Ekelechi MacPepple

Dr Ekelechi MacPepple

Research Fellow



Research interests

My publications


Fossati N, Willemse P-PM, Van den Broeck T, van den Bergh RCN, Yuan CY, Briers E, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Cornford P, De Santis M, MacPepple Ekelechi, Henry AM, Mason MD, Matveev BV, van der Poelp HG, van der Kwast TH, Rouvière O, Schoots IG, Wiegel T, Lam TB, Mottet N, Joniau S (2017) The Benefits and Harms of Different Extents of Lymph Node Dissection During Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review, European Urology 72 (1) pp. 84-109 Elsevier
Context There is controversy regarding the therapeutic role of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (PCa). Objective To systematically review the relevant literature assessing the relative benefits and harms of PLND for oncological and non-oncological outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for PCa. Evidence acquisition MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to December 2015. Comparative studies evaluating no PLND, limited, standard, and (super)-extended PLND that reported oncological and non-oncological outcomes were included. Risk-of-bias and confounding assessments were performed. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. Evidence synthesis Overall, 66 studies recruiting a total of 275,269 patients were included (44 full-text articles and 22 conference abstracts). Oncological outcomes were addressed by 29 studies, one of which was a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Non-oncological outcomes were addressed by 43 studies, three of which were RCTs. There were high risks of bias and confounding in most studies. Conflicting results emerged when comparing biochemical and clinical recurrence, while no significant differences were observed among groups for survival. Conversely, the majority of studies showed that the more extensive the PLND, the greater the adverse outcomes in terms of operating time, blood loss, length of stay, and postoperative complications. No significant differences were observed in terms of urinary continence and erectile function recovery. Conclusions Although representing the most accurate staging procedure, PLND and its extension are associated with worse intraoperative and perioperative outcomes, whereas a direct therapeutic effect is still not evident from the current literature. The current poor quality of evidence indicates the need for robust and adequately powered clinical trials. Patient summary Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, this article summarizes the benefits and harms of removing lymph nodes during surgery to remove the prostate because of PCa. Although the quality of the data from the studies was poor, the review suggests that lymph node removal may not have any direct benefit on cancer outcomes and may instead result in more complications. Nevertheless, the procedure remains justified because it enables accurate assessment of cancer spread.
Blacklock C, MacPepple EN, Kunutsor S, Witter S (2016) Paying for Performance to Improve the Delivery and Uptake of Family Planning in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review, Studies in Family Planning 47 (4) pp. 309-324 Wiley
Paying for performance is a strategy to meet the unmet need for family planning in low and middle income countries; however, rigorous evidence on effectiveness is lacking. Scientific databases and grey literature were searched from 1994 to May 2016. Thirteen studies were included. Payments were linked to units of targeted services, usually modified by quality indicators. Ancillary components and payment indicators differed between studies. Results were mixed for family planning outcome measures. Paying for performance was associated with improved modern family planning use in one study, and increased user and coverage rates in two more. Paying for performance with conditional cash transfers increased family planning use in another. One study found increased use in the upper wealth group only. However, eight studies reported no impact on modern family planning use or prevalence. Secondary outcomes of equity, financial risk protection, satisfaction, quality, and service organization were mixed. Available evidence is inconclusive and limited by the scarcity of studies and by variation in intervention, study design, and outcome measures. Further studies are warranted.