versus HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in the general population.
During primary surgery for advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer all attempts should be made to achieve complete cytoreduction. When this is not achievable, the surgical goal should be optimal (< 1 cm) residual disease. Due to the high risk of bias in the current evidence, randomised controlled trials should be performed to determine whether it is the surgical intervention or patient-related and disease-related factors that are associated with the improved survival in these groups of women. The findings of this review that women with residual disease < 1 cm still do better than women with residual disease > 1 cm should prompt the surgical community to retain this category and consider re-defining it as 'near optimal' cytoreduction, reserving the term 'suboptimal' cytoreduction to cases where the residual disease is > 1 cm (optimal/near optimal/suboptimal instead of complete/optimal/suboptimal).
Background World-wide, cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women. Increasing the uptake of screening, alongside increasing informed choice is of great importance in controlling this disease through prevention and early detection. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at women, to increase the uptake, including informed uptake, of cervical cancer screening. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 1, 2009. MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS databases up to March 2009. 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) of interventions to increase uptake/informed uptake of cervical cancer screening. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible the data were synthesised in a meta-analysis. Main results Thirty-eight trials met our inclusion criteria. These trials assessed the effectiveness of invitational and educational interventions, counselling, risk factor assessment and procedural interventions. Heterogeneity between trials limited statistical pooling of data. Overall, however, invitations appear to be effective methods of increasing uptake. In addition, there is limited evidence to support the use of educational materials. Secondary outcomes including cost data were incompletely documented so evidence was limited. Most trials were at moderate risk of bias. Informed uptake of cervical screening was not reported in any trials. Authors’ conclusions There is evidence to support the use of invitation letters to increase the uptake of cervical screening. There is limited evidence to support educational interventions but it is unclear what format is most effective. The majority of the studies are from developed countries and so the relevance to developing countries is unclear.
This review found no evidence that lymphadenectomy decreases risk of death or disease recurrence compared with no lymphadenectomy in women with presumed stage I disease. Evidence on serious adverse events suggests that women who undergo lymphadenectomy are more likely to experience surgery-related systemic morbidity or lymphoedema/lymphocyst formation. Currently, no RCT evidence shows the impact of lymphadenectomy in women with higher-stage disease and in those at high risk of disease recurrence.
This review has found evidence to support the role of laparoscopy for the management of early endometrial cancer.For presumed early stage primary endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the endometrium, laparoscopy is associated with similar overall and disease-free survival. Laparoscopy is associated with reduced operative morbidity and hospital stay. There is no significant difference in severe post-operative morbidity between the two modalities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.