Should oncoplastic breast conserving surgery be used for the treatment of early stage breast cancer? Using the GRADE approach for development of clinical recommendations

IntroductionThe potential advantages of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (BCS) have not been validated in robust studies that constitute high levels of evidence, despite oncoplastic techniques being widely adopted around the globe. There is hence the need to define the precise role of oncoplastic BCS in the treatment of early breast cancer, with consensual recommendations for clinical practice.MethodsA panel of world-renowned breast specialists was convened to evaluate evidence, express personal viewpoints and establish recommendations for the use of oncoplastic BCS as primary treatment of unifocal early stage breast cancers using the GRADE approach.ResultsAccording to the results of the systematic review of literature, the panelists were asked to comment on the recommendation for use of oncoplastic BCS for treatment of operable breast cancer that is suitable for breast conserving surgery, with the GRADE approach. Based on the voting outcome, the following recommendation emerged as a consensus statement: Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery should be recommended versus standard breast conserving surgery for the treatment of operable breast cancer in adult women who are suitable candidates for breast conserving surgery (with very low certainty of evidence).DiscussionThis review has revealed a low level of evidence for most of the important outcomes in oncoplastic surgery with lack of any randomized data and absence of standard tools for evaluation of clinical outcomes and especially patients’ values.Despite areas of controversy, about one-third (36%) of panel members expressed a strong recommendation in support of oncoplastic BCS. Presumably, this reflects a synthesis of views on the relative complexity of these techniques, associated complications, impact on quality of life and costs.     

Risk of stroke in imaging-proven subclavian steal syndrome

To determine the risk of stroke in patients with subclavian steal syndrome (SSS). We identified 165 patients with imaging-proven SSS from two hospitals. Demographic, clinical and imaging data were retrospectively collected. Patients were followed up for stroke events. Stroke occurred in 43 patients with a median follow-up of 28 months. Seven of these cases were identified prospectively and 36 cases retrospectively. On multivariate analysis, presence of symptoms at presentation (p = 0.029) was a significant predictor of stroke. Presence of symptoms at presentation predicted stroke in imaging-proven SSS.     

Laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BackgroundRandomized trials have compared laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) with conflicting results. An IPDMA may give more insight into the differences between LPD and OPD, and could identify high-risk subgroups.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in the Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane library databases (October 2019). Out of 1410 studies, three randomized trials were identified. Primary outcome was major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III). Subgroup analyses were performed for high-risk subgroups including patients with BMI of ≥25 kg/m2, pancreatic duct <3 mm, age ≥70 years, and malignancy.ResultsData from 224 patients were collected. After LPD, major complications occurred in 33/114 (29%) patients compared to 34/110 (31%) patients after OPD (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3–1.4, P = 0.257). No differences were seen for major complications and 90-day mortality LPD 8 (7%) vs OPD 4 (4%) (adjusted OR 0.2; 95% CI 0.02–1.3, P = 0.080). With LPD, operative time was longer (420 vs 318 min, p < 0.001) and hospital stay was shorter (mean difference ?6.97 days). Outcomes remained stable in the high-risk subgroups.ConclusionLPD did not reduce the rate of major postoperative complications as compared to OPD. LPD increased operative time and shortened hospital stay with 7 days.