-
Histopathology Sep 2022Intraductal tubulopapillary neoplasm (ITPN) of the pancreas is a recently recognized pancreatic tumor entity. Here we aimed to determine the most important features with... (Review)
Review
AIMS
Intraductal tubulopapillary neoplasm (ITPN) of the pancreas is a recently recognized pancreatic tumor entity. Here we aimed to determine the most important features with a systematic review coupled with an integrated statistical approach.
METHODS AND RESULTS
PubMed, SCOPUS, and Embase were searched for studies reporting data on pancreatic ITPN. The clinicopathological, immunohistochemical, and molecular data were summarized. Then a comprehensive survival analysis and a comparative analysis of the molecular alterations of ITPN with those of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) from reference cohorts (including the International Cancer Genome Consortium- ICGC dataset and The Cancer Genome Atlas, TCGA program) were conducted. The core findings of 128 patients were as follows: (i) Clinicopathological parameters: pancreatic head is the most common site; presence of an associated adenocarcinoma was reported in 60% of cases, but with rare nodal metastasis. (ii) Immunohistochemistry: MUC1 (>90%) and MUC6 (70%) were the most frequently expressed mucins. ITPN lacked the intestinal marker MUC2; unlike IPMN, it did not express MUC5AC. (iii) Molecular landscape: Compared with PDAC/IPMN, the classic pancreatic drivers KRAS, TP53, CDKN2A, SMAD4, GNAS, and RNF43 were less altered in ITPN (P < 0.001), whereas MCL amplifications, FGFR2 fusions, and PI3KCA mutations were commonly altered (P < 0.001). (iv) Survival analysis: ITPN with a "pure" branch duct involvement showed the lowest risk of recurrence.
CONCLUSION
ITPN is a distinct pancreatic neoplasm with specific clinicopathological and molecular characteristics. Its recognition is fundamental for its clinical/prognostic implications and for the enrichment of potential targets for precision oncology.
Topics: Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Carcinoma, Papillary; Humans; Pancreas; Pancreatic Intraductal Neoplasms; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Precision Medicine
PubMed: 35583805
DOI: 10.1111/his.14698 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal and Liver... Jun 2022To investigate the efficacy of postoperative adjuvant transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) after resection. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To investigate the efficacy of postoperative adjuvant transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) after resection.
METHODS
Studies were systematically searched until August 2021 in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PUBMED, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, and Springer Link. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were considered as the main outcomes. Pooled hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was reported as results for the survival data. Subgroup analysis was conducted on the outcomes stratified by early-stage ICC and intra-arterial chemotherapeutic regimen.
RESULTS
Eleven studies with 2,757 patients were finally included in the study. The pooled HR of OS was 0.68 (95%CI: 0.50-0.87, I 2 =83.7%). The pooled HR of RFS was 1.00 (95%CI: 0.69-1.31, I 2 =88%). Receipt of postoperative adjuvant TACE improved the OS in the early-stage ICC subgroup (HR=0.68, 95%CI: 0.50-0.86, I 2 =54%). Addition of carboplatin could slightly improve the OS (HR=0.6, 95%CI: 0.35-0.85, I 2 =48%). But receipt of postoperative adjuvant TACE (HR=1.06, 95%CI: 0.83-1.29, I 2 =41.2%) or use of carboplatin (HR=1.30, 95%CI: 0.93-1.67, I 2 =0%) caused no significant improvement in the RFS in the early-stage ICC subgroup.
CONCLUSIONS
Postoperative adjuvant TACE could improve the OS in ICC patients after hepatectomy but could not prevent late recurrence. Survival benefit was also found in early-stage ICC patients undergoing postoperative adjuvant TACE after hepatectomy. Addition or non-addition of carboplatin in chemoembolization showed a similar OS outcome.
Topics: Bile Duct Neoplasms; Bile Ducts, Intrahepatic; Carboplatin; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Chemoembolization, Therapeutic; Cholangiocarcinoma; Hepatectomy; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35574621
DOI: 10.15403/jgld-4207 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Sep 2022Pancreatoduodenectomy is burdened by elevated postoperative morbidity. Pancreatic duct ligation or occlusion have been experimented as an alternative to reduce the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Postoperative morbidity and mortality after pancreatoduodenectomy with pancreatic duct occlusion compared to pancreatic anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Pancreatoduodenectomy is burdened by elevated postoperative morbidity. Pancreatic duct ligation or occlusion have been experimented as an alternative to reduce the insurgence of postoperative pancreatic fistula. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare postoperative mortality and morbidity (pancreatic fistula, postoperative hemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, pancreatic exocrine insufficiency and diabetes mellitus) between patients undergoing pancreatic anastomosis or pancreatic duct ligation/occlusion after pancreatoduodenectomy.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 studies was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane protocol (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021249232).
RESULTS
No difference in postoperative mortality was highlighted. Pancreatic anastomosis was found to be protective considering all-grades pancreatic fistula (RR: 2.38, p = 0.0005), but pancreatic duct occlusion presented a 3-folded reduced risk to develop "grade C" pancreatic fistula (RR: 0.36, p = 0.1186), although not significant. Diabetes mellitus was more often diagnosed after duct occlusion (RR: 1.61, p < 0.0001); no difference was found in terms of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (RR: 1.19, p = 0.151).
CONCLUSION
Postoperative mortality is not influenced by the pancreatic reconstruction technique. Pancreatic anastomosis is associated with a reduction in all-grades pancreatic fistula. More high-quality studies are needed to clarify if duct sealing could reduce the prevalence of "grade C" fistula.
Topics: Anastomosis, Surgical; Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency; Humans; Morbidity; Pancreatic Diseases; Pancreatic Ducts; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreaticojejunostomy; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 35450800
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2022.03.015 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Cannulation techniques have been recognized as being important in causing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). However,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cannulation techniques have been recognized as being important in causing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). However, considerable controversy exists about the usefulness of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique for the prevention of PEP.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique compared to the conventional contrast-assisted cannulation technique for the prevention of PEP in people undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic ERCP for biliary or pancreatic diseases.
SEARCH METHODS
For the previous version of this review, we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and major conference proceedings, up to February 2012, with no language restrictions. An updated search was performed on 26 February 2021 for the current version of this review. Two clinical trial registries, clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, were also searched in this update.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique versus the contrast-assisted cannulation technique in people undergoing ERCP.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors conducted study selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment independently. Using intention-to-treat analysis with random-effects models, we combined dichotomous data to obtain risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed heterogeneity using the Chi² test (P < 0.10) and I² statistic (> 50%). To explore sources of heterogeneity, we conducted a priori subgroup analyses according to trial design, publication type, risk of bias, use of precut sphincterotomy, inadvertent guidewire insertion or contrast injection of the pancreatic duct (PD), use of a PD stent, cannulation device, and trainee involvement in cannulation. To assess the robustness of our results, we carried out sensitivity analyses using different summary statistics (RR versus odds ratio (OR)) and meta-analytic models (fixed-effect versus random-effects) and per-protocol analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
15 RCTs comprising 4426 participants were included. There was moderate heterogeneity among trials for the outcome of PEP (P = 0.08, I² = 36%). Meta-analyses suggest that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique probably reduces the risk of PEP compared to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72, 15 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). In addition, the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in an increase in primary cannulation success (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.12, 13 studies, low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the need for precut sphincterotomy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.96, 10 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique, the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in little to no difference in the risk of post-sphincterotomy bleeding (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.54, 7 studies, low-certainty evidence) and perforation (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.11 to 8.23, 8 studies, very low-certainty evidence). Procedure-related mortality was reported by eight studies, and there were no cases of deaths in both arms (moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analyses suggest that the heterogeneity for the outcome of PEP could be explained by differences in trial design. The results were robust in sensitivity analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-certainty evidence that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique probably reduces the risk of PEP compared to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique. There is low-certainty evidence that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in an increase in primary cannulation success. There is low- and very low-certainty evidence that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in little to no difference in the risk of bleeding and perforation. No procedure-related deaths were reported. Therefore, the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique appears to be superior to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique considering the certainty of evidence and the balance of benefits and harms. However, the routine use of guidewires in biliary cannulation will be dependent on local expertise, availability, and cost. Future research should assess the effectiveness and safety of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique in the context of other pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic interventions for the prevention of PEP.
Topics: Catheterization; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Common Bile Duct; Humans; Pancreatitis; Sphincterotomy, Endoscopic
PubMed: 35349163
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009662.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Postoperative pancreatic fistula is a common and serious complication following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy has been used in many... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative pancreatic fistula is a common and serious complication following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy has been used in many centers to reconstruct pancreatic digestive continuity following pancreatoduodenectomy, however, its efficacy and safety are uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy versus other types of pancreaticojejunostomy for the reconstruction of pancreatic digestive continuity in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, and to compare the effects of different duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy techniques.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Library (2021, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to 9 January 2021), Embase (1988 to 9 January 2021), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1982 to 9 January 2021).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy with other types of pancreaticojejunostomy (e.g. invagination pancreaticojejunostomy, binding pancreaticojejunostomy) in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. We also included RCTs that compared different types of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy in participants undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified the studies for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model. We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 RCTs involving a total of 1696 participants in the review. One RCT was a dual-center study; the other 10 RCTs were single-center studies conducted in: China (4 studies); Japan (2 studies); USA (1 study); Egypt (1 study); Germany (1 study); India (1 study); and Italy (1 study). The mean age of participants ranged from 54 to 68 years. All RCTs were at high risk of bias. Duct-to-mucosa versus any other type of pancreaticojejunostomy We included 10 RCTs involving 1472 participants comparing duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy with invagination pancreaticojejunostomy: 732 participants were randomized to the duct-to-mucosa group, and 740 participants were randomized to the invagination group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Comparing the two techniques, the evidence is very uncertain for the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B or C; RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.26; 7 studies, 1122 participants; very low-certainty evidence), postoperative mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.49; 10 studies, 1472 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of surgical reintervention (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.95; 10 studies, 1472 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of postoperative bleeding (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.42; 9 studies, 1275 participants; very low-certainty evidence), overall rate of surgical complications (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36; 5 studies, 750 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.41 days, 95% CI -1.87 to 1.04; 4 studies, 658 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report adverse events or quality of life outcomes. One type of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy versus a different type of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy We included one RCT involving 224 participants comparing duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the modified Blumgart technique with duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the traditional interrupted technique: 112 participants were randomized to the modified Blumgart group, and 112 participants were randomized to the traditional interrupted group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Comparing the two techniques, the evidence is very uncertain for the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B or C; RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.75; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), postoperative mortality (there were no deaths in either group; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of surgical reintervention (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.18 to 20.91; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), rate of postoperative bleeding (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.12 to 70.11; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), overall rate of surgical complications (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.51; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (15 days versus 15 days; 1 study, 210 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report adverse events or quality of life outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy compared to invagination pancreaticojejunostomy on any of the outcomes, including rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula (grade B or C), postoperative mortality, rate of surgical reintervention, rate of postoperative bleeding, overall rate of surgical complications, and length of hospital stay. The evidence is also very uncertain whether duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the modified Blumgart technique is superior, equivalent or inferior to duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy using the traditional interrupted technique. None of the studies reported adverse events or quality of life outcomes.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Middle Aged; Mucous Membrane; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreaticojejunostomy; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35289922
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013462.pub2 -
Archives of Osteoporosis Feb 2022Osteopenia typically presents low bone mineral density (BMD) and has recently been reported as a prognostic factor in various cancers. However, the prognostic value of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Osteopenia typically presents low bone mineral density (BMD) and has recently been reported as a prognostic factor in various cancers. However, the prognostic value of osteopenia in digestive tract cancers remains to be defined. We aimed to review the prognostic value of preoperative osteopenia in patients with digestive cancers.
METHODS
Cohort studies evaluating the prognostic value of preoperative osteopenia in digestive cancers (colorectal, esophageal, hepatic, bile duct, and pancreatic cancer) were searched using electronic databases and trial registries. The exposure was defined as low BMD estimated by computed tomography at 11 thoracic vertebra, while comparator was normal BMD. The primary outcomes were overall survival and recurrence-free survival for osteopenia. Random effect meta-analyses were performed. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
A total of 11 studies (2230 patients) were included. Osteopenia was an independent risk factor for overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.47 to 2.78; I = 74%), along with sarcopenia. Osteopenia also predicted poor recurrence-free survival (HR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.36 to 2.81; I = 85%). In subgroup analyses, osteopenia predicted prognosis in colorectal, esophageal, hepatic, and bile duct cancers, but not in pancreatic cancer. The certainty of the evidence was low due to inconsistency and publication bias.
CONCLUSION
Osteopenia may be independently associated with poor prognosis in patients with digestive tract cancer. Further studies are needed to establish the relevance of osteopenia in the operative prognosis of these patients.
Topics: Bone Diseases, Metabolic; Humans; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Prognosis; Sarcopenia; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 35149903
DOI: 10.1007/s11657-022-01060-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021The use of surgical drains is a very common practice after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The use of surgical drains is a very common practice after pancreatic surgery. The role of prophylactic abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery is controversial. This is the third update of a previously published Cochrane Review to address the uncertain benifits of prophylactic abdominal drainage in pancreatic surgery.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of routine abdominal drainage after pancreatic surgery, compare the effects of different types of surgical drains, and evaluate the optimal time for drain removal.
SEARCH METHODS
In this updated review, we re-searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) on 08 February 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage versus no drainage in people undergoing pancreatic surgery. We also included RCTs that compared different types of drains and different schedules for drain removal in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified the studies for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We conducted the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For all analyses, we used the random-effects model. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for important outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified a total of nine RCTs with 1892 participants. Drain use versus no drain use We included four RCTs with 1110 participants, randomised to the drainage group (N = 560) and the no drainage group (N = 550) after pancreatic surgery. Low-certainty evidence suggests that drain use may reduce 90-day mortality (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.90; two studies, 478 participants). Compared with no drain use, low-certainty evidence suggests that drain use may result in little to no difference in 30-day mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.99; four studies, 1055 participants), wound infection rate (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; four studies, 1055 participants), length of hospital stay (MD -0.14 days, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.51; three studies, 876 participants), the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.23; four studies, 1055 participants), and quality of life (105 points versus 104 points; measured with the pancreas-specific quality of life questionnaire (scale 0 to 144, higher values indicating a better quality of life); one study, 399 participants). There was one drain-related complication in the drainage group (0.2%). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that drain use probably resulted in little to no difference in morbidity (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13; four studies, 1055 participants). The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of drain use on intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80; four studies, 1055 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional radiological interventions for postoperative complications (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.87; three studies, 660 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Active versus passive drain We included two RCTs involving 383 participants, randomised to the active drain group (N = 194) and the passive drain group (N = 189) after pancreatic surgery. Compared with a passive drain, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on 30-day mortality (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.06; two studies, 382 participants; very low-certainty evidence), intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.66; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), wound infection rate (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.90; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), morbidity (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.77; two studies, 382 participants; very low-certainty evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -0.79 days, 95% CI -2.63 to 1.04; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.83; two studies, 321 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no drain-related complication in either group. Early versus late drain removal We included three RCTs involving 399 participants with a low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, randomised to the early drain removal group (N = 200) and the late drain removal group (N = 199) after pancreatic surgery. Compared to late drain removal, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect of early drain removal on 30-day mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.45; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), wound infection rate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.85; two studies, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence), hospital costs (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.14; two studies, 258 participants; very low-certainty evidence), the need for additional open procedures for postoperative complications (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.10; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the need for additional radiological procedures for postoperative complications (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.79; one study, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found that early drain removal may reduce intra-abdominal infection rate (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89; two studies, 285 participants; very low-certainty evidence), morbidity (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; two studies, 258 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -2.20 days, 95% CI -3.52 to -0.87; three studies, 399 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence was very uncertain. None of the studies reported on drain-related complications.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with no drain use, it is unclear whether routine drain use has any effect on mortality at 30 days or postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery. Compared with no drain use, low-certainty evidence suggests that routine drain use may reduce mortality at 90 days. Compared with a passive drain, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of an active drain on mortality at 30 days or postoperative complications. Compared with late drain removal, early drain removal may reduce intra-abdominal infection rate, morbidity, and length of hospital stay for people with low risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula, but the evidence is very uncertain.
Topics: Abdomen; Drainage; Humans; Length of Stay; Pancreas; Pancreatic Fistula
PubMed: 34921395
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010583.pub5 -
World Journal of Gastrointestinal... Nov 2021Gastrointestinal tumors are among the most common cancer types, and early detection is paramount to improve their management. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) liquid biopsy raises...
BACKGROUND
Gastrointestinal tumors are among the most common cancer types, and early detection is paramount to improve their management. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) liquid biopsy raises significant hopes for non-invasive early detection.
AIM
To describe current applications of this technology for gastrointestinal cancer detection and screening.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed across the PubMed database. Articles reporting the use of cfDNA liquid biopsy in the screening or diagnosis of gastrointestinal cancers were included in the analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 263 articles were screened for eligibility, of which 13 articles were included. Studies investigated colorectal cancer (5 studies), pancreatic cancer (2 studies), hepatocellular carcinoma (3 studies), and multi-cancer detection (3 studies), including gastric, oesophageal, or bile duct cancer, representing a total of 4824 patients. Test sensitivities ranged from 71% to 100%, and specificities ranged from 67.4% to 100%. Pre-cancerous lesions detection was less performant with a sensitivity of 16.9% and a 100% specificity in one study. Another study using a large biobank demonstrated a 94.9% sensitivity in detecting cancer up to 4 years before clinical symptoms, with a 61% accuracy in tissue-of-origin identification.
CONCLUSION
cfDNA liquid biopsy seems capable of detecting gastrointestinal cancers at an early stage of development in a non-invasive and repeatable manner and screening simultaneously for multiple cancer types in a single blood sample. Further trials in clinically relevant settings are required to determine the exact place of this technology in gastrointestinal cancer screening and diagnosis strategies.
PubMed: 34853652
DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v13.i11.1799 -
Endoscopy International Open Nov 2021Approximately 11 % of biliary cannulations are considered difficult. The double guidewire (DGW-T) and transpancreatic sphincterotomy (TPS) are two useful techniques...
Approximately 11 % of biliary cannulations are considered difficult. The double guidewire (DGW-T) and transpancreatic sphincterotomy (TPS) are two useful techniques when difficult cannulation exists and the main pancreatic duct is unintentionally accessed. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and security of both DGW-T and TPS techniques in difficult biliary cannulation. We conducted a systematic review in different databases, such as PubMed, OVID, Medline, and Cochrane Databases. Were included all RCT which showed a comparison between TPS and DGW in difficult biliary cannulation. Endpoints computed were successful cannulation rate, median cannulation time, and adverse events rate. Four studies were selected (4 RCTs). These studies included 260 patients. The mean age was 64.79 ± 12.99 years. Of the patients, 53.6 % were men and 46.4 % were women. The rate of successful cannulation was 93.3 % in the TPS group and 79.4 % in the DGW-T group ( = 0.420). The rate of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) was lower in patients who had undergone TPS than DGW-T (TPS: 8.9 % vs DGW-T: 22.2 %, = 0.02). The mean cannulation time was 14.7 ± 9.4 min in the TPS group and 15.1 ± 7.4 min with DGW-T ( = 0.349). TPS and DGW are two useful techniques in patients with difficult cannulation. They both have a high rate of successful cannulation; however, the PEP was higher with DGW-T than with TPS.
PubMed: 34790542
DOI: 10.1055/a-1534-2388 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2021To compare perioperative and oncological outcomes of pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma (PDAC) after laparoscopic open pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD OPD), we performed a...
BACKGROUND
To compare perioperative and oncological outcomes of pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma (PDAC) after laparoscopic open pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD OPD), we performed a meta-analysis of currently available propensity score matching studies and large-scale retrospective cohorts to compare the safety and overall effect of LPD to OPD for patients with PDAC.
METHODS
A meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO and the registration number is CRD42021250395. PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before March 2021. Data on operative times, blood loss, 30-day mortality, reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall morbidity, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), blood transfusion, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), and oncologic outcomes (R0 resection, lymph node dissection, overall survival, and long-term survival) were subjected to meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Overall, we identified 10 retrospective studies enrolling a total of 11,535 patients (1,514 and 10,021 patients underwent LPD and OPD, respectively). The present meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences in overall survival time, 1-year survival, 2-year survival, 30-day mortality, Clavien-Dindo ≥3 complications, POPF, DGE, PPH, and lymph node dissection between the LPD and OPD groups. Nevertheless, compared with the OPD group, LPD resulted in significantly higher rate of R0 resection (OR: 1.22; 95% CI 1.06-1.40; = 0.005), longer operative time (WMD: 60.01 min; 95% CI 23.23-96.79; = 0.001), lower Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III rate ( = 0.02), less blood loss (WMD: -96.49 ml; 95% CI -165.14 to -27.83; = 0.006), lower overall morbidity rate (OR: 0.65; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.85; = 0.002), shorter LOS (MD = -2.73; 95% CI -4.44 to -1.03; = 0.002), higher 4-year survival time ( = 0.04), 5-year survival time ( = 0.001), and earlier time to starting adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery (OR: -10.86; 95% CI -19.42 to -2.30; = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
LPD is a safe and feasible alternative to OPD for patients with PDAC, and compared with OPD, LPD seemed to provide a similar OS.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails.
PubMed: 34778064
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.749140