EMBASE/Ovid (from 1980 to February 2014) to identify relevant studies. In addition, we searched reference lists of relevant articles and reviews and the conference proceedings of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology and the American Society of Clinical Oncology from 2003 to 2013. On 1 May 2014 we scanned the ISRCTN Register (on www.controlled-trials.com), the National Institutes of Health register (on www.controlled-trials.com and www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (on www.apps.who.int/trialsearch) for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing MIS to open surgery for the treatment of solid intra-thoracic or intra-abdominal neoplasms in children (aged 0 to 18 years) were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors performed the study selection independently. MAIN RESULTS: The literature search retrieved 542 references. After screening the titles and abstracts we excluded 534 references which clearly did not meet the inclusion criteria. We assessed eight full text studies for eligibility and all of these studies were excluded from the review because they were not RCTs or CCTs. These excluded studies included case series, retrospective chart reviews and retrospective cohort studies. The scanning of reference lists and conference proceedings did not identify any additional studies and no (ongoing trials) were identified by the searches of trial registries. No studies that met the inclusion criteria of this review were identified AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No RCTs or CCTs evaluating MIS for the treatment of solid intra-thoracic or intra-abdominal neoplasms in children could be identified. The current evidence base informing the use of MIS in children with solid abdominal and thoracic neoplasms is based on other study designs like case reports, retrospective chart reviews and cohort studies and should be interpreted with caution. Thus there is insufficient evidence to allow any definitive conclusions regarding the use of MIS in these patients. High quality RCTs comparing MIS to open surgery are required. To accomplish this, centres specialising in MIS in children should collaborate.

Different anthracycline derivates for reducing cardiotoxicity in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of anthracyclines is limited by the occurrence of cardiotoxicity. In an effort to prevent this cardiotoxicity, different anthracycline derivates have been studied. OBJECTIVES: To determine the occurrence of cardiotoxicity with the use of different anthracycline derivates in cancer patients. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to 29 May 2009) and EMBASE (1980 to 2 June 2009). In addition, we searched reference lists of relevant articles, conference proceedings and ongoing-trials-databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which different anthracycline derivates were compared in cancer patients (children and adults). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed study selection, assessment of risk of bias and data-extraction including adverse effects. MAIN RESULTS: We identified five RCTs of varying quality addressing epirubicin versus doxorubicin (1036 patients) with the same dose. The meta-analysis showed no evidence for a significant difference in the occurrence of clinical heart failure between the treatment groups (RR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.11). However, there is some suggestion of a lower rate of clinical heart failure in patients treated with epirubicin.We identified two RCTs with varying quality addressing liposomal-encapsulated doxorubicin versus conventional doxorubicin (521 patients). The meta-analysis showed a significantly lower rate of both clinical heart failure and clinical and subclinical heart failure combined in patients treated with liposomal-encapsulated doxorubicin (RR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.75 and RR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.59 respectively). It should be noted that in one of the studies patients in the liposomal-encapsulated doxorubicin group received a higher cumulative anthracycline dose than patients in the doxorubicin group.For the other possible combinations of different anthracycline derivates only one RCT (epirubicin versus liposomal-encapsulated doxorubicin) or no RCT was identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are not able to favour either epirubicin or doxorubicin when given with the same dose. Based on the currently available evidence on heart failure, we conclude that in adults with a solid tumour liposomal-encapsulated doxorubicin should be favoured over doxorubicin. For both epirubicin versus doxorubicin and liposomal-encapsulated doxorubicin versus conventional doxorubicin no conclusions can be made about the effects of treatment in children treated with anthracyclines and also not in patients diagnosed with leukaemia. More research is needed. For other combinations of anthracycline derivates not enough evidence was available to make definitive conclusions about the occurrence of cardiotoxicity in patients treated with anthracyclines.

Different anthracycline derivates for reducing cardiotoxicity in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of anthracyclines is limited by the occurrence of cardiotoxicity. In an effort to prevent this cardiotoxicity, different anthracycline derivates have been studied. OBJECTIVES: To determine the occurrence of cardiotoxicity with the use of different anthracycline derivates in cancer patients. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to 29 May 2009) and EMBASE (1980 to 2 June 2009). In addition, we searched reference lists of relevant articles, conference proceedings and ongoing-trials-databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which different anthracycline derivates were compared in cancer patients (children and adults). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed study selection, assessment of risk of bias and data-extraction including adverse effects. MAIN RESULTS: We identified five RCTs of varying quality addressing epirubicin versus doxorubicin (1036 patients) with the same dose. The meta-analysis showed no evidence for a significant difference in the occurrence of clinical heart failure between the treatment groups (RR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.11). However, there is some suggestion of a lower rate of clinical heart failure in patients treated with epirubicin.We identified two RCTs with varying quality addressing liposomal-encapsulated doxorubicin versus conventional doxorubicin (521 patients). The meta-analysis showed a significantly lower rate of both clinical heart failure and clinical and subclinical heart failure combined in patients treated with liposomal-encapsulated doxorubicin (RR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.75 and RR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.59 respectively). It should be noted that in one of the studies patients in the liposomal-encapsulated doxorubicin group received a higher cumulative anthracycline dose than patients in the doxorubicin group.For the other possible combinations of different anthracycline derivates only one RCT (epirubicin versus liposomal-encapsulated doxorubicin) or no RCT was identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are not able to favour either epirubicin or doxorubicin when given with the same dose. Based on the currently available evidence on heart failure, we conclude that in adults with a solid tumour liposomal-encapsulated doxorubicin should be favoured over doxorubicin. For both epirubicin versus doxorubicin and liposomal-encapsulated doxorubicin versus conventional doxorubicin no conclusions can be made about the effects of treatment in children treated with anthracyclines and also not in patients diagnosed with leukaemia. More research is needed. For other combinations of anthracycline derivates not enough evidence was available to make definitive conclusions about the occurrence of cardiotoxicity in patients treated with anthracyclines.

Minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for the treatment of solid abdominal and thoracic neoplasms in children.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is an accepted surgical technique for the treatment of a variety of benign diseases. Presently, the use of MIS in patients with cancer is progressing. However, the role of MIS in children with solid neoplasms is less clear than it is in adults. Diagnostic MIS to obtain biopsy specimens for pathology has been accepted as a technique in paediatric surgical oncology, but there is limited experience with the use of MIS for the resection of malignancies. OBJECTIVES: To ascertain the differences in outcome between the minimally invasive and open approach in the treatment of solid intra-thoracic and intra-abdominal neoplasms in children, regarding overall survival, event-free survival, port-site metastases, recurrence rate and surgical morbidity. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the electronic databases of MEDLINE/PubMed (from 1966 to March 2008), EMBASE/Ovid (from 1980 to March 2008) and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 1) with pre-specified terms. In addition, we searched reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings and ongoing trial databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing MIS and open surgery for the treatment of solid intra-thoracic or intra-abdominal neoplasms in children (aged 0 to 18 years). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors performed the study selection independently. MAIN RESULTS: No studies that met the inclusion criteria of this review were identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No RCTs or CCTs evaluating MIS in the treatment of solid intra-thoracic or intra-abdominal neoplasms in children could be identified, therefore no definitive conclusions could be made about the effects of MIS in these patients. Based on the currently available evidence we are not able to give recommendations for the use of MIS in the treatment of solid intra-thoracic or intra-abdominal neoplasms in children. More high quality studies (RCTs and/or CCTs) are needed. To accomplish this, centres specialising in MIS in children should collaborate.