-
Metabolomics : Official Journal of the... Apr 2016Metabolomics is the emerging member of "omics" sciences advancing the understanding, diagnosis and treatment of many cancers, including ovarian cancer (OC).
INTRODUCTION
Metabolomics is the emerging member of "omics" sciences advancing the understanding, diagnosis and treatment of many cancers, including ovarian cancer (OC).
OBJECTIVES
To systematically identify the metabolomic abnormalities in OC detection, and the dominant metabolic pathways associated with the observed alterations.
METHODS
An electronic literature search was performed, up to and including January 15th 2016, for studies evaluating the metabolomic profile of patients with OC compared to controls. QUADOMICS tool was used to assess the quality of the twenty-three studies included in this systematic review.
RESULTS
Biological samples utilized for metabolomic analysis include: serum/plasma (n = 13), urine (n = 4), cyst fluid (n = 3), tissue (n = 2) and ascitic fluid (n = 1). Metabolites related to cellular respiration, carbohydrate, lipid, protein and nucleotide metabolism were significantly altered in OC. Increased levels of tricarboxylic acid cycle intermediates and altered metabolites of the glycolytic pathway pointed to perturbations in cellular respiration. Alterations in lipid metabolism included enhanced fatty acid oxidation, abnormal levels of glycerolipids, sphingolipids and free fatty acids with common elevations of palmitate, oleate, and myristate. Increased levels of glutamine, glycine, cysteine and threonine were commonly reported while enhanced degradations of tryptophan, histidine and phenylalanine were found. N-acetylaspartate, a brain amino acid, was found elevated in primary and metastatic OC tissue and ovarian cyst fluid. Further, elevated levels of ketone bodies including 3-hydroxybutyrate were commonly reported. Increased levels of nucleotide metabolites and tocopherols were consistent through out the studies.
CONCLUSION
Metabolomics presents significant new opportunities for diagnostic biomarker development, elucidating previously unknown mechanisms of OC pathogenesis.
PubMed: 28819352
DOI: 10.1007/s11306-016-0990-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2019Plasma volume expanders are used in connection to paracentesis in people with cirrhosis to prevent reduction of effective plasma volume, which may trigger deleterious... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Plasma volume expanders are used in connection to paracentesis in people with cirrhosis to prevent reduction of effective plasma volume, which may trigger deleterious effect on haemodynamic balance, and increase morbidity and mortality. Albumin is considered the standard product against which no plasma expansion or other plasma expanders, e.g. other colloids (polygeline , dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch solutions, fresh frozen plasma), intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol have been compared. However, the benefits and harms of these plasma expanders are not fully clear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of any plasma volume expanders such as albumin, other colloids (polygeline, dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch solutions, fresh frozen plasma), intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus no plasma volume expander or versus another plasma volume expander for paracentesis in people with cirrhosis and large ascites.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index until January 2019. Furthermore, we searched FDA, EMA, WHO (last search January 2019), www.clinicaltrials.gov/, and www.controlled-trials.com/ for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials, no matter their design or year of publication, publication status, and language, assessing the use of any type of plasma expander versus placebo, no intervention, or a different plasma expander in connection with paracentesis for ascites in people with cirrhosis. We considered quasi-randomised, retrieved with the searches for randomised clinical trials only, for reports on harms.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) using the fixed-effect model and the random-effects model meta-analyses, based on the intention-to-treat principle, whenever possible. If the fixed-effect and random-effects models showed different results, then we made our conclusions based on the analysis with the highest P value (the more conservative result). We assessed risks of bias of the individual trials using predefined bias risk domains. We assessed the certainty of the evidence at an outcome level, using GRADE, and constructed 'Summary of Findings' tables for seven of our review outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 27 randomised clinical trials for inclusion in this review (24 published as full-text articles and 3 as abstracts). Five of the trials, with 271 participants, assessed plasma expanders (albumin in four trials and ascitic fluid in one trial) versus no plasma expander. The remaining 22 trials, with 1321 participants, assessed one type of plasma expander, i.e. dextran, hydroxyethyl starch, polygeline, intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus another type of plasma expander, i.e. albumin in 20 of these trials and polygeline in one trial. Twenty-five trials provided data for quantitative meta-analysis. According to the Child-Pugh classification, most participants were at an intermediate to advanced stage of liver disease in the absence of hepatocellular carcinoma, recent gastrointestinal bleeding, infections, and hepatic encephalopathy. All trials were assessed as at overall high risk of bias. Ten trials seemed not to have been funded by industry; twelve trials were considered unclear about funding; and five trials were considered funded by industry or a for-profit institution.We found no evidence of a difference in effect between plasma expansion versus no plasma expansion on mortality (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.06 to 4.83; 248 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); renal impairment (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.02 to 5.88; 181 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); other liver-related complications (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.27; 248 participants; 4 trials; very low certainty); and non-serious adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.40; 158 participants; 3 trials; very low certainty). Two of the trials stated that no serious adverse events occurred while the remaining trials did not report on this outcome. No trial reported data on health-related quality of life.We found no evidence of a difference in effect between experimental plasma expanders versus albumin on mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; 1014 participants; 14 trials; very low certainty); serious adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.10 to 8.30; 118 participants; 2 trials; very low certainty); renal impairment (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.91; 1107 participants; 17 trials; very low certainty); other liver-related complications (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.48; 1083 participants; 16 trials; very low certainty); and non-serious adverse events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.85; 977 participants; 14 trials; very low certainty). We found no data on heath-related quality of life and refractory ascites.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review and meta-analysis did not find any benefits or harms of plasma expanders versus no plasma expander or of one plasma expander such as polygeline, dextrans, hydroxyethyl starch, intravenous infusion of ascitic fluid, crystalloids, or mannitol versus albumin on primary or secondary outcomes. The data originated from few, small, mostly short-term trials at high risks of systematic errors (bias) and high risks of random errors (play of chance). GRADE assessments concluded that the evidence was of very low certainty. Therefore, we can neither demonstrate or discard any benefit of plasma expansion versus no plasma expansion, and differences between one plasma expander versus another plasma expander.Larger trials at low risks of bias are needed to assess the role of plasma expanders in connection with paracentesis. Such trials should be conducted according to the SPIRIT guidelines and reported according to the CONSORT guidelines.
Topics: Humans; Ascites; Liver Cirrhosis; Paracentesis; Plasma Substitutes; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31251387
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004039.pub2 -
Journal of Ovarian Research Aug 2016The aims of this report were to describe a case of ovarian adenosquamous carcinoma and to systematically review the pertinent literature. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The aims of this report were to describe a case of ovarian adenosquamous carcinoma and to systematically review the pertinent literature.
METHODS
We describe a case in which a 57-year-old woman had stage IC ovarian cancer histologically diagnosed as adenosquamous carcinoma. We also systematically reviewed the literature using the PubMed database.
CASE PRESENTATION
Preoperative computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging showed a tumor measuring 14 cm in diameter and containing solid areas. Tumor marker levels were as follows: CA125, 42.6 U/mL; CA 19-9, 134.1 U/mL; CEA, 0.9 ng/mL; and SCC, 1.6 ng/mL. The patient underwent multiple surgeries including total abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, pelvic lymph node dissection, para-aortic lymph node biopsy, and total omentectomy. Based on the cytological features of the ascitic fluid, the tumor was diagnosed as a squamous cell carcinoma. Histological examination of an excised specimen showed the transition of an endometrioid adenocarcinoma to a squamous cell carcinoma. There was no evidence of any teratomas or endometriosis-related features. We considered the tumor to be an adenosquamous carcinoma, with the squamous cell carcinoma component arising from the endometrioid adenocarcinoma component. After surgery, the patient underwent 6 cycles of paclitaxel and carboplatin chemotherapy. There has been no recurrence to date, 66 months after the initial treatment.
RESULTS
Histologically, the 8 adenosquamous carcinomas reported in the literature either arose from the mature cystic teratoma (4 cases) or endometriosis (3 cases) or were pure adenosquamous carcinomas (1 case). Our literature search uncovered no cases of ovarian adenosquamous carcinomas originating from endometrioid adenocarcinomas.
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first reported case of an adenosquamous carcinoma arising from an endometrioid adenocarcinoma. Because such tumors are rare, their standard management is unclear.
Topics: Adult; Carboplatin; Carcinoma, Adenosquamous; Carcinoma, Endometrioid; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Female; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Middle Aged; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 27514842
DOI: 10.1186/s13048-016-0255-6 -
Gynecologic Oncology Feb 2021Ovarian cancer is often diagnosed in an advanced stage and is associated with a high mortality rate. It is assumed that early detection of ovarian cancer could improve...
Ovarian cancer is often diagnosed in an advanced stage and is associated with a high mortality rate. It is assumed that early detection of ovarian cancer could improve patient outcomes. Unfortunately, effective screening methods for early diagnosis of ovarian cancer are still lacking. Extracellular RNAs circulating in human biofluids can reliably be measured and are emerging as potential biomarkers in cancer. In this systematic review, we present 75 RNA biomarkers detectable in human biofluids that have been studied for early diagnosis of ovarian cancer. The majority of these markers are microRNAs identified using RT-qPCR or microarrays in blood-based fluids. A handful of studies used RNA-sequencing and explored alternative fluids, such as urine and ascites. Candidate RNA biomarkers that were more abundant in biofluids of ovarian cancer patients compared to controls in at least two independent studies include miR-21, the miR-200 family, miR-205, miR-10a and miR-346. Amongst the markers confirmed to be lower in at least two studies are miR-122, miR-193a, miR-223, miR-126 and miR-106b. While these biomarkers show promising diagnostic potential, further validation is required before implementation in routine clinical care. Challenges related to biomarker validation and reflections on future perspectives to accelerate progress in this field are discussed.
Topics: Ascitic Fluid; Biomarkers, Tumor; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Liquid Biopsy; MicroRNAs; Ovarian Neoplasms; RNA-Seq
PubMed: 33257015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.11.018 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Jun 2021There are still concerns over the safety of laparoscopic surgery in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients due to the potential risk of viral transmission through... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There are still concerns over the safety of laparoscopic surgery in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients due to the potential risk of viral transmission through surgical smoke/laparoscopic pneumoperitoneum.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of currently available literature to determine the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) in abdominal tissues or fluids and in surgical smoke.
RESULTS
A total of 19 studies (15 case reports and 4 case series) comprising 29 COVID-19 patients were included. The viral RNA was positively identified in 11 patients (37.9%). The samples that tested positive include the peritoneal fluid, bile, ascitic fluid, peritoneal dialysate, duodenal wall, and appendix. Similar samples, together with the omentum and abdominal subcutaneous fat, tested negative in the other patients. Only one study investigated SARS-COV-2 RNA in surgical smoke generated during laparoscopy, reporting negative findings.
CONCLUSIONS
There are conflicting results regarding the presence of SARS-COV-2 in abdominal tissues and fluids. No currently available evidence supports the hypothesis that SARS-COV-2 can be aerosolized and transmitted through surgical smoke. Larger studies are urgently needed to corroborate these findings.
Topics: Abdomen; Ascitic Fluid; COVID-19; Humans; Laparoscopy; RNA, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Smoke
PubMed: 33675407
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-021-02142-8 -
Journal of Clinical and Experimental... 2022Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is a bacterial infection associated with a high mortality rate in cirrhotic patients. The gold standard for the detection of SBP...
BACKGROUND
Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is a bacterial infection associated with a high mortality rate in cirrhotic patients. The gold standard for the detection of SBP is a manual cell count from ascitic fluid; however, alternative screening methods are under investigation. In particular, leukocyte esterase reagent strips (LERS) has been studied as an alternative method to detect SBP with a low cost and instant turnaround time. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the performance of LERS in the detection of SBP.
METHODS
A literature search was performed for studies evaluating LERS for the detection of SBP on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and clinical trial registries. Summary sensitivity, specificity, log diagnostic odds ratio (LDOR), and the area under the summary receiver operating curve (AUC) were calculated according to the respective manufacturer.
RESULTS
In total, 31 studies were evaluated. The summary sensitivity of Aution Sticks, Combur, Multistix, Periscreen reagent strips was 0.962 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.926, 0.998), 0.892 (95% CI 0.846, 0.938), 0.806 (95% CI 0.738, 0.874), and 0.939 (95% CI 0.900, 0.979), respectively. The summary specificity of Aution Sticks, Combur, Multistix, and Periscreen reagent strips was 0.940 (95% CI 0.904, 0.976), 0.922 (95% CI 0.874, 0.970), 0.974 (95% CI 0.962, 0.985), and 0.672 (95% CI 0.381, 0.963), respectively.
CONCLUSION
LERS appears to have a notable overall performance for the detection of SBP. LERS appeared to be an acceptable alternative to diagnose SBP in facilities without ability to perform cell count. However, there were significant differences in performance between each manufacturer.
PubMed: 35535110
DOI: 10.1016/j.jceh.2021.05.002 -
Minerva Anestesiologica Dec 2017Spontaneous fungal peritonitis (SFP) is an infection of ascitic fluid occurring in cirrhotic patients. SFP prevalence varies from 0% to 41% of patients with spontaneous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Spontaneous fungal peritonitis (SFP) is an infection of ascitic fluid occurring in cirrhotic patients. SFP prevalence varies from 0% to 41% of patients with spontaneous peritonitis (SP) and a positive ascitic fluid culture. Cirrhotic patients with SFP who fail to show improvement with empirical antibiotic therapy, before the identification of the fungal pathogen, have high mortality (89.5-100%). Although the weight of the disease is so dramatic, more recent guidelines on infections in cirrhosis do not consider SFP management. The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the association between hospitalization (at least 48-72 hours after admission) and risk of SFP.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science to identify relevant studies published up to March 2, 2017. Only observational studies that specify the etiology of SP were included. Data were pooled using risk difference as a summary measure and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Thirteen cohort studies were included in the meta-analysis (12 retrospective and one prospective). A pooled risk difference, using a random effects model, of nosocomial versus non-nosocomial SFP was 2.9% (95% CI, 0.4% to 5.3%, P=0.024) with a no significant heterogeneity among studies (P=0.090, I²=37%).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis suggests that hospitalization is related to a significant increase of SFP risk.
Topics: Ascites; Cross Infection; Hospitalization; Humans; Liver Cirrhosis; Mycoses; Observational Studies as Topic; Peritonitis; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 28726361
DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.17.12034-1