Treatment of equine sarcoids: A systematic review

Background The sarcoid is the most common equine cutaneous neoplasm. Evidence‐based treatment of this condition is often lacking, and selection of treatment modality based on clinical experience or anecdotal evidence. Objectives To assess the quality of the currently available best evidence regardin...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Equine veterinary journal 2024-01, Vol.56 (1), p.12-25
Hauptverfasser: Offer, Katie S., Dixon, Claire E., Sutton, David G. M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 25
container_issue 1
container_start_page 12
container_title Equine veterinary journal
container_volume 56
creator Offer, Katie S.
Dixon, Claire E.
Sutton, David G. M.
description Background The sarcoid is the most common equine cutaneous neoplasm. Evidence‐based treatment of this condition is often lacking, and selection of treatment modality based on clinical experience or anecdotal evidence. Objectives To assess the quality of the currently available best evidence regarding the treatment of the equine sarcoid. Study design Systematic review. Methods In compliance with PRISMA guidelines, literature searches were performed in PUBMED, Web of Science, CAB s, EMBASE (Ovid) and Scopus in April 2021. Included papers were required to describe an interventional study examining sarcoid treatment strategy, of level 4 evidence or greater. The case definition required confirmation of at least some included lesions on histopathology, and a minimum of 6 months of follow‐up was required on treated cases. Studies were assessed by two independent reviewers (KO, CD). Data extraction was performed manually, followed by risk of bias assessment. Methodological quality was assessed using the GRADE system. Results In total, 10 studies were included in the review. Case definition was confirmed via histopathology in all included lesions in 60% of papers. Time to follow‐up was variably reported. Overall risk of bias ranged from ‘some concerns’ to ‘critical’. Reported sarcoid regression rate ranged from 28% to 100% on an individual sarcoid level, and 9%–100% on a whole horse level. Transient local inflammation was reported following most treatment strategies, with further adverse events reported infrequently. Main limitations Review methodology excluded a large proportion of available literature regarding the equine sarcoid. Significant heterogeneity between included studies prevented quantitative synthesis and most included papers were at significant risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision. Conclusions There is insufficient evidence currently available to recommend one sarcoid treatment over another. There is an urgent need for sufficiently powered, randomised, placebo‐controlled trials in order to allow more definitive comparison of the efficacy of different treatment strategies.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/evj.13935
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2786812345</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2898357096</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3885-2fd88626ef7d2687c98e097a1e7bf995e100c963b87b5ba5809e3c2d52f198f13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtKw0AUQAdRbK0u_AEJuNFF2nlkXu5KqS8KbqrbYTK5gZSkaWeSlv690VQXgrO5szicezkIXRM8Jt2bwG41JkwzfoKGFCc0ZgyLUzTsvjwmIkkG6CKEFcaM0YSeowETmkjOyRCRpQfbVLBuojqPYNsWa4iC9a4usvAQTaNwCA1Utilc5GFXwP4SneW2DHB1nCP0_jhfzp7jxdvTy2y6iB1Tisc0z5QSVEAuMyqUdFoB1tISkGmuNQeCsdOCpUqmPLVcYQ3M0YzTnGiVEzZCd7134-ttC6ExVREclKVdQ90GQ6USilCW8A69_YOu6tavu-sMVVoxLnG3aYTue8r5OgQPudn4orL-YAg2Xx1N19F8d-zYm6OxTSvIfsmfcB0w6YF9UcLhf5OZf7z2yk-vHXnn</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2898357096</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Treatment of equine sarcoids: A systematic review</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Offer, Katie S. ; Dixon, Claire E. ; Sutton, David G. M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Offer, Katie S. ; Dixon, Claire E. ; Sutton, David G. M.</creatorcontrib><description>Background The sarcoid is the most common equine cutaneous neoplasm. Evidence‐based treatment of this condition is often lacking, and selection of treatment modality based on clinical experience or anecdotal evidence. Objectives To assess the quality of the currently available best evidence regarding the treatment of the equine sarcoid. Study design Systematic review. Methods In compliance with PRISMA guidelines, literature searches were performed in PUBMED, Web of Science, CAB s, EMBASE (Ovid) and Scopus in April 2021. Included papers were required to describe an interventional study examining sarcoid treatment strategy, of level 4 evidence or greater. The case definition required confirmation of at least some included lesions on histopathology, and a minimum of 6 months of follow‐up was required on treated cases. Studies were assessed by two independent reviewers (KO, CD). Data extraction was performed manually, followed by risk of bias assessment. Methodological quality was assessed using the GRADE system. Results In total, 10 studies were included in the review. Case definition was confirmed via histopathology in all included lesions in 60% of papers. Time to follow‐up was variably reported. Overall risk of bias ranged from ‘some concerns’ to ‘critical’. Reported sarcoid regression rate ranged from 28% to 100% on an individual sarcoid level, and 9%–100% on a whole horse level. Transient local inflammation was reported following most treatment strategies, with further adverse events reported infrequently. Main limitations Review methodology excluded a large proportion of available literature regarding the equine sarcoid. Significant heterogeneity between included studies prevented quantitative synthesis and most included papers were at significant risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision. Conclusions There is insufficient evidence currently available to recommend one sarcoid treatment over another. There is an urgent need for sufficiently powered, randomised, placebo‐controlled trials in order to allow more definitive comparison of the efficacy of different treatment strategies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0425-1644</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2042-3306</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/evj.13935</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36917551</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>cutaneous ; evidence ; Histopathology ; neoplasia ; sarcoid ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>Equine veterinary journal, 2024-01, Vol.56 (1), p.12-25</ispartof><rights>2023 The Authors. published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd on behalf of EVJ Ltd.</rights><rights>2023 The Authors. Equine Veterinary Journal published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd on behalf of EVJ Ltd.</rights><rights>2023. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3885-2fd88626ef7d2687c98e097a1e7bf995e100c963b87b5ba5809e3c2d52f198f13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3885-2fd88626ef7d2687c98e097a1e7bf995e100c963b87b5ba5809e3c2d52f198f13</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9927-3276 ; 0000-0002-7241-8444 ; 0000-0003-1608-212X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fevj.13935$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fevj.13935$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36917551$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Offer, Katie S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dixon, Claire E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sutton, David G. M.</creatorcontrib><title>Treatment of equine sarcoids: A systematic review</title><title>Equine veterinary journal</title><addtitle>Equine Vet J</addtitle><description>Background The sarcoid is the most common equine cutaneous neoplasm. Evidence‐based treatment of this condition is often lacking, and selection of treatment modality based on clinical experience or anecdotal evidence. Objectives To assess the quality of the currently available best evidence regarding the treatment of the equine sarcoid. Study design Systematic review. Methods In compliance with PRISMA guidelines, literature searches were performed in PUBMED, Web of Science, CAB s, EMBASE (Ovid) and Scopus in April 2021. Included papers were required to describe an interventional study examining sarcoid treatment strategy, of level 4 evidence or greater. The case definition required confirmation of at least some included lesions on histopathology, and a minimum of 6 months of follow‐up was required on treated cases. Studies were assessed by two independent reviewers (KO, CD). Data extraction was performed manually, followed by risk of bias assessment. Methodological quality was assessed using the GRADE system. Results In total, 10 studies were included in the review. Case definition was confirmed via histopathology in all included lesions in 60% of papers. Time to follow‐up was variably reported. Overall risk of bias ranged from ‘some concerns’ to ‘critical’. Reported sarcoid regression rate ranged from 28% to 100% on an individual sarcoid level, and 9%–100% on a whole horse level. Transient local inflammation was reported following most treatment strategies, with further adverse events reported infrequently. Main limitations Review methodology excluded a large proportion of available literature regarding the equine sarcoid. Significant heterogeneity between included studies prevented quantitative synthesis and most included papers were at significant risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision. Conclusions There is insufficient evidence currently available to recommend one sarcoid treatment over another. There is an urgent need for sufficiently powered, randomised, placebo‐controlled trials in order to allow more definitive comparison of the efficacy of different treatment strategies.</description><subject>cutaneous</subject><subject>evidence</subject><subject>Histopathology</subject><subject>neoplasia</subject><subject>sarcoid</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>0425-1644</issn><issn>2042-3306</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kMtKw0AUQAdRbK0u_AEJuNFF2nlkXu5KqS8KbqrbYTK5gZSkaWeSlv690VQXgrO5szicezkIXRM8Jt2bwG41JkwzfoKGFCc0ZgyLUzTsvjwmIkkG6CKEFcaM0YSeowETmkjOyRCRpQfbVLBuojqPYNsWa4iC9a4usvAQTaNwCA1Utilc5GFXwP4SneW2DHB1nCP0_jhfzp7jxdvTy2y6iB1Tisc0z5QSVEAuMyqUdFoB1tISkGmuNQeCsdOCpUqmPLVcYQ3M0YzTnGiVEzZCd7134-ttC6ExVREclKVdQ90GQ6USilCW8A69_YOu6tavu-sMVVoxLnG3aYTue8r5OgQPudn4orL-YAg2Xx1N19F8d-zYm6OxTSvIfsmfcB0w6YF9UcLhf5OZf7z2yk-vHXnn</recordid><startdate>202401</startdate><enddate>202401</enddate><creator>Offer, Katie S.</creator><creator>Dixon, Claire E.</creator><creator>Sutton, David G. M.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9927-3276</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7241-8444</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1608-212X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202401</creationdate><title>Treatment of equine sarcoids: A systematic review</title><author>Offer, Katie S. ; Dixon, Claire E. ; Sutton, David G. M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3885-2fd88626ef7d2687c98e097a1e7bf995e100c963b87b5ba5809e3c2d52f198f13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>cutaneous</topic><topic>evidence</topic><topic>Histopathology</topic><topic>neoplasia</topic><topic>sarcoid</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Offer, Katie S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dixon, Claire E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sutton, David G. M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Equine veterinary journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Offer, Katie S.</au><au>Dixon, Claire E.</au><au>Sutton, David G. M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Treatment of equine sarcoids: A systematic review</atitle><jtitle>Equine veterinary journal</jtitle><addtitle>Equine Vet J</addtitle><date>2024-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>56</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>12</spage><epage>25</epage><pages>12-25</pages><issn>0425-1644</issn><eissn>2042-3306</eissn><abstract>Background The sarcoid is the most common equine cutaneous neoplasm. Evidence‐based treatment of this condition is often lacking, and selection of treatment modality based on clinical experience or anecdotal evidence. Objectives To assess the quality of the currently available best evidence regarding the treatment of the equine sarcoid. Study design Systematic review. Methods In compliance with PRISMA guidelines, literature searches were performed in PUBMED, Web of Science, CAB s, EMBASE (Ovid) and Scopus in April 2021. Included papers were required to describe an interventional study examining sarcoid treatment strategy, of level 4 evidence or greater. The case definition required confirmation of at least some included lesions on histopathology, and a minimum of 6 months of follow‐up was required on treated cases. Studies were assessed by two independent reviewers (KO, CD). Data extraction was performed manually, followed by risk of bias assessment. Methodological quality was assessed using the GRADE system. Results In total, 10 studies were included in the review. Case definition was confirmed via histopathology in all included lesions in 60% of papers. Time to follow‐up was variably reported. Overall risk of bias ranged from ‘some concerns’ to ‘critical’. Reported sarcoid regression rate ranged from 28% to 100% on an individual sarcoid level, and 9%–100% on a whole horse level. Transient local inflammation was reported following most treatment strategies, with further adverse events reported infrequently. Main limitations Review methodology excluded a large proportion of available literature regarding the equine sarcoid. Significant heterogeneity between included studies prevented quantitative synthesis and most included papers were at significant risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision. Conclusions There is insufficient evidence currently available to recommend one sarcoid treatment over another. There is an urgent need for sufficiently powered, randomised, placebo‐controlled trials in order to allow more definitive comparison of the efficacy of different treatment strategies.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>36917551</pmid><doi>10.1111/evj.13935</doi><tpages>14</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9927-3276</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7241-8444</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1608-212X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0425-1644
ispartof Equine veterinary journal, 2024-01, Vol.56 (1), p.12-25
issn 0425-1644
2042-3306
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2786812345
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects cutaneous
evidence
Histopathology
neoplasia
sarcoid
Systematic review
title Treatment of equine sarcoids: A systematic review
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T20%3A01%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Treatment%20of%20equine%20sarcoids:%20A%20systematic%20review&rft.jtitle=Equine%20veterinary%20journal&rft.au=Offer,%20Katie%20S.&rft.date=2024-01&rft.volume=56&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=12&rft.epage=25&rft.pages=12-25&rft.issn=0425-1644&rft.eissn=2042-3306&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/evj.13935&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2898357096%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2898357096&rft_id=info:pmid/36917551&rfr_iscdi=true