Objective To systematically evaluate the efficiency of fertility-sparing surgery (FSS) compared with radical comprehensive surgery (RCS) in early stage epithelial ovarian cancer (eEOC). Methods We searched databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 8, 2016), Web of Knowledge, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI to collect the studies about FSS compared with RCS for eEOC from ineaption to August 10th, 2016. Two reviewers independently evaluated the eligibility of identified studies and extracted the data. Then, meta-analysis was performed using Stata 12.0 software. Results Eight studies involving 2 561 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: compared with RCS, the aggregated RR of overall survival (OS) of FSS (univariate analysis: RR=1.03, 95%CI 0.98 to 1.07,P=0.815; multivariate analysis: RR=0.81, 95%CI 0.52 to 1.28,P=0.255), the cumulative disease free survival (DFS) of FSS (univariate analysis: RR=1.02, 95%CI 0.96 to 1.09,P=0.968; multivariate analysis: RR=1.24, 95%CI 0.65 to 2.39,P=0.115) and the recurrence of FSS (RR=0.86, 95%CI 0.57 to 1.30,P=0.902), there was no significant difference. This pattern also emerged in the subgroup analysis for FIGO IA and IC patients, and the results showed that there was no significant difference between FSS and RCS in IA patients (OS: RR=0.99, 95%CI 0.98 to 1.02,P=0.186; DFS: RR=1.01, 95%CI 0.95 to 1.06,P=0.541); and IC patients (OS: RR=0.95, 95%CI 0.86 to 1.04,P=0.251; DFS: RR=0.94, 95%CI 0.80 to 1.11,P=0.664). Conclusion In eEOC, FSS does not have a negative effect on oncological outcomes compared with RCS. However, well-designed and large-scale trials are needed to verify this outcome in the future.
Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of Chinese medicinal herbs for treating endometriosis. Methods We searched Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CBM (from establishment to 2003). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials of patients with endometriosis were included. The quality of included studies such as randomization, blinding, allocation concealment and loss of follow up were evaluated and meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 4.3 software. Results Ten RCTs or quasi-RCTs involving 1 120 patients were included. Because of different therapies in the treatment and control groups, the results of outcome were described separately. Most of included studies suggested that the effects of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) on general effect, pregnancy rate improvement and alleviating dysmenorrhoea were similar to Danazol or Tamoxifen, only a few studies showed better effects. There was no evidence to support that TCM was more effective than western medicine in reducing the size of endometriotic cysts. Only one study mentioned the recurrence rate and showed that TCM enema had lower recurrence rate than oral Tamoxifen with OR 0.17, 95%CI 0.04 to 0.67. Five studies mentioned adverse reactions and showed TCM had fewer adverse effects than western medicine. Conclusions Chinese medicinal herbs are effective in treating endometriosis with fewer adverse effects. The evidence is not b enough because of low quality of the included studies. Therefore, more high quality randomized controlled trials are required.