-
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic... Jul 2017Duodenal lipoma is very rare with limited case reports present in literature. Owing to recent advances in endoscopy and modern imaging techniques, more cases are being... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Duodenal lipoma is very rare with limited case reports present in literature. Owing to recent advances in endoscopy and modern imaging techniques, more cases are being diagnosed and treated. However, no systematic study of duodenal lipomas has been reported.
AIM
To study the diagnosis and treatment of duodenal lipoma in a female patient and review the relative literatures to enhance the knowledge of it.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A literature search for 'duodenal lipoma' was performed on PubMed. Papers published from 1948 to 2016 in the English language were identified. Each article was then read in detail and analysed for clinical data, imaging features, diagnosis and therapy. Also, we hereby present a case of upper gastrointestinal obstruction secondary to multiple duodenal lipomas in a 67-year-old woman. The patient underwent a limited bowel resection with an uneventful recovery.
RESULTS
Literature review demonstrated 59 cases of duodenal lipoma, which indicate that duodenal lipomas are rare to occur but commonly found in the second part. The peak of incidence seems to be around the fifth and seventh decade of life. Duodenal lipomas may present as gastrointestinal bleeding, abdominal pain, obstruction or upper abdominal fullness. CT, MRI, Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS), endoscopy are highly accurate diagnostic tools. The disease could be managed by endoscopy or surgery.
CONCLUSION
Our review of literature indicated duodenal lipoma is extremely rare. The symptoms are nonspecific and CT is the first choice for diagnosis. The treatment depends on the patient's condition as well as the size and position of the tumour.
PubMed: 28892976
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/27748.10322 -
International Journal of Clinical... Mar 2021It is well known that surgery is the mainstay treatment for duodenal adenocarcinoma. However, the optimal extent of surgery is still under debate. We aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
It is well known that surgery is the mainstay treatment for duodenal adenocarcinoma. However, the optimal extent of surgery is still under debate. We aimed to systematically review and perform a meta-analysis of limited resection (LR) and pancreatoduodenectomy for patients with duodenal adenocarcinoma. A systematic electronic database search of the literature was performed using PubMed and the Cochrane Library. All studies comparing LR and pancreatoduodenectomy for patients with duodenal adenocarcinoma were selected. Long-term overall survival was considered as the primary outcome, and perioperative morbidity and mortality as the secondary outcomes. Fifteen studies with a total of 3166 patients were analyzed; 995 and 1498 patients were treated with limited resection and pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Eight and 7 studies scored a low and intermediate risk of publication bias, respectively. The LR group had a more favorable result than the pancreatoduodenectomy group in overall morbidity (odd ratio [OR]: 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17-0.65) and postoperative pancreatic fistula (OR: 0.13, 95% CI 0.04-0.43). Mortality (OR: 0.96, 95% CI 0.70-1.33) and overall survival (OR: 0.61, 95% CI 0.33-1.13) were not significantly different between the two groups, although comparison of the two groups stratified by prognostic factors, such as T categories, was not possible due to a lack of detailed data. LR showed long-term outcomes equivalent to those of pancreatoduodenectomy, while the perioperative morbidity rates were lower. LR could be an option for selected duodenal adenocarcinoma patients with appropriate location or depth of invasion, although further studies are required.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Anastomosis, Surgical; Duodenal Neoplasms; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy
PubMed: 33386555
DOI: 10.1007/s10147-020-01840-5 -
Annals of Surgical Oncology Sep 2018Duodenal adenocarcinoma (DA) is a rare tumor for which survival data per treatment modality and disease stage are unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Duodenal adenocarcinoma (DA) is a rare tumor for which survival data per treatment modality and disease stage are unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to summarize the current literature on patient outcome after surgical, (neo)adjuvant, and palliative treatment in patients with DA.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, to 25 April 2017. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS), specified for treatment strategy or disease stage. Random-effects models were used for the calculation of pooled odds ratios per treatment modality. Included papers were also screened for prognostic factors.
RESULTS
A total of 26 observational studies, comprising 6438 patients with DA, were included. Of these, resection with curative intent was performed in 71% (range 53-100%) of patients, and 29% received palliative treatment (range 0-61%). The pooled 5-year OS rate was 46% after curative resection, compared with 1% in palliative-treated patients (OR 0.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02-0.09, p < 0.0001). Both segmental resection and pancreaticoduodenectomy allowed adequate assessment of lymph node involvement and resulted in similar OS. Lymph node involvement correlated with worse OS (pooled 5-year survival rate 21% for nodal metastases vs. 65% for node-negative disease; OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.11-0.27, p < 0.0001). In the current literature, no survival benefit for adjuvant therapy after curative resection was found.
CONCLUSION
Resection with curative intent, either pancreaticoduodenectomy or segmental resection, and lack of nodal metastases, favors survival for DA. Further studies exploring multimodality (neo)adjuvant therapy are warranted to investigate their benefit.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Chemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Duodenal Neoplasms; Humans; Lymphatic Metastasis; Metastasectomy; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Palliative Care; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29946997
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-018-6567-6 -
Annals of Surgical Oncology Feb 2024The role of systemic therapy in the management of ampullary (AA) and duodenal adenocarcinoma (DA) remains poorly understood. This study sought to synthesize current... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The role of systemic therapy in the management of ampullary (AA) and duodenal adenocarcinoma (DA) remains poorly understood. This study sought to synthesize current evidence supporting the use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in AA and DA.
METHODS
The study searched PubMed, Cochrane Library (Wiley), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL (EBSCO), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for observational or randomized studies published between 2002 and 2022 evaluating survival outcomes for patients with non-metastatic AA or DA who received systemic therapy and surgical resection. The data extracted included overall survival, progression-free survival, and pathologic response (PR) rate.
RESULTS
From the 347 abstracts identified in this study, 29 reports were reviewed in full, and 15 were included in the final review. The selected studies published from 2007 to 2022 were retrospective. Eight were single-center studies; five used the National Cancer Database (NCDB); and two were European multicenter/national studies. Overall, no studies identified survival differences between NAT and upfront surgery (with or without adjuvant therapy). Two NCDB studies reported longer survival with NAT/AT than with surgery. Five single-center studies reported a significant portion of NAT patients who achieved PR, and one study identified major PR as an independent predictor of survival. Other outcomes associated with NAT included conversion from unresectable to resectable disease, reduced lymph node positivity, and decreased local recurrence rate.
CONCLUSION
Evidence supporting the use of NAT in AA and DA is weak. No randomized studies exist, and observational data show mixed results. For patients with DA and AA, NAT appears safe, but better evidence is needed to understand the preferred multidisciplinary management of DA and AA periampullary malignancies.
Topics: Humans; Adenocarcinoma; Combined Modality Therapy; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37952021
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-023-14531-y -
Annals of Surgical Oncology Oct 2014This study was designed to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent limited resection (LR) versus pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for duodenal... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
This study was designed to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent limited resection (LR) versus pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs).
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies analyzing the clinical outcomes of LR and PD for duodenal GISTs.
RESULTS
Eleven studies were included, of which 7 that compared 162 patients who underwent LR versus 98 patients who underwent PD were suitable for meta-analysis. Patients who underwent PD were more likely to have tumors which were large (≥ 5 cm) [76.0 vs. 36.6 %, odds ratio (OR) 5.49, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.8-16.76], with high mitotic count ≥5/50 high-power field (HPF) (33.7 vs. 18.5 %, OR 2.23, 95 % CI 1.22-4.08), classified as high risk (60.3 vs. 32.0 %, OR 3.23, 95 % CI 1.65-6.34), and which were located at D2 (80.5 vs. 28.6 %, OR 10.33, 95 % CI 5.22-20.47) compared with LR. PD was associated with a higher postoperative morbidity rate than LR [48.3 vs. 20.7 %, relative risk (RR) 2.34, 95 % CI 1.61-3.42]. LR was not associated with an increased local recurrence rate, had a better DFS [hazard ratio (HR) 2.07, 95 % CI 1.07-4.01], and lower rate of distant metastasis (8.9 vs. 25.8 %, OR 0.28, 95 % CI 0.13-0.59) compared with PD.
CONCLUSIONS
LR should be the procedure of choice for duodenal GIST whenever technically feasible, because it is associated with good oncologic outcomes and lower morbidity compared with PD. The oncologic outcome of GIST is more likely to be dependent on tumor biology rather that the type of surgical resection. The use of Imatinib in patients with duodenal GIST may potentially allow a proportion of patients who would otherwise require a PD to undergo LR instead.
Topics: Duodenal Neoplasms; Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors; Humans; Pancreatectomy; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Prognosis
PubMed: 24854490
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-014-3788-1 -
The American Journal of Gastroenterology Apr 2024Individuals with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) have an almost 20% lifetime risk of duodenal adenocarcinoma, currently the leading cause of death in FAP. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Individuals with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) have an almost 20% lifetime risk of duodenal adenocarcinoma, currently the leading cause of death in FAP. The Spigelman staging system provides guidance on the surveillance intervals and timing of prophylactic surgery. Still, its accuracy in predicting duodenal and papillary cancer development has not been systematically evaluated. We investigated the sensitivity and cancer risk of the Spigelman stages.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review on PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane and used a random-effects model to pool effect sizes.
RESULTS
After removing duplicate entries, we screened 1,170 records and included 27 studies for quantitative analysis. Once duodenal polyposis reaches Spigelman stage IV, the risk of duodenal and papillary cancers increased to 25% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12%-45%). However, the sensitivity of Spigelman stage IV for these cancers was low (51%, 95% CI 42%-60%), especially for papillary adenocarcinoma (39%, 95% CI 16%-68%). We investigated the reasons behind these low values and observed that duodenal cancer risk factors included polyps >10 mm, polyp count >20, and polyps with high-grade dysplasia. Risk factors associated with papillary cancer included a papilla with high-grade dysplasia or >10 mm. The evidence on other risk factors was inconclusive.
DISCUSSION
The current Spigelman staging system had a low sensitivity for duodenal and papillary adenocarcinomas. Two Spigelman variables (duodenal villous histology and polyp count) and the lack of papilla-specific variables likely contributed to the low sensitivity values for duodenal and papillary cancers, respectively. While clinicians may be familiar with its current form, there is an urgent need to update it.
Topics: Humans; Adenomatous Polyposis Coli; Duodenum; Duodenal Neoplasms; Polyps; Risk Factors
PubMed: 38294150
DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002688 -
Asian Journal of Surgery Jan 2020The purpose of this study is to assess the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors for survival of patients with duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) who... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The purpose of this study is to assess the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors for survival of patients with duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or local resection (LR). PubMed database was searched for relevant studies. A meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.3 software. Twenty-seven observational studies involving 1103 patients were included in the review. The overall morbidity and 30-day mortality was 27% and 0.5% respectively. The median (range) 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 87% (60-100%) and 71% (44-100%) respectively. In meta-analyses, factors associated with shorter DFS included male sex, mitotic index >5/50 high-power fields, high risk, tumor size >5 cm, and the PD procedure. Factors associated with shorter OS included mitotic index >5/50 high-power fields and tumor size >5 cm. Patients in PD group had a higher incidence of mitotic index >5/50 HPF, a higher incidence of high-risk classification, a higher incidence of tumors in the second portion of the duodenum, a larger tumor size, a longer duration of operation, more intraoperative blood loss, a greater blood transfusion requirement, a higher morbidity rate, a longer hospital stay, and an increased recurrence rate than those in LR group. In conclusion, the current literature review demonstrates that the postoperative prognosis of duodenal GIST is promising and mainly affected by tumor factors. The choice of the surgical approach should depend on the anatomical location and tumor size.
Topics: Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Gastrointestinal Neoplasms; Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors; Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Prognosis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30853211
DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2019.02.006 -
Clinical and Translational... Apr 2020Data about the efficacy of palliative double stenting for malignant duodenal and biliary obstruction are limited. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Data about the efficacy of palliative double stenting for malignant duodenal and biliary obstruction are limited.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed to assess the feasibility and optimal method of double stenting for malignant duodenobiliary obstruction compared with surgical double bypass in terms of technical and clinical success, adverse events, reinterventions, and survival. Event rates with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.
RESULTS
Seventy-two retrospective and 8 prospective studies published until July 2018 were included. Technical and clinical success rates of double stenting were 97% (95%-99%) and 92% (89%-95%), respectively. Clinical success of endoscopic biliary stenting was higher than that of surgery (97% [94%-99%] vs 86% [78%-92%]). Double stenting was associated with less adverse events (13% [8%-19%] vs 28% [19%-38%]) but more frequent need for reintervention (21% [16%-27%] vs 10% [4%-19%]) than double bypass. No significant difference was found between technical and clinical success and reintervention rate of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), percutaneous transhepatic drainage, and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage. ERCP was associated with the least adverse events (3% [1%-6%]), followed by percutaneous transhepatic drainage (10% [0%-37%]) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (23% [15%-33%]).
DISCUSSION
Substantially high technical and clinical success can be achieved with double stenting. Based on the adverse event profile, ERCP can be recommended as the first choice for biliary stenting as part of double stenting, if feasible. Prospective comparative studies with well-defined outcomes and cohorts are needed.
Topics: Bile Duct Neoplasms; Cholestasis; Drainage; Duodenal Neoplasms; Duodenal Obstruction; Endoscopy, Digestive System; Feasibility Studies; Humans; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Palliative Care; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Postoperative Complications; Reoperation; Stents; Stomach Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32352679
DOI: 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000161 -
Clinical Imaging 2016The duodenum is a short segment of the bowel that is frequently overlooked on radiologic examination. This unique portion occupies both intraperitoneal and... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
The duodenum is a short segment of the bowel that is frequently overlooked on radiologic examination. This unique portion occupies both intraperitoneal and extraperitoneal locations, with proximity to many visceral organs, including pancreas, stomach, aorta, and liver. This close proximity creates a differentiation challenge for the radiologist. Duodenal pathologies are categorized into neoplastic and nonneoplastic conditions. Majority of radiologists are familiar with duodenal neoplasm. However, duodenal involvement by a multitude of nonneoplastic conditions can be encountered. The majority of related radiology studies have concentrated on neoplasms of the duodenum-either primary or secondary. However, a broad range of nonneoplastic conditions merit discussion. In this review, multimodality imaging features of nonneoplastic duodenal diseases are discussed and emphasized.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review of the frequent imaging features of nonneoplastic diseases of the duodenum, with an emphasis on accurate diagnosis so that the patient who will benefit from treatment can be identified.
Topics: Cysts; Diverticulum; Duodenal Diseases; Duodenal Obstruction; Duodenum; Hernia; Humans; Intestinal Atresia; Intestinal Volvulus; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Multimodal Imaging; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 27572283
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2016.08.007 -
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Apr 2023Duodenal underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has been suggested as a feasible treatment option for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND/AIMS
Duodenal underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has been suggested as a feasible treatment option for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). However, its efficacy and safety have not been fully established yet. Thus, the objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy and safety of UEMR as compared with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) in the treatment of SNADETs.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library. Studies comparing CEMR and UEMR for the resection of SNADET were included. Outcomes included en-bloc and complete resection rates, adverse events, and procedure time.
RESULTS
A total of six studies with 2454 lesions were included in the quantitative synthesis. En-bloc and complete resection rates were not significantly different between UEMR and CEMR (OR for en-bloc resection: 0.997 [95% CI 0.439-2.266]; OR for complete resection: 0.960 [95% CI 0.628-1.468]). There was no significant risk difference for perforation (risk difference: - 0.002; 95% CI - 0.009 to 0.005) or delayed bleeding (risk difference: - 0.001; 95% CI - 0.014 to 0.011). Procedure time was significantly shorter in the UEMR (standardized mean difference: - 1.294; 95% CI - 2.461 to - 0.127). The risk of recurrence was not significantly different between UEMR and CEMR (risk difference: 0.001; 95% CI - 0.041 to 0.044).
CONCLUSION
Although our results did not show any superiority of UEMR over CEMR in the treatment of SNADETs, UEMR showed equivalent efficacy and safety as compared with CEMR and was associated with a shorter procedure time.
Topics: Humans; Endoscopic Mucosal Resection; Duodenum; Duodenal Neoplasms; Neoplasms, Glandular and Epithelial; Treatment Outcome; Intestinal Mucosa
PubMed: 36346490
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-022-07715-1