-
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 -
Cureus Aug 2023Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) refers to the occurrence of an open erosion in the inner lining of the stomach, duodenum, or sometimes lower esophagus. Treatments like proton... (Review)
Review
Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Proton Pump Inhibitors and Histamine-2 Receptor Antagonists in the Management of Patients With Peptic Ulcer Disease: A Systematic Review.
Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) refers to the occurrence of an open erosion in the inner lining of the stomach, duodenum, or sometimes lower esophagus. Treatments like proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) are available on the market to efficiently treat the break in the mucosal lining. However, there is little evidence about the effects of the medication on the type and location of the ulcer and the epigastric pain caused by disintegration and increased acidity in the stomach. Given the above, we conducted a systematic review comparing the safety and efficacy of PPIs and H2RAs in various ulcer locations (gastric, duodenal, and pre-pyloric) and the effect of prolonging the treatment with the same medication or changing into a drug from another class in treatment-resistant ulcers. We employed major research literature databases and search engines such as PubMed, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Science Direct, and Google Scholar to find relevant articles. After a thorough screening, a quality check using various tools, and applying filters that suited our eligibility criteria, we identified eight articles, of which five were random clinical trials (RCTs), two review articles, and one meta-analysis. This study compares the different side effects of PPIs and H2RAs. Most studies concluded that omeprazole is superior in healing ulcers and bringing pain relief and that patients resistant to H2RAs can be treated better when switched to a PPI. This study also discusses the adverse effects of chronic use, such as diarrhea, constipation, headaches, and gastrointestinal infections. Patients on long-term PPI therapy are required to take calcium supplements to prevent the risk of fractures in older adults. Regarding long-term outcomes, PPIs remain the mainstay of treatment for peptic ulcer disease, based on the papers we reviewed.
PubMed: 37779765
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.44341 -
Digestive Surgery 2021The management of the pancreas in patients with duodenal trauma or duodenal tumors remains a controversial issue. Pancreas-preserving total duodenectomy (PPTD) requires...
BACKGROUND
The management of the pancreas in patients with duodenal trauma or duodenal tumors remains a controversial issue. Pancreas-preserving total duodenectomy (PPTD) requires a meticulous surgical technique. The most common indication is familial duodenal adenomatous polyposis (FAP). The aims of this study are to carry out a systematic review of the literature on the indications for PPTD and to highlight the risks and benefits compared with other more aggressive procedures.
SUMMARY
A systematic literature review was performed following PRISMA recommendations of studies published in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library until May 2019. Thirty articles describing 211 patients were chosen. The mean age was 48 years. The surgical indication in 75% of patients was FAP. The mean operating time was 329 min and mean intraoperative bleeding 412 mL. Postoperative morbidity rate was 49.7% (76% Clavien-Dindo
97.8%. Key Messages: PPTD is indicated for patients with benign and premalignant duodenal lesions without involvement of the pancreatic head. It is a feasible procedure offering an alternative to other more aggressive procedures in selected patients. Mortality is below 1.5%. Topics: Adenomatous Polyposis Coli; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Duodenal Neoplasms; Duodenum; Humans; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 34000717
DOI: 10.1159/000515718 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aug 2023Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The clinical implication of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for non-pancreatic periampullary cancer: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity between these tumors. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the role of MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC).
METHODS
A systematic review of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed by two independent reviewers to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD for NPPC (ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenal adenocarcinoma) (01/2015-12/2021). Individual patient data were required from all identified studies. Primary outcomes were (90-day) mortality, and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3a-5). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), blood-loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS
Overall, 16 studies with 1949 patients were included, combining 928 patients with ampullary, 526 with distal cholangio, and 461 with duodenal cancer. In total, 902 (46.3%) patients underwent MIPD, and 1047 (53.7%) patients underwent OPD. The rates of 90-day mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DGE, PPH, blood-loss, and length of hospital stay did not differ between MIPD and OPD. Operation time was 67 min longer in the MIPD group (P = 0.009). A decrease in DFS for ampullary (HR 2.27, P = 0.019) and distal cholangio (HR 1.84, P = 0.025) cancer, as well as a decrease in OS for distal cholangio (HR 1.71, P = 0.045) and duodenal cancer (HR 4.59, P < 0.001) was found in the MIPD group.
CONCLUSIONS
This individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with NPPC suggests that MIPD is not inferior in terms of short-term morbidity and mortality. Several major limitations in long-term data highlight a research gap that should be studied in prospective maintained international registries or randomized studies for ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenum cancer separately.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42021277495) on the 25th of October 2021.
Topics: Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Duodenal Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Pancreas; Postoperative Complications; Laparoscopy; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37581763
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03047-4 -
BioMed Research International 2017The results of this meta-analysis show that DPPHR should be established as first-line treatment because of lower level of severe early postoperative complications,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Duodenum-Preserving Resection of the Pancreatic Head versus Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Treatment of Chronic Pancreatitis with Enlargement of the Pancreatic Head: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
The results of this meta-analysis show that DPPHR should be established as first-line treatment because of lower level of severe early postoperative complications, maintenance of endocrine pancreatic functions, shortening of postoperative hospitalization time, and increase of quality of life compared to pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Topics: Duodenum; Humans; Pancreas; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatitis, Chronic; Postoperative Period; Quality of Life
PubMed: 28904954
DOI: 10.1155/2017/3565438 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2022Invasion of the pancreas and/or duodenum with/without neighboring organs by locally advanced right colon cancer (LARCC) is a very rare clinical phenomenon that is...
PURPOSE
Invasion of the pancreas and/or duodenum with/without neighboring organs by locally advanced right colon cancer (LARCC) is a very rare clinical phenomenon that is difficult to manage. The purpose of this review is to suggest the most reasonable surgical approach for primary right colon cancer invading neighboring organs such as the pancreas and/or duodenum.
METHODS
An extensive systematic research was conducted in PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) using the MeSH terms and keywords. Data were extracted from the patients who underwent en bloc resection and local resection with right hemicolectomy (RHC), the analysis was performed with the survival rate as the outcome parameters.
RESULTS
As a result of the analysis of 117 patient data with locally advanced colon cancer (LACC) (73 for males, 39 for females) aged 25-85 years old from 11 articles between 2008 and 2021, the survival rate of en bloc resection was 72% with invasion of the duodenum, 71.43% with invasion of the pancreas, 55.56% with simultaneous invasion of the duodenum and pancreas, and 57.9% with invasion of neighboring organs with/without invasion of duodenum and/or pancreas. These survival results were higher than with local resection of the affected organ plus RHC.
CONCLUSION
When the LARCC has invaded neighboring organs, particularly when duodenum or pancreas are invaded simultaneously or individually, en bloc resection is a reasonable option to increase patient survival after surgery.
PubMed: 36714149
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.1044163 -
United European Gastroenterology Journal Nov 2023Several studies have suggested that the mucosal protective effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) do not extend beyond the duodenum; however, PPIs may cause lower... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several studies have suggested that the mucosal protective effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) do not extend beyond the duodenum; however, PPIs may cause lower gastrointestinal (LGI) injury, although these relationships have not yet been fully elucidated.
METHODS
We searched all the relevant studies published until September 2022 that examined the risk of PPIs for LGI bleeding. We performed a meta-analysis of the risk of LGI bleeding (small bowel (SB) or colorectal bleeding) between PPI users and non-users. A subgroup analysis of patients consuming aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) was also performed.
RESULTS
Twelve studies with 341,063 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The use of PPIs was associated with the risk of LGI bleeding (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval [CI]] = 1.42 [1.16-1.73]; hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI] = 3.23 [1.56-6.71]). An association between PPI use and the risk of LGI bleeding was also identified in the subgroup of aspirin or NSAID users (OR [95% CI] = 1.64 [1.49-1.80]; HR [95% CI] = 6.55 [2.01-21.33]). In the bleeding site-specific analyses, the risk of SB bleeding was associated with PPI use (OR [95% CI] = 1.54 [1.30-1.84]).
CONCLUSIONS
PPI use was associated with an increased risk of LGI bleeding, particularly SB bleeding. This association was particularly pronounced among aspirin and NSAID users. Inappropriate PPI prescriptions should be avoided in patients with LGI bleeding and a low risk of upper gastrointestinal disease.
Topics: Humans; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Aspirin; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Colorectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 37553807
DOI: 10.1002/ueg2.12448 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2013The role of prophylactic gastrojejunostomy in patients with unresectable periampullary cancer is controversial. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The role of prophylactic gastrojejunostomy in patients with unresectable periampullary cancer is controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether prophylactic gastrojejunostomy should be performed routinely in patients with unresectable periampullary cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
For the initial version of this review, we searched the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded until April 2010. Literature searches were re-run in August 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials comparing prophylactic gastrojejunostomy versus no gastrojejunostomy in patients with unresectable periampullary cancer (irrespective of language or publication status).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and independently extracted data. We analysed data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using Review Manager (RevMan). We calculated the hazard ratio (HR), risk ratio (RR), and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on an intention-to-treat or available case analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified two trials (of high risk of bias) involving 152 patients randomised to gastrojejunostomy (80 patients) and no gastrojejunostomy (72 patients). In both trials, patients were found to be unresectable during exploratory laparotomy. Most of the patients also underwent biliary-enteric drainage. There was no evidence of difference in the overall survival (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.25), peri-operative mortality or morbidity, quality of life, or hospital stay (MD 0.97 days; 95%CI -0.18 to 2.12) between the two groups. The proportion of patients who developed long-term gastric outlet obstruction was significantly lower in the prophylactic gastrojejunostomy group (2/80; 2.5%) compared with no gastrojejunostomy group (20/72; 27.8%) (RR 0.10; 95%CI 0.03 to 0.37). The operating time was significantly longer in the gastrojejunostomy group compared with no gastrojejunostomy group (MD 45.00 minutes; 95%CI 21.39 to 68.61).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Routine prophylactic gastrojejunostomy is indicated in patients with unresectable periampullary cancer undergoing exploratory laparotomy (with or without hepaticojejunostomy).
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Gastric Bypass; Gastric Outlet Obstruction; Humans; Jaundice; Length of Stay; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23450583
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008533.pub3 -
Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) Jan 2016The aim of this study is to address the outcomes of endoscopic resection compared with surgery in the treatment of ampullary adenomas. A systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this study is to address the outcomes of endoscopic resection compared with surgery in the treatment of ampullary adenomas. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. For this purpose, the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), Scopus and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases were scanned. Studies included patients with ampullary adenomas and data considering endoscopic treatment compared with surgery. The entire analysis was based on a fixed-effects model. Five retrospective cohort studies were selected (466 patients). All five studies (466 patients) had complete primary resection data available and showed a difference that favored surgical treatment (risk difference [RD] = -0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.44 to -0.04). Primary success data were identified in all five studies as well. Analysis showed that the surgical approach outperformed endoscopic treatment for this outcome (RD = -0.37, 95% CI = -0.50 to -0.24). Recurrence data were found in all studies (466 patients), with a benefit indicated for surgical treatment (RD = 0.10, 95% CI = -0.01 to 0.19). Three studies (252 patients) presented complication data, but analysis showed no difference between the approaches for this parameter (RD = -0.15, 95% CI = -0.53 to 0.23). Considering complete primary resection, primary success and recurrence outcomes, the surgical approach achieves significantly better results. Regarding complication data, this systematic review concludes that rates are not significantly different.
Topics: Adenoma; Ampulla of Vater; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Duodenal Neoplasms; Endoscopy; Humans; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Recurrence; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26872081
DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2016(01)06 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Jul 2014The onset of a sprue-like enteropathy in association with olmesartan therapy has been recently reported. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The onset of a sprue-like enteropathy in association with olmesartan therapy has been recently reported.
AIMS
To perform a systematic review of the literature and describe three additional cases of olmesartan-associated enteropathy.
METHODS
Electronic and manual bibliographic searches were performed to identify original reports in which subjects who were undertaking olmesartan developed a sprue-like enteropathy. Because of the scarcity of studies with adequate sample size, case series with less than 10 patients and case reports were also considered. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers.
RESULTS
A total of 11 publications met our pre-defined inclusion criteria, for an overall number of 54 patients (including our series). Almost all patients presented with diarrhoea and weight loss. Normocytic normochromic anaemia and hypoalbuminaemia were the commonest laboratory defects at presentation. Antibody testing for coeliac disease was always negative. Variable degrees of duodenal villous atrophy were present in 98% of patients, while increased intra-epithelial lymphocytes were documented in only 65% of cases. After discontinuation of olmesartan, all reported patients achieved resolution of signs and symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the available evidence is limited, the olmesartan-associated sprue-like enteropathy may be considered as a distinct clinical entity, and should be included in the differential diagnosis when serological testing for coeliac disease is negative.
Topics: Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers; Atrophy; Celiac Disease; Diagnosis, Differential; Diarrhea; Duodenum; Humans; Imidazoles; Microvilli; Tetrazoles; Weight Loss
PubMed: 24805127
DOI: 10.1111/apt.12780