-
Perineural Invasion is a Strong Prognostic Moderator in Ampulla of Vater Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis.Pancreas Jan 2019Ampulla of Vater carcinoma (AVC) has a broad spectrum of different prognoses. As such, new moderators of survival are urgently needed. We aimed at clarifying the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Ampulla of Vater carcinoma (AVC) has a broad spectrum of different prognoses. As such, new moderators of survival are urgently needed. We aimed at clarifying the prognostic role of perineural invasion in AVC.
METHODS
Using PubMed and SCOPUS databases, we conducted the first systematic review and meta-analysis on this topic.
RESULTS
Analyzing 29 articles for a total of 2379 patients, we found that the presence of perineural invasion increased the risk of all-cause mortality more than 2 times (relative risk [RR], 2.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.78-2.42 [P < 0.0001]; hazard ratio [HR], 2.72; 95% CI, 1.86-3.97 [P < 0.0001]), of cancer-specific mortality more than 6 times (RR, 6.12; 95% CI, 3.25-11.54 [P < 0.0001]; HR, 6.59; 95% CI, 2.29-3.49 [P < 0.0001]), and of recurrence more than 2 times (RR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.89-3.67 [P < 0.0001]; HR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.24-5.21 [P = 0.01]).
CONCLUSIONS
Perineural invasion is strongly associated with a poorer prognosis in AVC, influencing both survival and risk of recurrence. It should be reported in the final pathology report and should be taken into account by future oncologic staging systems, identifying a group of AVC with a more malignant biological behavior.
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Humans; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Perineum; Prognosis; Risk Factors
PubMed: 30451797
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000001194 -
Strahlentherapie Und Onkologie : Organ... Feb 2019Non-surgical treatment including stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) have been used practically as alternative modalities for unresectable or recurrent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Non-surgical treatment including stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) have been used practically as alternative modalities for unresectable or recurrent cholangiocarcinoma (CC). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of SBRT for such patients.
METHODS
Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane library databases were searched systematically until October 2017. Primary endpoint was 1‑year local control (LC) rate; 1‑year overall survival (OS), response rates, and grade ≥3 toxicities were assessed as secondary endpoints.
RESULTS
Eleven studies (226 patients) were included. The prescribed median SBRT dose was 45 (range 30-55) Gy in 3-5 fractions. The pooled 1‑year LC rate was 81.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 69.4-89.9%) in the studies using an equivalent dose in 2 Gy per fraction (EQD2) ≥71.3 Gy and 74.7% (95% CI 57.1-86.7%) in the studies using an EQD2 <71.3 Gy. The median OS was 13.6 (range 10-35.5) months. The pooled 1‑year OS rate was 53.8% (95% CI 44.9-62.5%) and the pooled 1‑year LC rate was 78.6% (95% CI 69.0-85.8%). Most common toxicity was duodenal ulcer and gastric ulcer in available studies, with the acute incidence of grade ≥3 of less than 10% and the late incidence of 10-20%.
CONCLUSIONS
SBRT was a feasible treatment option with respect to achieving a high LC for unresectable or recurrent CC. Gastrointestinal toxicity is acceptable, but remains an obstacle related to dose escalation.
Topics: Bile Duct Neoplasms; Cholangiocarcinoma; Feasibility Studies; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Radiosurgery; Radiotherapy Dosage; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30206644
DOI: 10.1007/s00066-018-1367-2 -
BMC Gastroenterology Jul 2018Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remains to be established as a safe and effective alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic-head and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) remains to be established as a safe and effective alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare LPD with OPD for these malignancies regarding short-term surgical and long-term survival outcomes.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted before March 2018 to identify comparative studies in regard to outcomes of both LPD and OPD for the treatment of pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancies. Morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), mortality, operative time, estimated blood loss, hospitalization, retrieved lymph nodes, and survival outcomes were compared.
RESULTS
Among eleven identified studies, 1196 underwent LPD, and 8247 were operated through OPD. The pooled data showed that LPD was associated with less morbidity (OR = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.41~ 0.78, P < 0.01), less blood loss (WMD = - 372.96 ml, 95% CI, - 507.83~ - 238.09 ml, P < 0.01), shorter hospital stays (WMD = - 197.49 ml, 95% CI, - 304.62~ - 90.37 ml, P < 0.01), and comparable POPF (OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.59~ 1.24, P = 0.40), and overall survival (HR = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.93~ 1.14, P = 0.54) compared to OPD. Operative time was longer in LPD (WMD = 87.68 min; 95%CI: 27.05~ 148.32, P < 0.01), whereas R0 rate tended to be higher in LPD (OR = 1.17; 95%CI: 1.00~ 1.37, P = 0.05) and there tended to be more retrieved lymph nodes in LPD (WMD = 1.15, 95%CI: -0.16~ 2.47, P = 0.08), but these differences failed to reach statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS
LPD can be performed as safe and effective as OPD for pancreatic-head and periampullary malignancy with respect to both surgical and oncological outcomes. LPD is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative morbidity and may serve as a promising alternative to OPD in selected individuals in the future.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Lymphatic Metastasis; Operative Time; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 29969999
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-018-0830-y -
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 -
Asian Journal of Surgery Jan 2019Primary duodenal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a rare malignancy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the published evidence for resection with curative intent in patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Primary duodenal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a rare malignancy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the published evidence for resection with curative intent in patients with PDAC. A literature search was conducted in PubMed and EMBASE databases for eligible studies that reported 5-year overall survival (OS) after surgical resection of PDAC from January 1990 to January 2018. Independent prognostic factors related to OS were evaluated using meta-analytical techniques. Odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) with their 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated as appropriate. Thirty-seven observational studies comprising a total of 1728 patients who underwent resection for PDAC were reviewed. The overall 30-day postoperative mortality was 3.2% (range, 0-16.0%) and the median 5-year OS was 46.4% (range, 16.6-71.1%). Surgical resection significantly improved the prognosis as compared with the palliative therapy (OR 15.76, P < 0.001). Lymph node metastasis (HR 2.58, P < 0.001), poor tumor differentiation (HR 1.43, P = 0.05), perineural invasion (HR 2.21, P = 0.002), and lymphovascular invasion (HR 2.18, 95% CI 1.18-4.03; P = 0.01) were found to be independently associated with decreased OS after surgical resection. The present study provides evidence that surgical resection can be performed safely for PDAC patients and offers a favorable long-term outcome. Tumor-specific factors have prognostic significance.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Confidence Intervals; Databases, Bibliographic; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Duodenal Neoplasms; Humans; Lymphatic Metastasis; Observational Studies as Topic; Odds Ratio; Prognosis; Proportional Hazards Models; Survival Rate; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29802028
DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2018.04.005 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Biliary tract cancers are a group of rare heterogeneous malignant tumours. They include intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas, gallbladder carcinomas, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Biliary tract cancers are a group of rare heterogeneous malignant tumours. They include intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas, gallbladder carcinomas, and ampullary carcinomas. Surgery remains the optimal modality of therapy leading to long-term survival for people diagnosed with resectable biliary tract carcinomas. Unfortunately, most people with biliary tract carcinomas are diagnosed with either unresectable locally-advanced or metastatic disease, and they are only suitable for palliative chemotherapy or supportive care.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of intravenous administration of gemcitabine monotherapy or gemcitabine-based chemotherapy versus placebo, or no intervention, or other treatments (excluding gemcitabine) in adults with advanced biliary tract carcinomas.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed electronic searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science up to June 2017. We also checked reference lists of primary original studies and review articles manually, for further related articles (cross-references).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Eligible studies include randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language or publication status, comparing intravenous administration of gemcitabine monotherapy or gemcitabine-based combination to placebo, to no intervention, or to treatments other than gemcitabine.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risks of bias of the included trials using definitions of predefined bias risk domains, and presented the review results incorporating the methodological quality of the trials using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven published randomised clinical trials with 600 participants. All included trials were at high risk of bias, and we rated the evidence as very low quality. Cointerventions were equally applied in three trials (gemcitabine plus S-1 (a combination of tegafur, gimeracil, and oteracil) versus S-1 monotherapy; gemcitabine plus S-1 versus gemcitabine monotherapy versus S-1 monotherapy; and gemcitabine plus vandetanib versus gemcitabine plus placebo versus vandetanib monotherapy), while four trials compared gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus S-1 plus cisplatin; gemcitabine plus mitomycin C versus capecitabine plus mitomycin C; gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus chemoradiotherapy; and gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid versus best supportive care. The seven trials were conducted in India, Japan, France, China, Austria, South Korea, and Italy. The median age of the participants in the seven trials was between 50 and 60 years, and the male/female ratios were comparable in most of the trials. Based on these seven trials, we established eight comparisons. We could not perform all planned analyses in all comparisons because of insufficient data.Gemcitabine versus vandetanibOne three-arm trial compared gemcitabine versus vandetanib versus both drugs in combination. It reported no data for mortality, health-related quality of life, or tumour progression outcomes. We rated the increased risk of serious adverse events, anaemia, and overall response rate as very low-certainty evidence.Gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus S-1 plus cisplatinFrom one trial of 96 participants, we found very low-certainty evidence that gemcitabine can lower the risk of mortality at one year when used with cisplatin versus S-1 plus cisplatin (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.98; P = 0.04; participants = 96). The trial did not report data for serious adverse events, quality of life, or tumour response outcomes. There is very low-certainty evidence that gemcitabine plus cisplatin combination leads to a higher risk of high-grade thrombocytopenia compared with S-1 plus cisplatin combination (RR 5.28, 95% CI 1.23 to 22.55; P = 0.02; participants = 96).Gemcitabine plus S-1 versus S-1From two trials enrolling 151 participants, we found no difference between the two groups in terms of risk of mortality at one year or risk of serious adverse events. Gemcitabine plus S-1 combination was associated with a higher overall response rate compared with S-1 alone (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.75; P = 0.007; participants = 140; trials = 2; I = 0%; very low certainty of evidence). Neither of the trials reported data for health-related quality of life or time to progression of the tumour.Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid versus best supportive careOne three-arm trial compared gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid versus best supportive care. It reported no data for serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, or tumour progression. We rated the evidence for mortality and for overall response rate as of very low certainty.Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin plus radiotherapyOne trial of 34 participants compared gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin versus 5-fluorouracil plus cisplatin plus radiotherapy. It reported no data for quality of life, overall response rate, or tumour progression outcomes. We rated the evidence for mortality and serious adverse events as of very low certainty.Gemcitabine plus mitomycin C versus capecitabine plus mitomycin COne trial of 51 participants compared gemcitabine plus mitomycin C versus capecitabine plus mitomycin C. It reported no data for serious adverse events, quality of life, or tumour progression. We rated the evidence for mortality, overall response rate and thrombocytopenia as of very low certainty.We also identified three ongoing trials evaluating outcomes of interest for our review, which we can incorporate in future updates.For-profit bias: there was a high risk of for-profit bias in two trials (because of industry sponsorship) while there was a low risk of for-profit bias in another three trials, and unclear risk in two trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In adults with advanced biliary tract carcinomas, the effects of gemcitabine or gemcitabine-based chemotherapy are uncertain on mortality and overall response compared with a range of inactive or active controls. The very low certainty of evidence is due to risk of bias, lack of information in the analyses and hence large imprecision, and possible publication bias. The confidence intervals do not rule out meaningful benefits or lack of effect of gemcitabine in all comparisons but one on mortality where gemcitabine plus cisplatin is compared with S-1 plus cisplatin. Gemcitabine-based regimens showed an increase in non-serious adverse events (particularly haematological toxicities). Further randomised clinical trials are mandatory, to further explore the best therapeutic options for adults with advanced biliary tract carcinomas.
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Biliary Tract Neoplasms; Capecitabine; Cholangiocarcinoma; Cisplatin; Deoxycytidine; Drug Combinations; Female; Gallbladder Neoplasms; Humans; Male; Mitomycin; Organoplatinum Compounds; Oxaliplatin; Oxonic Acid; Piperidines; Quinazolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tegafur; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 29624208
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011746.pub2 -
Journal of Vascular and Interventional... May 2018To compare postoperative complications in patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy after either endoscopic or percutaneous biliary drain (BD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Is Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage Better than Endoscopic Drainage in the Management of Jaundiced Patients Awaiting Pancreaticoduodenectomy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
To compare postoperative complications in patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy after either endoscopic or percutaneous biliary drain (BD).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Data from studies comparing the rate of postoperative complications in patients who underwent endoscopic BD or percutaneous BD before pancreatoduodenectomy were extracted independently by 2 investigators. The primary outcome compared in the meta-analysis was the risk of postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes were the risks of procedure-related complications, postoperative mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula, severe complications, and wound infection. For dichotomous variables, the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies, including 2334 patients (501 in the percutaneous BD group and 1833 in the endoscopic group), met the inclusion criteria. Postoperative and procedure-related complication rates were significantly lower in the percutaneous BD group (OR = .7, 95% CI = .52-.94, P = .02 and OR = .44, 95% CI = .23-.84, P = .01, respectively). No significant differences were observed when severe postoperative complications, postoperative mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula, and wound infection rates were compared.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients awaiting pancreatoduodenectomy, preoperative percutaneous BD is associated with fewer procedure-related or postoperative complications than endoscopic drain.
Topics: Bile Duct Neoplasms; Cholangiocarcinoma; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Drainage; Duodenal Neoplasms; Endoscopy; Humans; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 29548873
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2017.12.027 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Mar 2018Predicting the biologic behavior of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) remains challenging. Current guidelines utilize patient symptoms and imaging... (Review)
Review
Can we better predict the biologic behavior of incidental IPMN? A comprehensive analysis of molecular diagnostics and biomarkers in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas.
PURPOSE
Predicting the biologic behavior of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) remains challenging. Current guidelines utilize patient symptoms and imaging characteristics to determine appropriate surgical candidates. However, the majority of resected cysts remain low-risk lesions, many of which may be feasible to have under surveillance. We herein characterize the most promising and up-to-date molecular diagnostics in order to identify optimal components of a molecular signature to distinguish levels of IPMN dysplasia.
METHODS
A comprehensive systematic review of pertinent literature, including our own experience, was conducted based on the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
Molecular diagnostics in IPMN patient tissue, duodenal secretions, cyst fluid, saliva, and serum were evaluated and organized into the following categories: oncogenes, tumor suppressor genes, glycoproteins, markers of the immune response, proteomics, DNA/RNA mutations, and next-generation sequencing/microRNA. Specific targets in each of these categories, and in aggregate, were identified by their ability to both characterize a cyst as an IPMN and determine the level of cyst dysplasia.
CONCLUSIONS
Combining molecular signatures with clinical and imaging features in this era of next-generation sequencing and advanced computational analysis will enable enhanced sensitivity and specificity of current models to predict the biologic behavior of IPMN.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma, Mucinous; Biomarkers, Tumor; Biopsy, Needle; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Female; Humans; Immunohistochemistry; Incidental Findings; Male; MicroRNAs; Needs Assessment; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pathology, Molecular; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Predictive Value of Tests; Prognosis; Risk Factors
PubMed: 29218397
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-017-1644-z -
The British Journal of Surgery Jun 2017Periampullary cancers are uncommon malignancies, often amenable to surgery. Several studies have suggested a role for adjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Periampullary cancers are uncommon malignancies, often amenable to surgery. Several studies have suggested a role for adjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy in improving survival of patients with periampullary cancers, with variable results. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the survival benefit of adjuvant therapy for periampullary cancers.
METHODS
A systematic review was undertaken of literature published between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2015 to elicit and analyse the pooled overall survival associated with the use of either adjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy versus observation in the treatment of surgically resected periampullary cancer. Included articles were also screened for information regarding stage, prognostic factors and toxicity-related events.
RESULTS
A total of 704 titles were screened, of which 93 full-text articles were retrieved. Fourteen full-text articles were included in the study, six of which were RCTs. A total of 1671 patients (904 in the control group and 767 who received adjuvant therapy) were included. The median 5-year overall survival rate was 37·5 per cent in the control group, compared with 40·0 per cent in the adjuvant group (hazard ratio 1·08, 95 per cent c.i. 0·91 to 1·28; P = 0·067). In 32·2 per cent of patients who had adjuvant therapy, one or more WHO grade 3 or 4 toxicity-related events were noted. Advanced T category was associated worse survival (regression coefficient -0·14, P = 0·040), whereas nodal status and grade of differentiation were not.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review found no associated survival benefit for adjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in the treatment of periampullary cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Ampulla of Vater; Chemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Duodenal Neoplasms; Humans; Survival Rate
PubMed: 28518410
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10563 -
World Neurosurgery Apr 2017Clival metastases of adenocarcinomas are exceptionally rare tumors, especially when they arise from the small intestine. We present the first, to our knowledge, report... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Clival metastases of adenocarcinomas are exceptionally rare tumors, especially when they arise from the small intestine. We present the first, to our knowledge, report of a metastasis of a duodenal adenocarcinoma to the clivus. We also present a systematic review detailing metastasis to the clivus.
METHODS
Studies were identified using the search terms "clival metastasis," "skull base metastasis," and "clivus" in PubMed. We collected the following information: histopathology of the primary tumor, symptoms, history, treatment, and follow-up.
RESULTS
A comprehensive review of the literature yielded 56 cases. Patients developed the first symptoms of clival metastasis at a mean age of 58 years. The most common primary neoplasms originated from the prostate, kidney, or liver. Most patients presented with an isolated sixth nerve palsy or diplopia. The time interval from diagnosis of the primary tumor to symptomatic presentation of clival metastasis ranged from 2 months to 33 years. Sixteen patients initially presented with symptoms of clival metastasis without a previously diagnosed primary tumor. Survival data were available for 35 patients, of which 63% died within a range of 2 days to 31 months after initial presentation.
CONCLUSIONS
Most primary neoplasms originated from the prostate, kidney, and liver, which differ from previous reports on skull base metastases. Abducens nerve palsy is often the first presentation of clival metastasis. Clival metastasis from duodenal carcinoma, although very rare, should be considered in the differential diagnosis of bony lesions of the clivus in a patient with a history of duodenal adenocarcinoma.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Aged; Cranial Fossa, Posterior; Duodenal Neoplasms; Humans; Male; Skull Base Neoplasms
PubMed: 28034818
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.12.078