-
Journal of Gastroenterology and... Aug 2014Cholangiocarcinomas of different locations differ in growth patterns, symptoms, treatment response, and survival. Still, they are regarded in many studies as a uniform... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Cholangiocarcinomas of different locations differ in growth patterns, symptoms, treatment response, and survival. Still, they are regarded in many studies as a uniform malignancy. Because intra- (iCCA) and extrahepatic (eCCA) cholangiocarcinoma display such differences, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze differences in the immunohistochemical profile of these tumors.
METHODS
In February 2014, we searched the two main medical literature databases MEDLINE and EMBASE. We extracted risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals from the identified studies and performed random-effects model meta-analyses in accordance with PRISMA and REMARK guidelines.
RESULTS
A total of 54 cohort studies, including 4458 patients and studying 102 individual markers met the inclusion criteria. Of the 57 markers that were evaluated in more than 30 iCCA and eCCA patients, 18 showed a statistically significant difference in expression between iCCA and eCCA. Biomarkers expressed differently between iCCA and eCCA included potential targets of therapy: EGFR, c-erbB-2 and VEGF-A. Several markers showed no statistical difference but large 95% confidence intervals, suggesting insufficient sample size.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review shows differences in marker expression between iCCA and eCCA. Consequently, patients with iCCA and eCCA may benefit from different treatment strategies.
Topics: Bile Duct Neoplasms; Bile Ducts, Extrahepatic; Bile Ducts, Intrahepatic; Biomarkers, Tumor; Cholangiocarcinoma; Cohort Studies; Databases, Bibliographic; ErbB Receptors; Humans; Immunohistochemistry; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Receptor, ErbB-2; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 24787096
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.12620 -
Pancreas Aug 2017Guidelines regarding the surveillance of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) are controversial because of uncertain risk of malignancy, agnosticism... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Guidelines regarding the surveillance of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) are controversial because of uncertain risk of malignancy, agnosticism regarding the use of endoscopic ultrasound, and their recommendation to stop surveillance after 5 years. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk of malignancy and other end points and estimate the value of endoscopic ultrasound for surveillance.
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE for studies with a cohort of patients with presumed branch-duct IPMN who initially were managed nonsurgically. Data regarding study characteristics, surveillance, and outcomes were extracted. Incidence rates of morphologic progression, malignancy, surgery, and death were calculated with a random effects model.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies with 3440 patients and 13,097 patient-years of follow-up were included. Rates of morphologic progression, surgery, malignancy, and death were 0.0379, 0.0250, 0.0098, and 0.0043 per patient-year, respectively. Endoscopic ultrasound was not associated with significantly different rates of these outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
The risk of malignancy calculated in this study was low and in line with recent systematic reviews. Endoscopic ultrasound does not have marginal use in surveillance. Given the limitations of a systematic review of nonrandomized studies, further studies are needed to determine the optimal surveillance of branch-duct IPMNs.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma, Mucinous; Adenocarcinoma, Papillary; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Cohort Studies; Endosonography; Humans; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28697134
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000858 -
Journal of Hepato-biliary-pancreatic... Dec 2014The optimal management of patients with symptomatic gallstones and possible or proven common bile duct (CBD) stones and gallstones is still evolving. Today a number of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The optimal management of patients with symptomatic gallstones and possible or proven common bile duct (CBD) stones and gallstones is still evolving. Today a number of options exist: preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (pre-op ERCP), laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (IOES), laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) and postoperative ERCP (post-op ERCP). This meta-analysis was done to compare these management options and determine if any single option was clearly superior.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted using several electronic databases. The search revealed 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Six comparing pre-op ERCP with LCBDE, five comparing pre-op ERCP with IOES, two comparing IOES with LCBDE and two comparing post-op ERCP with LCBDE, comprising a total of 1992 patients.
RESULTS
The pre-op ERCP group had a significantly higher incidence of ERCP related complications (odds ratio: 2.40, 95% confidence interval: 1.21-4.75).
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence provided by this meta-analysis suggests that both of these approaches would appear comparable. To fully address which would be the better approach would require an RCT as discussed above.
Topics: Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Cholecystolithiasis; Choledocholithiasis; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Humans; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 25187317
DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.152 -
Pancreatology : Official Journal of the... 2015Potential benefits of local extirpation of benign pancreatic head tumors are tissue conservation of pancreas, stomach, duodenum and common bile duct (CBD) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Potential benefits of local extirpation of benign pancreatic head tumors are tissue conservation of pancreas, stomach, duodenum and common bile duct (CBD) and maintenance of pancreatic functions.
METHODS
Medline/PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify studies applying duodenum-preserving total or partial pancreatic-head resection (DPPHRt/p) and reporting short- and long-term outcomes. Twenty-four studies, including 416 patients who underwent DPPHRt/p, were identified for systematic analysis. The meta-analysis was based on 10 prospective controlled and 4 retrospective controlled cohort studies, comparing 293 DPPHRt/p resections with 372 pancreato-duodenectomies (PD).
RESULTS, SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS
Of 416 patients, 75.7% underwent total and 24.3% partial head resection, while 47.1% included segmentectomy of duodenum and CBD. The most common pathology was cystic neoplasm (65.8%) and endocrine tumors (13.4%). The frequencies of severe postoperative complications of 8.8%, pancreatic fistula of 19.2%, re-operation of 1.7% and hospital mortality of 0.48%, indicate a low level of early post-operative complications.
META-ANALYSIS
DPPHRt/p significantly preserved the level of exocrine (IV = -0.67, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.35, p = 0.0001) and endocrine (IV = 18.20, fixed, 95% CI -0.92 to 25.48, p = 0.0001) pancreatic functions compared to PD when the pre- and postoperative functional status in both groups are analyzed. There were no significant differences between DPPHRt/p and PD in frequency of pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying or hospital mortality.
CONCLUSION
DPPHRt/p for benign neoplasms and neuro-endocrine tumors of the pancreatic head is associated with a low level of early-postoperative complications and a better conservation of exocrine and endocrine functions.
Topics: Common Bile Duct; Duodenum; Humans; Pancreas; Pancreatic Function Tests; Pancreatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 25732271
DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2015.01.009 -
ANZ Journal of Surgery Apr 2021Primary choledocholithiasis (PC) is a common disease in biliary surgery. The treatment is always challenging due to its high recurrence. A systemic review is undertaken... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Primary choledocholithiasis (PC) is a common disease in biliary surgery. The treatment is always challenging due to its high recurrence. A systemic review is undertaken to determine the risk factors for recurrence and provide with the individualized management strategy.
METHODS
Electronic databases PubMed (Medline), Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Studies were searched for relevant articles on risk factors for PC recurrence. Its therapeutic intervention was also collected and analysed.
RESULTS
A total of 36 articles were eligible for inclusion. The recurrent risk factors include abnormalities of biliary anatomy (peripapillary diverticulum), dynamics (choledochal dilation, sharp angulation and stone number), metabolism (advanced age and hypothyroidism) and bacterial infection (Enterobacter and Helicobacter pylori). These factors eventually induce cholestasis and stone formation. At present, there is no guideline and expertise consensus for PC management. The treatment mainly consists of stone retrieval approaches and internal drainage surgeries. The former are minimally invasive methods: endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). The latter include choledochoduodenostomy (CDS) and choledochojejunostomy (CJS) with Roux-en-Y reconstruction. By far, the internal drainage surgeries have significantly lower recurrence than stone retrieval approaches.
CONCLUSION
Abnormal biliary anatomy, dynamics, metabolism and bacterial infection are the risk factors for PC. Both EST/EPBD and LCBDE can be performed as initial treatment. For recurrent PC, CDS is more suitable to the elderly, while Roux-en-Y CJS reserves for young patients or those in good conditions.
Topics: Aged; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Choledocholithiasis; Common Bile Duct; Dilatation; Humans; Risk Factors; Sphincterotomy, Endoscopic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32815266
DOI: 10.1111/ans.16211 -
Journal of Vascular and Interventional... Feb 2018To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies to evaluate the efficacy of lymphatic interventions for chylothorax. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies to evaluate the efficacy of lymphatic interventions for chylothorax.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for English-language studies until March 2017 that included patients with chylothorax treated with lymphangiography (LAG), thoracic duct embolization (TDE), or thoracic duct disruption (TDD). Exclusion criteria were as follows: a sample size of less than 10 patients, no extractable data, or data included in subsequent articles or duplicate reports.
RESULTS
The cases of 407 patients from 9 studies were evaluated. The pooled technical success rates of LAG and TDE were 94.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88.4%-97.2%; I = 46.7%) and 63.1% (95% CI, 55.4%-70.2%; I = 37.3%), respectively. The pooled clinical success rates of LAG, TDE, and TDD, on a per-protocol basis, were 56.6% (95% CI, 45.4%-67.2%; I = 5.4%), 79.4% (95% CI, 64.8%-89.0%; I = 68.1%), and 60.8% (95% CI, 49.4%-71.2%; I = 0%), respectively. The pooled major complication rate of LAG and TDE was 1.9% (95% CI, 0.8%-4.3%; I = 0%) and 2.4% (95% CI, 0.9%-6.6%; I = 26.4%), respectively. The pooled overall clinical success rate of lymphatic interventions, on an intention-to-treat basis, was 60.1% (95% CI, 52.1%-67.7%; I = 54.3%). Etiology of chylothorax was identified as a significant source of heterogeneity for the pooled clinical success rate of TDE and overall clinical success rate.
CONCLUSIONS
Lymphatic interventions have a respectable efficacy for the treatment of chylothorax.
Topics: Chylothorax; Embolization, Therapeutic; Humans; Lymphography; Thoracic Duct
PubMed: 29287962
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2017.10.006 -
Endoscopy International Open Oct 2020Per-oral pancreatoscopy (POP) with intraductal lithotripsy via electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) or laser lithotripsy (LL) facilitates optically-guided stone... (Review)
Review
Per-oral pancreatoscopy (POP) with intraductal lithotripsy via electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) or laser lithotripsy (LL) facilitates optically-guided stone fragmentation of difficult pancreatic stones refractory to conventional endoscopic therapy. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of POP with intraductal lithotripsy for difficult pancreatic duct stones. Individualized search strategies were developed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. This was a cumulative meta-analysis performed by calculating pooled proportions with rates estimated using random effects models. Measured outcomes included pooled technical success, complete or partial stone fragmentation success, complete duct clearance after initial lithotripsy session, and adverse events (AEs). Ten studies (n = 302 patients; 67.72 % male; mean age 55.10 ± 3.22 years) were included with mean stone size of 10.66 ± 2.19 mm. The most common stone location was in the pancreatic head (66.17 %). Pooled technical success was 91.18 % with an overall fragmentation success of 85.77 %. Single lithotripsy session stone fragmentation and pancreatic duct clearance occurred in 62.05 % of cases. Overall, adverse events were reported in 14.09 % of patients with post-procedure pancreatitis developing in 8.73 %. Of these adverse events, 4.84 % were classified as serious. Comparing POP-EHL vs POP-LL, there was no significant difference in technical success, fragmentation success, single session duct clearance, or AEs ( > 0.0500). Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis, POP with intraductal lithotripsy appears to be an effective and relatively safe procedure for patients with difficult to remove pancreatic duct stones.
PubMed: 33043115
DOI: 10.1055/a-1236-3187 -
Endoscopy International Open Sep 2022Placement of a covered (C)-self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) has been recently investigated as an alternative endoscopic treatment for main pancreatic duct stricture... (Review)
Review
Placement of a covered (C)-self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) has been recently investigated as an alternative endoscopic treatment for main pancreatic duct stricture (MPDS) in chronic pancreatitis. Our aim was to carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies quantifying efficacy and safety of C-SEMSs in the management of MPDS. A multiple database search was performed, including MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library, from January 2000 to September 2020, to identify studies reporting the efficacy and safety of C-SEMSs in patients with MPDS. Stricture and pain resolution were investigated. Other outcomes included technical success, stent migration, stricture recurrence and need for repeated stent placement. Pancreatitis, severe abdominal pain requiring stent removal and de-novo stricture were recorded as complications. Nineteen studies were identified, which included a total of 300 patients. C-SEMSs showed a pooled stricture resolution rate of 91 % [95 % confidence interval (CI), 85 %-96 %] and a pooled pain resolution rate of 92 % (95 % CI, 85 %-98 %). The pooled proportion for stricture recurrence was equal to 6 % (95 % CI, 1 %-14 %), while stent migration occurred in 33 of 300 patients, the pooled proportion being 7 % (95 % CI 1 %-15 %). The pooled mean stent duration was 133 days (95 % CI, 100-166 days). The most common complication was pancreatitis (3 %, 95 % CI 0 %-8 %), while de-novo stricture pooled proportion was 2 % (95 % CI, 0 %-5 %). C-SEMSs are effective and safe in the treatment of MPDS. However, there is a significant need for further high-quality, well-designed studies to produce evidence-based data on short and long-term efficacy, safety, costs of C-SEMSs, and also optimal stent duration.
PubMed: 36118636
DOI: 10.1055/a-1880-7430 -
The Surgeon : Journal of the Royal... Aug 2015Pancreatitis is the most common and serious complication of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Prevention strategies... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Pancreatitis is the most common and serious complication of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Prevention strategies targeting risk factors could be important to reduce the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis. However, the risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) are still debated. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to identify risk factors for PEP.
METHODS
Medline (PubMed and Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials & Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Springer links and WEB OF SCIENCE were searched for published studies in all languages. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined a priori. Eighteen probable risk factors were evaluated, and outcomes were expressed in the case of dichotomous variables, as an odds ratio (OR) (with a 95% confidence interval, (CI)).
RESULTS
When patient-related risk factors were analyzed, the ORs for female gender was 1.46 (95%CI: 1.30-1.64); for previous pancreatitis 2.03 (95%CI: 1.31-3.14); for previous PEP was 2.90 (95%CI: 1.87-4.48); for Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) was 2.04 (95%CI: 1.73-2.33) and for Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) was 3.01 (95%CI: 1.34-6.77). Four endoscopy-related factors were confirmed: the OR for difficult cannulation was 3.49 (95%CI: 1.364-8.925); for endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) it was 1.39 (95%CI: 1.09-1.79); for precut sphincterotomy it was 2.25 (95%CI: 1.70_2.96); and for main pancreatic duct injection it was 1.58 (95%CI: 1.21-2.08).
CONCLUSIONS
Female gender, previous pancreatitis, previous PEP, SOD, IPMN, difficult cannulation, EST, precut sphincterotomy and main pancreatic duct injection are risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis.
Topics: Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Humans; Pancreatitis; Risk Factors
PubMed: 25547802
DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2014.11.005 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021Cholangiocarcinoma (cancer in the bile duct) is an aggressive tumour for which surgical resection is a mainstay of treatment. Despite complete resection, recurrences of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cholangiocarcinoma (cancer in the bile duct) is an aggressive tumour for which surgical resection is a mainstay of treatment. Despite complete resection, recurrences of the cancer are common and lead to poor prognosis in patients. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy given after surgical resection may reduce the risk of cancer recurrence by eradicating residual cancer and micrometastatic lesions. The benefits and harms of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy versus placebo, no intervention, or other adjuvant chemotherapies are unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy versus placebo, no intervention, or other adjuvant chemotherapies for people with cholangiocarcinoma after curative-intent resection.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed electronic searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science for trials that met the inclusion criteria up to 28 April 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, publication status, or language comparing postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy versus placebo, no intervention, or a different postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for participants with curative-intent resection for cholangiocarcinoma.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods to develop and conduct the review. We conducted meta-analyses and presented results, where feasible, using a random-effects model and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed risk of bias according to predefined domains suggested by Cochrane. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach and presented outcome results in a summary of findings table.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five published randomised clinical trials. The trials included 931 adults (18 to 83 years old) who underwent curative-intent resection for cholangiocarcinoma. Four trials compared postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (mitomycin-C and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU); gemcitabine; gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin; or capecitabine) versus no postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (surgery alone) in 867 participants with cholangiocarcinoma only. A fifth trial compared postoperative adjuvant S-1 (a novel oral fluoropyrimidine derivative) chemotherapy versus gemcitabine in 70 participants with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (64 participants), and gallbladder carcinoma (6 participants). We assessed all of the included trials at overall high risk of bias. One trial was conducted in France, three in Japan, and one in the United Kingdom. We could not perform all planned comparison analyses due to lack of data. Three trials used intention-to-treat analyses. Another trial used per-protocol analysis. In the remaining trial one participant in the intervention group and one in the control group were lost to follow-up. However, the outcomes of these two participants were not described. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy versus no postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy We are very uncertain as to whether postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy has little to no effect on all-cause mortality versus no postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 4 trials, 867 participants, very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain of the effect of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy on serious adverse events (RR 17.82, 95% CI 2.43 to 130.82; 1 trial, 219 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The trial indicated that postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy could increase serious adverse events, as 19/113 (20.5%) of participants developed an adverse event, compared to 1/106 (1.1%) of participants in the no-postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy group. None of the included trials reported data on health-related quality of life, cancer-related mortality, time to recurrence of the tumour, and non-serious adverse events in participants with only cholangiocarcinoma. Adjuvant S-1 chemotherapy (fluoropyrimidine derivative) versus adjuvant gemcitabine-based chemotherapy The only available trial analysed all participants with intrahepatic, perihilar cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma together, with data on participants with cholangiocarcinoma not provided separately. The authors reported that one-year overall mortality after adjuvant S-1 therapy was lower than with adjuvant gemcitabine-based therapy following major hepatectomy for biliary tract cancer. There were no differences in two-year overall mortality.
FUNDING
two trials received support from drug companies; one trial received funding from the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology; one trial received support from "Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique (PHRC2009) and Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer"; and one trial did not provide information on support or sponsorship. We identified six ongoing randomised clinical trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the very low-certainty evidence found in four trials in people with curative-intent resection for cholangiocarcinoma, we are very uncertain of the effects of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (mitomycin-C and 5-FU; gemcitabine; gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin; or capecitabine) versus no postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy on mortality. The effects of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy compared with no postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy on serious adverse events are also very uncertain, but the result of the single trial showed 20% higher occurrences of haematologic adverse events. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low due to overall high risk of bias, and imprecision. Due to insufficient power of the only identified trial, the best postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy regimen in people with only cholangiocarcinoma could not be established. We also lack randomised clinical trials with outcome data on adjuvant S-1 chemotherapy versus adjuvant gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in people with cholangiocarcinoma alone. There is a need for further randomised clinical trials designed to be at low risk of bias and with adequate sample size exploring the best adjuvant chemotherapy treatment after surgery in people with cholangiocarcinoma.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Bile Duct Neoplasms; Bile Ducts, Intrahepatic; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Cholangiocarcinoma; Humans; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Quality of Life; Young Adult
PubMed: 34515993
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012814.pub2