Pathological outcomes of transanal versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Since 2010, comparative studies on transanal and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) have been published and it remains unclear about the oncological benefit from transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME). METHODS: We have searched English databases to identify all taTME studies published between January 2010 and August 2017. Pathological outcomes included circumferential resection margin (CRM), positive CRM (< 1 M), length of distal resection margin (DRM), positive DRM, quality of mesorectum (complete mesorectum), harvested lymph node, and length of the specimen. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes. RESULTS: We have included ten studies comprising of 762 patients. Compared with laparoscopic TME, taTME had a longer CRM (WMD, 0.833; 95% CI 0.366-1.299; P < 0.001), a lower positive rate of CRM (OR, 0.505; 95% CI 0.258-0.991; P = 0.047), and a longer DRM (WMD, 6.261; 95% CI 1.049-11.472; P = 0.019). There were no significant differences in other pathological outcomes. Both cumulative meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis were unable to detect potential sources of the heterogeneity in DRM. There was no evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis revealed that taTME had more advantages on positive CRM, CRM, and DRM compared with laparoscopic TME. Compared with laparoscopic TME, more benefits of taTME on pathological outcomes remained undetected. The current findings are all based on observational studies, RCTs with adequate power are required.

Human colorectal cancer cells frequently express IgG and display unique Ig repertoire.

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence proving that many human carcinomas, including colon cancer, can overexpress immunoglobulin (Ig); the non B cancer cell-derived Ig usually displayed unique V(D)J rearrangement pattern that are distinct from B cell-derived Ig. Especially, the cancer-derived Ig plays important roles in cancer initiation, progression, and metastasis. However, it still remains unclear if the colon cancer-derived Ig can display unique V(D)J pattern and sequencing, which can be used as novel target for colon cancer therapy. AIM: To investigate the Ig repertoire features expressed in human colon cancer cells. METHODS: Seven cancerous tissue samples of colon adenocarcinoma and corresponding noncancerous tissue samples were sorted by fluorescence-activated cell sorting using epithelial cell adhesion molecule as a marker for epithelial cells. Ig repertoire sequencing was used to analyze the expression profiles of all 5 classes of Ig heavy chains (IgH) and the Ig repertoire in colon cancer cells and corresponding normal epithelial cells. RESULTS: We found that all 5 IgH classes can be expressed in both colon cancer cells and normal epithelial cells. Surprisingly, unlike the normal colonic epithelial cells that expressed 5 Ig classes, our results suggested that cancer cells most prominently express IgG. Next, we found that the usage of Ig in cancer cells caused the expression of some unique Ig repertoires compared to normal cells. Some VH segments, such as VH3-7, have been used in cancer cells, and VH3-74 was frequently present in normal epithelial cells. Moreover, compared to the normal cell-derived Ig, most cancer cell-derived Ig showed unique VHDJH patterns. Importantly, even if the same VHDJH pattern was seen in cancer cells and normal cells, cancer cell-derived IgH always displayed distinct hypermutation hot points. CONCLUSION: We found that colon cancer cells could frequently express IgG and unique IgH repertoires, which may be involved in carcinogenesis of colon cancer. The unique IgH repertoire has the potential to be used as a novel target in immune therapy for colon cancer.

Ultrasonic versus electrosurgical device for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasonic and electrosurgical energy dissectors are main dissecting devices widely used for the laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Trial sequential analyses can establish whether firm evidence favoring a specific device has been reached from accumulated literature. To explore this, we performed a meta-analysis and trial sequential analyses. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2016. The primary outcome was operative time. The secondary outcomes included adverse events during operation, postoperative complications, intra-abdominal collection, hospital stay, hospital costs, and sick leave or time to full recovery. Relative risks (RRs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes. Finally, we calculated numbers needed to treat to examine benefits of the ultrasonic device. RESULTS: We identified 19 studies. Compared with the electrosurgical device, the ultrasonic device led to shorter operative time (MD, -14.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), -21.45 to -8.27; P < 0.00001), less blood loss (MD, -47.24; 95% CI, -79.57 to -14.90; P = 0.004), fewer gallbladder perforations (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.57; P < 0.00001), shorter hospital stay (MD, -0.37; 95% CI, -0.61 to -0.14; P = 0.002), and fewer abdominal pains (MD, -0.95; 95% CI, -1.40 to -0.50; P < 0.0001). The trial sequential analysis demonstrated that the cumulative z-curve crossed the trial sequential monitoring and reached the required information size of the operative time. The numbers needed to treat to avoid one gallbladder perforation and postoperative nausea, respectively, were 7 and 15. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the electrosurgery device, the ultrasonic device could be superior with more clinical effectiveness. The trial sequential analysis demonstrated that further studies about the operative time were not needed.

Meta-analysis of hand-sewn versus mechanical gastrojejunal anastomosis during laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) is one of the most performed bariatric procedures in treating morbid obesity. There is no consensus on which technique used for gastrojejunal anastomosis is optimal. The meta-analysis aimed to solve the issue by comparing hand-sewn with mechanical gastrojejunostomy during LRYGB for morbid obesity. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Google Scholar and Research Gate were searched (from inception to April 2016). Primary outcome was operation time. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications (anastomotic leak, stricture, bleeding, marginal ulcer and wound infection), percent excess weight loss during one-year follow-up, reoperation, and postoperative hospital stay. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. RESULTS: Twelve trials were included comprising 13,626 patients (3309 hand-sewn vs. 6791 circular vs. 3526 linear). There was no difference in operation time when hand-sewn anastomosis was compared with mechanical gastrojejunostomy (MD, -6.00; 95% confidence interval (CI), -34.85 to 22.85; P = 0.68), circular stapled anastomosis (MD, -5.24; 95% CI, -32.71 to 22.24; P = 0.71) or linear stapled anastomosis (MD, - 3.75; 95% CI, -64.81 to 57.31; P = 0.90). Hand-sewn anastomosis had significantly lower incidence rate of postoperative bleeding (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31-0.74; P = 0.001) and wound infection (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08-0.45; P = 0.0002) than circular stapled anastomosis; there were no significant differences in the other secondary outcome. And there were no significant differences in all the comparable outcomes between hand-sewn anastomosis and linear stapled anastomosis. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis revealed no significant differences between mechanical and hand-sewn anastomosis except for greater incidence rates of postoperative bleeding and wound infection with the use of circular staplers. Besides, more trials with adequate power are required and a cost analysis also worth trying. REGISTRATION NO. IN PROSPERO: CRD42015020025.