-
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology Oct 2023Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is increasingly applied in the treatment of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Superficial Non-ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors ≤20 mm: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is increasingly applied in the treatment of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of UEMR for SNADETs ≤20 mm in comparison with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR).
METHODS
The following electronic databases were searched from 2012 until November 20, 2021: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science databases, and Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes were the rates of en bloc resection and complete (R0) resection, and the secondary outcomes were procedure time, adverse events (delayed bleeding and delayed perforation), and recurrence rate.
RESULTS
A total of 6 studies with 679 lesions (331 underwent UEMR and 348 CEMR) were included in this study. The pooled analysis showed that UMER achieves a similar en bloc resection rate (87.6 vs. 89.9%; odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 3.73; P =0.64; I2 =74%), a similar R0 resection rate (67.3 vs. 73.6%; OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.55 to 2.23; P =0.78; I2 =59%), a shorter procedure time (min) (mean difference [MD], -4.05, 95% CI: -6.40 to -1.71; P =0.0007; I2 =70%) compared with CEMR. There were no significant differences in the rates of delayed bleeding, delayed perforation, and recurrence (2.4 vs. 1.7%, 0 vs. 0.6%, 2.2 vs. 4.4%, respectively).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis demonstrated that UEMR appears to be an effective and safe alternative to CEMR for SNADETs ≤20 mm.
Topics: Humans; Endoscopic Mucosal Resection; Intestinal Mucosa; Treatment Outcome; Duodenum; Duodenal Neoplasms; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Neoplasms, Glandular and Epithelial; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36084162
DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001763 -
Asian Journal of Surgery Nov 2020A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to estimate the incidence of possible complications following EUS-guided pancreas biopsy. Pancreatic cancer has a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to estimate the incidence of possible complications following EUS-guided pancreas biopsy. Pancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis with a high fatality rate. Early diagnosis is important to improve the prognosis of pancreatic cancer. We searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for studies published from inception to Augest, 2018. Meta-analysis were conducted with random-effect models and heterogeneity was calculated with the Q, I and τ statistics. We enrolled 78 studies from 71 articles in the meta-analysis, comprising 11,652 patients. Pooled data showed that the whole complication incidences were low 0.210 × 10(95%CI -0.648 × 10, 1.068 × 10). And they were in bleeding 0.002 × 10 (95%CI -0.092 × 10, 0.097 × 10), pancreatitis 0.002 (95%CI -0.082 × 10, 0.086 × 10), abdominal pain 0 (95%CI -0.037 × 10, 0.038 × 10), fever 0 (95%CI -0.032 × 10, 0. 032 × 10), infection 0 (95%CI -0.030 × 10, 0.031 × 10), duodenal perforation 0 (95%CI -0.033 × 10, 0.034 × 10), pancreatic fistula 0 (95%CI -0.029 × 10, 0.029 × 10), abscess 0 (95%CI -0.029 × 10, 0.029 × 10) and sepsis 0 (95%CI -0.029 × 10, 0.030 × 10). Subgroup analysis based on the tumor size, site, needle type and tumor style also showed robust results. The pooled data showed EUS-guided pancreas biopsy could be a safe approach for the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions. More large-scale studies will be necessary to confirm the findings across different population.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Cohort Studies; Duodenum; Early Detection of Cancer; Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration; Hemorrhage; Incidence; Intestinal Perforation; Pancreas; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreatitis; Safety
PubMed: 31974051
DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2019.12.011 -
ANZ Journal of Surgery Feb 2024The majority of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) have advanced disease at presentation, preventing treatment with curative intent. Management of these...
BACKGROUND
The majority of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) have advanced disease at presentation, preventing treatment with curative intent. Management of these patients is often provided by surgical teams for whom there are a lack of widely accepted strategies for care. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to identify key issues in patients with advanced PDAC and integrate the evidence to form a care bundle checklist for use in surgical clinics.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed regarding best supportive care for advanced PDAC according to the PRISMA guidelines. Interventions pertaining to supportive care were included whilst preventative and curative treatments were excluded. A narrative review was planned.
RESULTS
Forty-four studies were assessed and four themes were developed: (i) Pain is an undertreated symptom, requiring escalating analgesics and sometimes invasive modalities. (ii) Health-related quality of life necessitates optimisation by involving family, carers and multi-disciplinary teams. (iii) Malnutrition and weight loss can be mitigated with early assessment, replacement therapies and resistance exercise. (iv) Biliary and duodenal obstruction can often be relieved by endoscopic/radiological interventions with surgery rarely required.
CONCLUSION
This is the first systematic review to evaluate the different types of interventions utilized during best supportive care in patients with advanced PDAC. It provides a comprehensive care bundle for surgeons that informs management of the common issues experienced by patients within a multidisciplinary environment.
PubMed: 38366699
DOI: 10.1111/ans.18906