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

Laparoscopic resection of neuroblastomas in low- to high-risk patients without image-defined risk factors is safe and feasible

BACKGROUND

Several studies have reported that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) might be considered for resecting neuroblastomas without image-defined risk factors (IDRFs); however, there are no studies comparing the outcomes of laparotomy and laparoscopy in IDRF-negative patients. Thus, we investigated the feasibility of laparoscopic surgery and compared the two abovementioned approaches.

METHODS

To compare the effects of laparotomy with those of laparoscopy in patients with neuroblastomas without IDRFs, the following items were retrospectively compared: largest tumor dimension, volume of blood loss, time required to initiate postoperative feeding, locoregional recurrence rate, survival, etc.

RESULTS

Nine patients without IDRFs (three at low-to-medium risk and six at high risk) underwent laparotomy, and seven patients without IDRFs (two at low-to-medium risk and five at high risk) underwent laparoscopy. Median duration of surgery was 221 (130-304) and 172 (122-253) min in the laparotomy and laparoscopy groups, respectively, showing no significant difference. Median postoperative time required for resuming meal consumption was significantly longer in the laparotomy (4 days; 2-5) group than that in the laparoscopy group (3 days; 2-3; p = 0.023). Median blood loss was significantly higher in the laparotomy group (5 ml/Kg;2.6-16) than that in the laparoscopy group (2.1 ml/Kg;0.1-4.0; P = 0.037). Median follow-up period was 81 (52-94) and 21 (17-28) months, locoregional recurrence rates were 22 and 0% at 1 year, 1-year progression-free survival rates were 78 and 100%, and overall survival rates were 67 and 100% in the laparotomy and laparoscopy groups, respectively, with no significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS for the treatment of neuroblastomas without IDRFs in low- to high-risk patients is safe and feasible and does not compromise the treatment outcome.

Laparoscopic treatment of adrenal masses in children: Report of two cases and review of literature

Laparoscopic adrenalectomy has become a common alternative to open surgery for the resection of adrenal lesions in adults: The advantages are to provide better exposure of the adrenal gland, diminish soft tissue dissection, decrease morbidity and postoperative pain; however, reporting on the laparoscopic adrenalectomy in paediatric patients has been limited. We present two cases of laparoscopic adrenalectomy performed at our institution in two children, for left adrenal neuroblastoma in a first patient with opsomyoclonus syndrome, and for a right incidentaloma in the second case. According to recent literature, our experience has demonstrated that the laparoscopic adrenalectomy is a feasible procedure in children with small, well-circumscribed adrenal masses: It can be used a safety to treat suspected benign and malignant adrenal masses in children, with minimal morbidity and short hospital stay. The lateral trans-peritoneal approach offers optimal visualisation and good outcomes in terms of minimal discomfort, rapid recovery and excellent cosmesis. However, in the paediatric field, the number of patients is limited, making the learning curve longer.

The role of minimally invasive surgery in pediatric solid tumors

During recent years, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become the standard approach for various operations in infants and children. MIS in pediatric thoracic and abdominal tumors is a controversial approach in the surgical management of childhood cancer. Meanwhile, more and more oncological biopsies and resections are being performed laparoscopically or thoracoscopically. Despite its increasing role in pediatric tumor surgery, the different national and international multicenter trial groups have not yet implemented MIS within guidelines and recommendations in most of the current treatment protocols. An increasing number of retrospective reports describes a potential role of MIS in the management of different pediatric oncological entities. Over the time, there has been a diverse development of this approach with regard to the different neoplasms. Nevertheless, there is a lack of prospective randomized trails assessing MIS. This still represents a requirement for evidence-based medicine and judging the advantages and disadvantages of this approach. The purpose of this state-of-the-art article is to review the current literature to describe the application of MIS in pediatric solid tumors.

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.

Minimally invasive surgery for pediatric tumors - current state of the art

During recent years, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become the standard approach for various operations in infants and children. This also holds true for surgery in children with solid tumors. Meanwhile, more and more oncological biopsies and resections are being performed laparoscopically or thoracoscopically. Despite its increasing role in pediatric tumor surgery, the different national and international multicenter trial groups have not yet implemented MIS within guidelines and recommendations in most of the current treatment protocols. An increasing number of reports describe a potential role of MIS in the different entities of pediatric surgical oncology. Over the time, there has been a diverse development of this approach with regard to the different neoplasms. The aim of this article is to give an overview and to describe the current state of the art of MIS in pediatric solid tumors.

Systematic reviews of surgical procedures in children: quantity, coverage and quality

AIM

Systematic reviews have the potential to map those areas where children are under-represented in surgical research. We aimed to describe and evaluate the quantity, coverage and the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of surgical procedures in children.

METHODS

We searched four biomedical databases, a systematic review register, reference lists and conducted hand searching to identify relevant reviews. Two reviewers worked independently to critically appraise included studies and abstract data. We assessed reporting quality using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis statement and methodological quality using the Assessment of Multiple SysTemAtic Reviews tool.

RESULTS

Fifteen systematic reviews were identified, representing 0.01% of all paediatric surgical citations in MEDLINE and Embase. Thirteen of the reviews were Cochrane reviews, and most reviews (12/15) addressed subspecialty interests such as otorhinolaryngology. The median number of included trials per systematic review was four (interquartile range 1 to 9.5), the median number of primary outcomes was 5.5 (interquartile range 3.5 to 7.5). In general, reporting and methodological quality was good although there were several omissions, particularly around completeness of reporting of statistical methods used, and utilisation of quality assessments in analyses. Outcomes were often not clearly defined and descriptions of procedures lacked sufficient detail to determine the similarities and differences among surgical procedures within the contributing trials.

CONCLUSION

Systematic reviews of surgical procedures in children are rarely published. To improve the evidence base and guide research agendas, more systematic reviews should be conducted, using standard guidelines for conduct and reporting.

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 METHODS

We searched the electronic databases of MEDLINE/PubMed (from 1966 to February 2011), EMBASE/Ovid (from 1980 to February 2011) and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, 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.