Outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided ablation and minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of pancreatic insulinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and aims: Most pancreatic insulinomas can be treated by minimally invasive modalities. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the clinical outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided ablation and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the treatment of pancreatic insulinoma. Materials and methods: Online databases were searched for relevant studies. The primary aim was to compare the rates of adverse events (AEs) and the secondary aims were to compare the clinical and technical success rates, length of hospital stays, and symptom recurrence rates between EUS and MIS approaches. Results: Eight studies with 150 patients were identified that reported EUS-guided ablation outcomes, forming the EUS group, and 9 studies with 236 patients reported MIS outcomes, forming the MIS group. The pooled median age of the included patients in the EUS group was greater than that of the MIS group (64.06 vs. 44.98 years old, p < 0.001). Also, the technical success rate was significantly higher in the EUS group (100% vs. 96.6%, p = 0.025), while the clinical success was significantly higher (6%) in the MIS group (94% vs. 98.7%, p = 0.021). The AE rates (18.7% vs. 31.1%, p = 0.012) and severe AE rates (1.3% vs. 7.9%, p = 0.011) were significantly lower in the EUS group. The median length of hospital stay in the EUS group (2.68 days, 95% CI: 1.88-3.48, I2 = 60.3%) was significantly shorter than in the MIS group (7.40 days, 95% CI: 6.22-8.58, I2 = 42.2%, p < 0.001). The recurrence rate was significantly higher in the EUS group (15.3% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: EUS-guided ablation is associated with a lower AE rate and a shorter length of hospital stay, but a higher recurrence rate for the treatment of insulinoma compared with MIS. The EUS approach may be an alternative, even first-line, treatment for poor surgery candidates.

CLEC4E upregulation in gastric cancer: A potential therapeutic target correlating with tumor-associated macrophages.

Background: CLEC4E has been reported to promote lung cancer progression. Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) play an important role in tumorigenesis. Whether the expression of CLEC4E in TAMs is associated with gastric carcinogenesis remains unclear. Methods: The TIMER, UALCAN, UCSC Xena, and KM plotter databases are used to examine the expression of CLEC4E and its prognostic significance in gastric cancer (GC). Additionally, GO, KEGG, and GSEA analysis were conducted, and single-cell RNA-seq (scRNA-seq) datasets were utilized. The Coremine medical database was used to predict therapeutic drugs, and molecular docking was performed. Human GC samples were obtained, and co-culture models were constructed to evaluate the effects of CLEC4E in TAMs on tumor growth, migration, and invasion in vitro. Results: CLEC4E was significantly upregulated in GC, and high CLEC4E expression was associated with poor prognosis. Western blotting and immunostaining showed increased protein levels of CLEC4E in GC. GO, KEGG, and GSEA results indicated that CLEC4E is involved in immune response. Immune infiltration analysis demonstrated that CLEC4E expression positively correlated with multiple immune cell types. scRNA-seq analyses revealed that CLEC4E was predominantly expressed in myeloid cells specifically TAMs, in GC. In vitro experiments confirmed that MFC induced CLEC4E expression in TAMs to mediate tumor progression. Specifically targeting CLEC4E by si-CLEC4E or stigmasterol inhibited cancer cell migration and invasion. Conclusion: CLEC4E is a potential prognostic biomarker and new therapeutic target for GC that can be specifically targeted by stigmasterol.

Geriatric nutritional risk index as a predictor of prognosis in hematologic malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: Recent studies have reported inconsistent results regarding the association between geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) and clinical outcomes in patients with hematologic malignancies (HMs). We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of low GNRI on the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with HMs. Research Methods and Procedures: We conducted the research via PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify trials. Exploring the association between GNRI and prognosis in patients with HMs. A meta-analysis of OS and PFS was performed. Quality In Prognostic Studies instrument and Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment Scale were used to assess the quality of included trials. Results: Fourteen studies enrolling 3,524 patients with HMs were included. Low GNRI was associated with shorter OS (Hazard ratio (HR) = 1.77; 95% CI = 1.44-2.18, p < 0.01) and PFS (HR = 1.63; 95% CI = 1.17-2.27, p < 0.01) in patients with HMs. In the subgroup analysis, GNRI was not significantly associated with prognosis in Chinese patients with HMs (OS, HR =1.33; 95% CI = 0.89-1.98, p = 0.16; PFS, HR = 1.70; 95% CI = 0.72-4.01, p = 0.23). For the subgroup with a GNRI cutoff value less than 98, there was no significant difference in PFS (HR = 1.34; 95% CI = 0.98-1.83, p = 0.06). Conclusion: Low GNRI negatively impacted on the prognosis in patients with HMs. Prospective studies to identify the best cut-off value for GNRI are required.

Comprehensive gastroenterology endoscopy unit workflow and infection prevention during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experience with 159 cases in Wuhan, China.

During the outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Wuhan, the gastroenterology department of our hospital performed gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures using strict infection control measures. Thorough screening of incoming patients, separation of diagnostic and treatment areas, regional management, hierarchical protection, disinfection protocols, and other measures were enforced to prevent virus transmission during endoscopic treatments. During the COVID-19 pandemic, between February and March 2020, 159 endoscopic examinations and treatments were performed, including emergency endoscopy for 17 patients. Among these, seven patients were either previously infected with or were suspected carriers of the virus. Using the aforementioned control measures, we did not encounter a single case of cross-infection or infection among the patients or staff. The presented protocols may provide valuable insight regarding how to protect gastroenterology endoscopy units during the novel coronavirus disease pandemic.