Stewart‐Treves syndrome and other cutaneous malignancies in the context of chronic lymphedema: a systematic review

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The body of evidence related to breast-cancer-related lymphoedema incidence and risk factors has substantially grown and improved in quality over the past decade. We assessed the incidence of unilateral arm lymphoedema after breast cancer and explored the evidence available for lymphoedema risk factors. We searched Academic Search Elite, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (clinical trials), and Medline for research articles that assessed the incidence or prevalence of, or risk factors for, arm lymphoedema after breast cancer, published between Jan 1, 2000, and June 30, 2012. We extracted incidence data and calculated corresponding exact binomial 95% CIs. We used random effects models to calculate a pooled overall estimate of lymphoedema incidence, with subgroup analyses to assess the effect of different study designs, countries of study origin, diagnostic methods, time since diagnosis, and extent of axillary surgery. We assessed risk factors and collated them into four levels of evidence, depending on consistency of findings and quality and quantity of studies contributing to findings. 72 studies met the inclusion criteria for the assessment of lymphoedema incidence, giving a pooled estimate of 16.6% (95% CI 13.6-20.2). Our estimate was 21.4% (14.9-29.8) when restricted to data from prospective cohort studies (30 studies). The incidence of arm lymphoedema seemed to increase up to 2 years after diagnosis or surgery of breast cancer (24 studies with time since diagnosis or surgery of 12 to <24 months; 18.9%, 14.2-24.7), was highest when assessed by more than one diagnostic method (nine studies; 28.2%, 11.8-53.5), and was about four times higher in women who had an axillary-lymph-node dissection (18 studies; 19.9%, 13.5-28.2) than it was in those who had sentinel-node biopsy (18 studies; 5.6%, 6.1-7.9). 29 studies met the inclusion criteria for the assessment of risk factors. Risk factors that had a strong level of evidence were extensive surgery (ie, axillary-lymph-node dissection, greater number of lymph nodes dissected, mastectomy) and being overweight or obese. Our findings suggest that more than one in five women who survive breast cancer will develop arm lymphoedema. A clear need exists for improved understanding of contributing risk factors, as well as of prevention and management strategies to reduce the individual and public health burden of this disabling and distressing disorder. The National Breast Cancer Foundation, Australia. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Cancer immunoediting, the process whereby the immune system controls tumour outgrowth and shapes tumour immunogenicity, is comprised of three phases: elimination, equilibrium and escape 1–5 . Although many immune components that participate in this process are known, its underlying mechanisms remain poorly defined. A central tenet of cancer immunoediting is that T cell recognition of tumour antigens drives the immunologic destruction or sculpting of a developing cancer. However, our current understanding of tumour antigens comes largely from analyses of cancers that develop in immunocompetent hosts and thus may have already been edited. Little is known about the antigens expressed in nascent tumour cells, whether they are sufficient to induce protective anti-tumour immune responses or whether their expression is modulated by the immune system. Here, using massively parallel sequencing, we characterize expressed mutations in highly immunogenic methylcholanthrene-induced sarcomas derived from immunodeficient Rag2−/− mice which phenotypically resemble nascent primary tumour cells 1,3,5 . Employing class I prediction algorithms, we identify mutant spectrin-β2 as a potential rejection antigen of the d42m1 sarcoma and validate this prediction by conventional antigen expression cloning and detection. We also demonstrate that cancer immunoediting of d42m1 occurs via a T cell-dependent immunoselection process that promotes outgrowth of pre-existing tumour cell clones lacking highly antigenic mutant spectrin-β2 and other potential strong antigens. These results demonstrate that the strong immunogenicity of an unedited tumour can be ascribed to expression of highly antigenic mutant proteins and show that outgrowth of tumour cells that lack these strong antigens via a T cell-dependent immunoselection process represents one mechanism of cancer immunoediting.