| Literature DB >> 32335025 |
Jiwang Liang1, Xiangyu Zhu2, Wei Zeng3, Tao Yu4, Fengqin Fang3, Yuejiao Zhao5.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Stomal recurrence is a troublesome complication after total laryngectomy. Despite a large number of studies having been performed, there is still controversy about which risk factors are most significant for the development of stomal recurrence.Entities:
Keywords: Câncer de laringe; Fator de risco; Laringectomia total; Laryngeal cancer; Meta-analysis; Meta-análise; Recorrência estomal; Risk factor; Stomal recurrence; Total laryngectomy
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32335025 PMCID: PMC9422728 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2020.03.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Braz J Otorhinolaryngol ISSN: 1808-8686
Quality assessment for cases series.
| 1 | Case series collected in more than one center (e.g., multicenter study)? |
| 2 | Is the hypothesis/aim/objective of the study clearly described? |
| 3 | Are the inclusion and exclusion criteria (case definition) clearly reported? |
| 4 | Is there a clear definition of the outcomes reported? |
| 5 | Were data collected prospectively? |
| 6 | Is there an explicit statement that patients were recruited consecutively? |
| 7 | Are the main findings of the study clearly described? |
| 8 | Are outcomes stratified (e.g., by disease stage, abnormal test results, and patient characteristics)? |
Figure 1Flowchart showing the studies identified and evaluated during the review.
Main characteristics of studies included.
| Author | Country | Design | Number of patients | Follow-up | SR rate | SR time | Patients’ prognosis | Quality score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brandstorp-Boesen J (2016) | Europe | RT | 1616 | 3.2 years (0–28.3) | 0.8% | NA | NA | 6 |
| Pezier TF (2013) | Europe | RT | 60 | 16 months (1–91) | 8.3% | NA | NA | 6 |
| Markou K (2011) | Europe | RT | 255 | 49 months | 28.7% | NA | NA | 6 |
| Zhao H (2009) | Asia | RT | 548 | 6.3 years (3–13) | 8.8% | 52 days – 39 months | 44 patients with SR died (44/48, 91.7%), the mean survival after SR was 9.2 months (2–11 months) | 6 |
| Hassanabadi MS (2007) | Asia | RT | 83 | 15.6 ± 4.8 months | 10.8% | NA | 10 patients with SR died (7/9, 77.8%) | 5 |
| Sartini AL (2007) | South America | RT | 47 | NA | 10.6% | NA | NA | 6 |
| Markou KD (2004) | Europe | RT | 804 | 62 months | 31.3% | NA | NA | 5 |
| Petrovic Z (2004) | Europe | RT | 402 | NA | 9.2% | 1–5 years | NA | 5 |
| Santoro R (2003) | Europe | RT | 464 | NA | 5.3% | NA | NA | 4 |
| Imauchi Y (2002) | Asia | RT | 69 | 47.6 months | 8.7% | NA | 6 patients with SR died (6/6, 100%), the survival after SR was from 4 to 125 months) | 6 |
| Reddy SP (2001) | North America | RT | 114 | 6 years (5–24) | 25% | 6–11 months | 5 patients with SR died (5/5, 100%), the mean survival after SR was within 12 months | 5 |
| Fagan JJ (1996) | South Africa | RT | 43 | NA | 16.3% | NA | NA | 6 |
| Yotakis J (1996) | Europe | RT | 352 | NA | 6% | 1–2 years | NA | 5 |
| Yuen AP (1996) | Asia | RT | 334 | 44 months (1–183) | 5% | NA | 17 patients with SR died (17/17, 100%), the mean survival after SR was 4 months, the longest survival was 16 months | 5 |
| Zbären P (1996) | Europe | RT | 130 | NA | 10% | 4–30 months | NA | 5 |
| Esteban F (1993) | Europe | RT | 209 | 5–12 years | 8.1% | NA | NA | 4 |
| Hosal IN (1993) | Asia | RT | 488 | NA | 2.7% | 3–42 months | NA | 5 |
| Rubin J (1990) | North America | RT | 444 | NA | 3.4% | NA | 13 patients with SR died (13/15, 86.7%), the mean survival after SR was 9 months (1–22 months) | 4 |
SR, stomal recurrence; RT, retrospective trial; NA, not available.
Statistical results of risk factors for SR after TL.
| Risk factors | Number of patients | Number of events | RR (95% CI) | Analytical model | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supraglottic vs. glottic | 3905 | 234 | 0.842 (0.504, 1.405) | REM | 0.509 |
| Supraglottic vs. subglottic | 1866 | 126 | 0.292 (0.142, 0.600) | REM | 0.001 |
| Supraglottic vs. transglottic | 856 | 98 | 0.459 (0.141, 1.494) | REM | 0.196 |
| Glottic vs. subglottic | 2475 | 156 | 0.344 (0.175, 0.676) | REM | 0.002 |
| Glottic vs. transglottic | 788 | 101 | 0.805 (0.334, 1.939) | REM | 0.629 |
| Subglottic vs. transglottic | 271 | 48 | 1.386 (0.833, 2.305) | FEM | 0.209 |
| 0.559 | |||||
| Well/moderately | 573 | 116 | 1.435 (0.428, 4.816) | REM | |
| Poorly | 172 | 18 | |||
| 0.001 | |||||
| T1 + T2 | 492 | 15 | 0.461 (0.286, 0.742) | FEM | |
| T3 + T4 | 1838 | 213 | |||
| 0.292 | |||||
| Positive | 1009 | 110 | 0.780 (0.492, 1.238) | REM | |
| Negative | 1545 | 105 | |||
| 0.088 | |||||
| Positive | 40 | 7 | 1.939 (0.907, 4.143) | FEM | |
| Negative | 429 | 36 | |||
| 0.240 | |||||
| Yes | 162 | 22 | 1.778 (0.680, 4.645) | REM | |
| No | 593 | 115 | |||
| 0.552 | |||||
| Yes | 467 | 30 | 0.802 (0.387, 1.661) | REM | |
| No | 634 | 46 | |||
| <0.001 | |||||
| Yes | 621 | 97 | 1.959 (1.500, 2.558) | FEM | |
| No | 1979 | 111 | |||
| 0.348 | |||||
| Yes | 65 | 21 | 1.507 (0.640, 3.550) | REM | |
| No | 442 | 110 | |||
FEM, fixed effects model; REM, random effects model.
Figure 2Forrest plot of risk ratio for tumor location (supraglottic vs. subglottic).
Figure 3Forrest plot of risk ratio for tumor location (glottis vs. subglottic).
Figure 4Forrest plot of risk ratio for T stage.
Figure 5Forrest plot of risk ratio for POT.
Figure 6Begg's funnel for the visual assessment of overt publication bias for POT.
Figure 7Egger's publication bias plot showed no publication bias for POT.