| 1. |
- Sullivan, Richard, et al.
(författare)
-
Global cancer surgery: delivering safe, affordable, and timely cancer surgery
- 2015
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Oncology. - 1474-5488. ; 16:11, s. 1193-1224
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Surgery is essential for global cancer care in all resource settings. Of the 15.2 million new cases of cancer in 2015, over 80% of cases will need surgery, some several times. By 2030, we estimate that annually 45 million surgical procedures will be needed worldwide. Yet, less than 25% of patients with cancer worldwide actually get safe, aff ordable, or timely surgery. This Commission on global cancer surgery, building on Global Surgery 2030, has examined the state of global cancer surgery through an analysis of the burden of surgical disease and breadth of cancer surgery, economics and fi nancing, factors for strengthening surgical systems for cancer with multiple-country studies, the research agenda, and the political factors that frame policy making in this area. We found wide equity and economic gaps in global cancer surgery. Many patients throughout the world do not have access to cancer surgery, and the failure to train more cancer surgeons and strengthen systems could result in as much as US$ 6.2 trillion in lost cumulative gross domestic product by 2030. Many of the key adjunct treatment modalities for cancer surgery-eg, pathology and imaging-are also inadequate. Our analysis identifi ed substantial issues, but also highlights solutions and innovations. Issues of access, a paucity of investment in public surgical systems, low investment in research, and training and education gaps are remarkably widespread. Solutions include better regulated public systems, international partnerships, super-centralisation of surgical services, novel surgical clinical trials, and new approaches to improve quality and scale up cancer surgical systems through education and training. Our key messages are directed at many global stakeholders, but the central message is that to deliver safe, aff ordable, and timely cancer surgery to all, surgery must be at the heart of global and national cancer control planning.
|
|
| 2. |
- Salvo, Gloria, et al.
(författare)
-
Open vs minimally invasive radical trachelectomy in early-stage cervical cancer : International Radical Trachelectomy Assessment Study
- 2022
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0002-9378 .- 1097-6868. ; 226:1, s. 1-97
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Minimally invasive radical trachelectomy has emerged as an alternative to open radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer desiring future fertility. Recent data suggest worse oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy than after open radical hysterectomy in stage I cervical cancer. Objective: We aimed to compare 4.5-year disease-free survival after open vs minimally invasive radical trachelectomy. Study Design: This was a collaborative, international retrospective study (International Radical Trachelectomy Assessment Study) of patients treated during 2005–2017 at 18 centers in 12 countries. Eligible patients had squamous carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous carcinoma; had a preoperative tumor size of ≤2 cm; and underwent open or minimally invasive (robotic or laparoscopic) radical trachelectomy with nodal assessment (pelvic lymphadenectomy and/or sentinel lymph node biopsy). The exclusion criteria included neoadjuvant chemotherapy or preoperative pelvic radiotherapy, previous lymphadenectomy or pelvic retroperitoneal surgery, pregnancy, stage IA1 disease with lymphovascular space invasion, aborted trachelectomy (conversion to radical hysterectomy), or vaginal approach. Surgical approach, indication, and adjuvant therapy regimen were at the discretion of the treating institution. A total of 715 patients were entered into the study database. However, 69 patients were excluded, leaving 646 in the analysis. Endpoints were the 4.5-year disease-free survival rate (primary), 4.5-year overall survival rate (secondary), and recurrence rate (secondary). Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate disease-free survival and overall survival. A post hoc weighted analysis was performed, comparing the recurrence rates between surgical approaches, with open surgery being considered as standard and minimally invasive surgery as experimental. Results: Of 646 patients, 358 underwent open surgery, and 288 underwent minimally invasive surgery. The median (range) patient age was 32 (20–42) years for open surgery vs 31 (18–45) years for minimally invasive surgery (P=.11). Median (range) pathologic tumor size was 15 (0–31) mm for open surgery and 12 (0.8–40) mm for minimally invasive surgery (P=.33). The rates of pelvic nodal involvement were 5.3% (19 of 358 patients) for open surgery and 4.9% (14 of 288 patients) for minimally invasive surgery (P=.81). Median (range) follow-up time was 5.5 (0.20–16.70) years for open surgery and 3.1 years (0.02–11.10) years for minimally invasive surgery (P<.001). At 4.5 years, 17 of 358 patients (4.7%) with open surgery and 18 of 288 patients (6.2%) with minimally invasive surgery had recurrence (P=.40). The 4.5-year disease-free survival rates were 94.3% (95% confidence interval, 91.6–97.0) for open surgery and 91.5% (95% confidence interval, 87.6–95.6) for minimally invasive surgery (log-rank P=.37). Post hoc propensity score analysis of recurrence risk showed no difference between surgical approaches (P=.42). At 4.5 years, there were 6 disease-related deaths (open surgery, 3; minimally invasive surgery, 3) (log-rank P=.49). The 4.5-year overall survival rates were 99.2% (95% confidence interval, 97.6–99.7) for open surgery and 99.0% (95% confidence interval, 79.0–99.8) for minimally invasive surgery. Conclusion: The 4.5-year disease-free survival rates did not differ between open radical trachelectomy and minimally invasive radical trachelectomy. However, recurrence rates in each group were low. Ongoing prospective studies of conservative management of early-stage cervical cancer may help guide future management.
|
|
