Perforating and nonperforating indications in repeated surgeries for Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in medical therapy for Crohn's disease (CD), most patients with CD require repeated resection surgeries. AIM: To analyze the perforating and nonperforating indications of repeated CD operations and identify the anastomosis characteristics for postoperative CD. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 386 patients who underwent at least one resection for CD between 2003 and 2013.Clinical characteristics of each surgery were collected. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine risk factors for recurrence. RESULTS: The indication for reoperation in CD tends to be the same as that for primary operation, i.e., perforating disease tends to represent as perforating disease and nonperforating as nonperforating. Concordance was found between the first surgery and second surgery in terms of the indication for the operation (P = 0.006), and the indication for the third surgery was also correlated with that for the second surgery (P = 0.033). Even if the correlation of surgical indications between repeated operations, the rate of perforating indication for the second and third surgeries was significantly higher than that of the first surgery. In addition, the presence of perforating CD was a predictor of recurrence for both the first and second surgeries. Moreover, anastomotic lesions were the most common sites of recurrence after the operation. Based on the importance of anastomosis, anastomosis might be a new type of disease location for the classification of postoperative CD. CONCLUSION: CD not only has stable characteristics but also progresses chronically. Perforation is a progressive surgical indication for Crohn's disease. For CD after surgery, anastomosis may be a new classification of disease location.

[Corrigendum] Increased expression of Lgr5 is associated with chemotherapy resistance in human gastric cancer.

An interested reader drew to the attention of the Journal that the western blot featured in Fig. 3B of the above paper also appeared as Fig. 3D in the following publication, featuring many of the same authors: Xi HQ, Cai AZ, Wu XS et al: Leucine­rich repeat­containing G­protein­coupled receptor 5 is associated with invasion, metastasis, and could be a potential therapeutic target in human gastric cancer. Br J Cancer 110: 2011­2020, 2014. After having consulted the authors about this matter, they conceded that there was a data sharing violation here, and that the image should not have been reproduced in the above article without having received the prior permission of the British Journal of Cancer. This permission has now been sought after and obtained, and Fig. 3 is reproduced opposite, now including the appropriate credit for the original source of Fig. 3B. The authors apologize to the Editors of the British Journal of Cancer and Oncology Reports, and to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [the original article was published in Oncology Reports 32: 181­188, 2014; DOI: 10.3892/or.2014.3204].

Palliative Therapy for Gastric Outlet Obstruction Caused by Unresectable Gastric Cancer: A Meta-analysis Comparison of Gastrojejunostomy with Endoscopic Stenting.

BACKGROUND: Gastrojejunostomy (GJJ) and endoscopic stenting (ES) are palliative treatments for gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) caused by gastric cancer. We compared the outcomes of GJJ with ES by performing a meta-analysis. METHODS: Clinical trials that compared GJJ with ES for the treatment of GOO in gastric cancer were included in the meta-analysis. Procedure time, time to resumption of oral intake, duration of hospital stay, patency duration, and overall survival days were compared using weighted mean differences (WMDs). Technical success, clinical success, procedure-related mortality, complications, the rate of re-obstruction, postoperative chemotherapy, and reintervention were compared using odds ratios (OR s). RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the analysis. Technical success and clinical success were not significantly different between the ES and GJJ groups. The ES group had a shorter procedure time (WMD = -80.89 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -93.99 to -67.78,P < 0.001), faster resumption of oral intake (WMD = -3.45 days, 95% CI = -5.25 to -1.65,P < 0.001), and shorter duration of hospital stay (WMD = -7.67 days, 95% CI = -11.02 to -4.33,P < 0.001). The rate of minor complications was significantly higher in the GJJ group (OR = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.04-0.40,P < 0.001). However, the rates of major complications (OR = 6.91, 95% CI = 3.90-12.25,P < 0.001), re-obstruction (OR= 7.75, 95% CI = 4.06-14.78,P < 0.001), and reintervention (OR= 6.27, 95% CI = 3.36-11.68,P < 0.001) were significantly lower in the GJJ group than that in the ES group. Moreover, GJJ was significantly associated with a longer patency duration (WMD = -167.16 days, 95% CI = -254.01 to -89.31,P < 0.001) and overall survival (WMD = -103.20 days, 95% CI = -161.49 to -44.91, P= 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both GJJ and ES are effective procedures for the treatment of GOO caused by gastric cancer. ES is associated with better short-term outcomes. GJJ is preferable to ES in terms of its lower rate of stent-related complications, re-obstruction, and reintervention. GJJ should be considered a treatment option for patients with a long life expectancy and good performance status.

Comparison of Therapeutic Efficacy between Gastrectomy with Transarterial Chemoembolization Plus Systemic Chemotherapy and Systemic Chemotherapy Alone in Gastric Cancer with Synchronous Liver Metastasis.

BACKGROUND: Systemic chemotherapy (SC) is the recommended treatment for gastric cancer with liver metastasis. However, the improvement in survival has been disappointing. The aim of this study was to compare the therapeutic efficacy of gastrectomy with transarterial chemoembolization plus SC (GTC) and SC alone for gastric cancer with synchronous liver metastasis. METHODS: From January 2008 to December 2013, 107 gastric cancer patients with synchronous liver metastasis attending the four participating centers were enrolled in this multicenter, ambispective, controlled cohort study. Patients who underwent GTC (n = 32) were compared with controls who were received SC alone (n = 75). The primary endpoints of the study were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints were response rate to treatment and treatment-related adverse effects. RESULTS: The median OS was 14.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI ]: 13.1-14.9 months) in the GTC treatment group and 8.0 months (95% CI : 6.6-9.4 months) in SC group, this difference being statistically significant (P < 0.001). The median PFS was significantly longer in the GTC than in the SC group (5 months, 95% CI : 2.2-7.8 months vs. 3 months, 95% CI : 2.3-3.4 months, respectively) (P < 0.001). The rate of response to treatment was significantly better in the GTC than the SC group (59.4% vs. 37.4%, respectively) (P = 0.035). According to multivariate analysis, OS in patients receiving combination treatment was significantly correlated with the size (P = 0.037) and extent of liver metastases (P < 0.001). PFS was also correlated with the extent of liver metastases (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: GTC is more effective than SC alone in patients with gastric cancer with synchronous liver metastasis. GTC therapy prolongs the survival of selected gastric cancer patients with synchronous liver metastasis.

Prognostic role of miR-200c in various malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

MiR-200c expression is dysregulated in various malignancies and may predict the survival of patients with cancer, although the results of different studies conflict. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to resolve this discrepancy. We queried the PubMed and Embase using multiple search strategies. Data were extracted from studies comparing overall survival and progression-free survival in patients with cancer with high and low levels of miR-200c expression. Fixed and random models were used where appropriate. A combined hazards ratio (HR) was calculated to estimate the association of high levels of miR-200c with survival. We selected 16 studies of 1485 participants for our final meta-analysis. Upregulated expression of miR-200c predicted significantly worse overall survival in patients with cancer (HR 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-2.16, P = 0.023). Subgroup analysis indicated that high levels of miR-200c was associated with decreased survival of Caucasians and patients with gynecological tumors with pooled HR values of 1.82 (95% CI 1.27-2.26, P = 0.01) and 3.23 (95% CI 1.11-9.38, P = 0.032), respectively. Because of the absence of apparent heterogeneity, the combined HRs were 1.69 (95% CI 1.24-2.30, P = 0.001) for squamous cell carcinoma and 1.91 (95% CI 1.40-2.59, P < 0.001) for samples from peripheral blood. Increased expression of miR-200c significantly associated with shorter progression-free survival of patients with cancer (HR 2.37; 95% CI 1.47-3.81, P < 0.001). Our meta-analysis indicates that the level of miR-200c expression predicted survival of patients with cancer, particularly for Caucasians and patients with gynecological cancer. Increased expression of miR-200c predicted shorter survival of patients with squamous cell carcinomas. Our findings indicate that monitoring the levels of miR-200c in blood may be useful for following tumor progression as well as patients' prognosis.

Hemolysis-free plasma miR-214 as novel biomarker of gastric cancer and is correlated with distant metastasis.

Circulating miRNAs gains popularity for its potential ability to serve as biomarkers of cancer. The aim of present study was to evaluate the usefulness of plasma miR-214 as novel biomarkers for gastric cancer (GC) detection. Attempts were made to address several pitfalls in sample processing and study design in previous studies. We conducted a two-step analysis: (1) in pilot study comprising of 30 patients and 30 controls, levels of miR-214 were significantly higher in primary GC tissues than normal tissues (P = 0.0215). Plasma miR-214 was significantly higher in patients with GC than in controls (P < 0.0001). (2) In test of larger cohort, there was significantly decreasing tendency of plasma miR-214 from patients before, 14 days and 1 month after surgical resection (P < 0.0001). There were significantly higher levels of miR-214 in 80 GC patients than in 70 controls (P < 0.0001). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves yielded area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.845. Moreover, high plasma miR-214 had significant correlation with distant metastasis (P = 0.038). Thus, our data suggest that plasma miR-214 was novel hemolysis-free markers of gastric cancer.

Effect of gastrectomy with bursectomy on prognosis of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis.

AIM: To evaluate the effect of bursectomy on overall survival, recurrence-free survival and safety of patients with gastric cancer by performing a meta-analysis. METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases for clinical research that compared bursectomy with non-bursectomy published before October 2013. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established and applied. Overall survival, recurrence-free survival, complications, hospital stay, operative time and blood loss were compared using hazard ratios (HRs), relative risks and weighted mean differences. Stata 12.0 software was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Four studies including 1130 patients were available for the analysis (430 in the bursectomy group, 700 in the non-bursectomy group). No statistically significant difference was observed in the rate of complications between the bursectomy group and the non-bursectomy group. Bursectomy did not have a significant effect (combined HR = 1.14, 95%CI: 0.88-1.47) on overall survival, and it was not a significant factor for recurrence-free survival (combined HR = 1.06, 95%CI: 0.82-1.37). CONCLUSION: Gastrectomy with bursectomy is not superior to non-bursectomy in terms of survival. Bursectomy is not recommended as a routine procedure for the surgical treatment of gastric cancer.

Increased expression of Lgr5 is associated with chemotherapy resistance in human gastric cancer.

Leucine-rich repeat-containing G protein-coupled receptor 5 (Lgr5), a marker of adult stem cells and cancer stem cells, plays important roles in tumor progression. Furthermore, Lgr5 also contributes to chemoradiotherapy resistance. However, the function of Lgr5 in the prediction of preoperative chemotherapy efficacy has not been reported. We evaluated the potential of Lgr5 in predicting tumor response and overall survival in advanced gastric cancer treated with preoperative chemotherapy. The association between Lgr5 and chemotherapy resistance was also investigated in gastric cancer cell lines. Hematoxylin and eosin staining and immunohistochemical analysis of Lgr5 expression were performed in 68 cases of gastric cancer treated with preoperative chemotherapy. Lgr5 expression was specifically silenced in the AGS gastric cancer cell lines by RNA interference. Levels of Lgr5 mRNA and protein in cell lines were detected by quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction or western blotting. Cell viability was evaluated by an MTT assay. Cell apoptosis was assessed by Annexin V-FITC/propidium iodide dual staining analysis. We found that Lgr5 expression was significantly associated with tumor regression grade after preoperative chemotherapy. The rate of positive Lgr5 expression was significantly higher in patients with poor tumor regression compared with those exhibiting tumor regression (P=0.001). Lgr5-positive patients had a significantly shorter survival time than Lgr5-negative patients (P=0.001). Inhibition of Lgr5 expression with small interfering RNA increased the sensitivity of AGS gastric cancer cells to chemotherapy. Our findings suggest that Lgr5 expression may be implicated in the chemoresistance of gastric cancer cells and is a potential novel biomarker for predicting response to chemotherapy and prognosis in gastric cancer patients, and may also represent a potential new therapeutic target for cancer therapy.

A meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) for gastric cancer is still a controversial surgical technique for adequate tumor resection, lymphadenectomy, and postoperative outcome. METHODS: A meta-analysis analyzed updated clinical trials that have compared RAG with laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) to evaluate whether RAG is equivalent to LAG. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the analysis, comprising 1,875 patients. RAG was associated with a longer operative time (p < 0.05), lower estimated blood loss (p < 0.05), and a longer distal margin (p < 0.05). RAG can be performed safely with lower estimated blood loss and a longer distal margin than with LAG. Complications, hospital stay, proximal margin, and harvested lymph nodes for RAG and LAG were similar. CONCLUSIONS: RAG is as acceptable as LAG for obtaining safe complications and for performing radical gastrectomy.