RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Small bowel adenocarcinoma is a rare disease. The genomic profiling tumours according to clinical characteristics and its impact on the prognosis remains unclear. METHODS: A pooled analysis of clinical data, genomic profiling and MisMatch Repair (MMR) status from three databases was performed. RESULTS: A total of 188 tumour samples were analysed. A predisposing disease was reported in 22.3%, mainly Lynch syndrome and Crohn's disease. The tumours were localized in 80.2% and metastatic in 18.8%. The most frequent mutations were KRAS (42.0%) among them 7/79 are G12C, TP53 (40.4%), APC (19.1%), PIK3CA (18.6%), SMAD4 (12.8%) and ERBB2 (9.6%). Mutation distribution differed according to predisposing disease for TP53, ERBB2, IDH1, FGFR3, FGFR1 and KDR. KRAS and SMAD4 mutations were more frequent in metastatic tumour, whereas ERBB2 mutations were absent in metastatic tumour. For localized tumour, APC mutation was independently associated with a poor overall survival (OS) (p = 0.0254). 31.8% of localized tumours and 11.3% of metastatic tumours were dMMR (29.8% of the entire cohort). A dMMR status was associated with a better OS (HR = 0.61 [0.39-0.96], p = 0.0316). CONCLUSIONS: There is a different genomic profile according to the stage and predisposing disease. dMMR and APC mutation in localized tumour predict a better prognosis.
Asunto(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Neoplasias Intestinales , Mutación , Humanos , Adenocarcinoma/genética , Adenocarcinoma/patología , Neoplasias Intestinales/genética , Neoplasias Intestinales/patología , Neoplasias Intestinales/mortalidad , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Intestino Delgado/patología , Adulto , Pronóstico , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Perfilación de la Expresión Génica , Reparación de la Incompatibilidad de ADN/genéticaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Pharmacological prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatectomy is open to debate. The present study compares clinically significant POPF rates in patients randomized between somatostatin versus octreotide as prophylactic treatment. METHODS: Multicentric randomized controlled open study in patient's candidate for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or distal pancreatectomy (DP) comparing somatostatin continuous intravenous infusion for 7 days versus octreotid 100 µg, every 8 hours subcutaneous injection for 7 days, stratified by procedure (PD vs DP) and size of the main pancreatic duct (>4 mm) on grade B/C POPF rates at 90 days based on an intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Of 763 eligible patients, 651 were randomized: 327 in the octreotide arm and 324 in the somatostatin arm, with comparable the stratification criteria - type of surgery and main pancreatic duct dilatation. Most patients had PD (n=480; 73.8%), on soft/normal pancreas (n=367; 63.2%) with a nondilated main pancreatic duct (n=472; 72.5%), most often for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (n=311; 47.8%). Almost all patients had abdominal drainage (n=621; 96.1%) and 121 (19.5%) left the hospital with the drain in place (median length of stay=16 days). A total of 153 patients (23.5%) developed a grade B/C POPF with no difference between both groups: 24.1%: somatostatin arm and 22.9%: octreotide arm (χ 2 test, P =0.73, ITT analysis). Absence of statistically significant difference persisted after adjustment for stratification variables and in per-protocol analysis. CONCLUSION: Continuous intravenous somatostatin is not statistically different from subcutaneous octreotide in the prevention of grade B/C POPF after pancreatectomy. FINDINGS: In the PREFIPS Randomized Clinical Trial including 651 patients, a total of 153 patients (23.5%) developed a grade B/C POPF with no significant difference between both groups: 24.1%: somatostatin arm and 22.9%: octreotide arm (χ 2 test, P =0.73, ITT analysis). Absence of statistically significant difference persisted after adjustment for stratification variables and in per-protocol analysis.
Asunto(s)
Octreótido , Pancreatectomía , Fístula Pancreática , Pancreaticoduodenectomía , Complicaciones Posoperatorias , Somatostatina , Humanos , Fístula Pancreática/prevención & control , Fístula Pancreática/etiología , Fístula Pancreática/epidemiología , Octreótido/uso terapéutico , Octreótido/administración & dosificación , Masculino , Femenino , Somatostatina/administración & dosificación , Somatostatina/uso terapéutico , Pancreatectomía/efectos adversos , Pancreaticoduodenectomía/efectos adversos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/prevención & control , Anciano , Infusiones Intravenosas , Fármacos Gastrointestinales/administración & dosificación , Fármacos Gastrointestinales/uso terapéutico , Resultado del Tratamiento , Francia/epidemiología , Adulto , Inyecciones SubcutáneasRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prognostic differences between minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) in patients with surgery after a prolonged interval (>12 wk) following chemoradiotherapy (CRT). BACKGROUND: Previously, we established that a prolonged interval after CRT prior to esophagectomy was associated with poorer long-term survival. METHODS: This was an international multi-center cohort study involving seventeen tertiary centers, including patients who received CRT followed by surgery between 2010-2020. Patients undergoing MIE were defined as thoracoscopic and laparoscopic approach. RESULTS: 428 patients (145 MIE and 283 OE) had surgery between 12 weeks and two years after CRT. Significant differences were observed in ASA grade, radiation dose, clinical T stage, and histological subtype. There were no significant differences between the groups in age, sex, BMI, pathological T or N stage, resection margin status, tumor location, surgical technique, or 90-day mortality. Survival analysis showed MIE was associated with improved survival in univariate (P=0.014), multivariate analysis after adjustment for smoking, T and N stage, and histology (HR=1.69; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.5) and propensity matched analysis (P=0.02). Further subgroup analyses by radiation dose and interval after CRT showed survival advantage for MIE, in 40-50Gy dose groups (HR=1.9; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.0), and in patients having surgery within six months of CRT (HR=1.6; 95% CI 1.1 to 2.2). CONCLUSION: MIE was associated with an improved overall survival compared to OE in patients with a prolonged interval from CRT to surgery. The mechanism for this observed improvement in survival remains unknown, with potential hypotheses including a reduction in complications and improved functional recovery after MIE.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: No adjuvant treatment has been established for patients who remain at high risk for recurrence after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery for esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. METHODS: We conducted CheckMate 577, a global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial to evaluate a checkpoint inhibitor as adjuvant therapy in patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. Adults with resected (R0) stage II or III esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer who had received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and had residual pathological disease were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks for 16 weeks, followed by nivolumab at a dose of 480 mg every 4 weeks) or matching placebo. The maximum duration of the trial intervention period was 1 year. The primary end point was disease-free survival. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 24.4 months. Among the 532 patients who received nivolumab, the median disease-free survival was 22.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.6 to 34.0), as compared with 11.0 months (95% CI, 8.3 to 14.3) among the 262 patients who received placebo (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.69; 96.4% CI, 0.56 to 0.86; P<0.001). Disease-free survival favored nivolumab across multiple prespecified subgroups. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events that were considered by the investigators to be related to the active drug or placebo occurred in 71 of 532 patients (13%) in the nivolumab group and 15 of 260 patients (6%) in the placebo group. The trial regimen was discontinued because of adverse events related to the active drug or placebo in 9% of the patients in the nivolumab group and 3% of those in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer who had received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, disease-free survival was significantly longer among those who received nivolumab adjuvant therapy than among those who received placebo. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 577 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02743494.).
Asunto(s)
Adenocarcinoma/terapia , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/terapia , Neoplasias Esofágicas/terapia , Unión Esofagogástrica , Inhibidores de Puntos de Control Inmunológico/uso terapéutico , Nivolumab/uso terapéutico , Adenocarcinoma/inmunología , Adenocarcinoma/cirugía , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Antígeno B7-H1/antagonistas & inhibidores , Antígeno B7-H1/metabolismo , Quimioradioterapia Adyuvante , Quimioterapia Adyuvante , Supervivencia sin Enfermedad , Método Doble Ciego , Neoplasias Esofágicas/inmunología , Neoplasias Esofágicas/cirugía , Femenino , Humanos , Inhibidores de Puntos de Control Inmunológico/efectos adversos , Análisis de Intención de Tratar , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Terapia Neoadyuvante , Nivolumab/efectos adversos , Neoplasias Gástricas/inmunología , Neoplasias Gástricas/cirugía , Neoplasias Gástricas/terapiaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Addition of oxaliplatin-based hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to cytoreductive surgery (CRS) in the treatment of peritoneal metastases of colorectal origin (CRPM) did not show any survival benefit in the PRODIGE 7 trial (P7). This study aimed to investigate whether perioperative outcomes after CRS alone for CRPM patients is mediated by hospital volume and to determine the effect of P7 on French practice for CRPM patients treated respectively with CRS alone and CRS/HIPEC. METHODS: Data from CRPM patients treated with CRS alone between 2013 and 2020 in France were collected through a national medical database. The study used a cutoff value of the annual CRS-alone caseload affecting the 90-day postoperative mortality (POM) determined from our previous study to define low-volume (LV) HIPEC and high-volume (HV) HIPEC centers. Perioperative outcomes were compared between no-HIPEC, LV-HIPEC, and HV-HIPEC centers. The trend between years and HIPEC rates was analyzed using the Cochrane-Armitage test. RESULTS: Data from 4159 procedures were analyzed. The patients treated in no-HIPEC and LV-HIPEC centers were older compared with HV-HIPEC centers (p < 0.0001) and had a higher Elixhauser comorbidity index (p < 0.0001) and less complex surgery (p < 0.0001). Whereas the major morbidity (MM) rate did not differ between groups (p = 0.79), the 90-day POM was lower in HV-HIPEC centers than in no-HIPEC and LV-HIPEC centers (5.4% vs 15% and 13.3%; p < 0.0001), with lower failure-to-rescue (FTR) (p < 0.0001). After P7, the CRS/HIPEC rate decreased drastically in Cancer centers (p < 0.001), whereas patients treated with CRS alone are still referred to expert centers. CONCLUSIONS: Centralization of CRS alone should improve patient selection as well as FTR and POM. After P7, CRS/HIPEC decreased mostly in Cancer centers, without any impact on the number of CRS-alone cases referred to expert centers.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos de Citorreducción , Quimioterapia Intraperitoneal Hipertérmica , Neoplasias Peritoneales , Humanos , Neoplasias Peritoneales/secundario , Neoplasias Peritoneales/terapia , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos de Citorreducción/mortalidad , Neoplasias Colorrectales/patología , Neoplasias Colorrectales/terapia , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Tasa de Supervivencia , Francia , Anciano , Estudios de Seguimiento , Terapia Combinada , Pronóstico , Hospitales de Alto Volumen/estadística & datos numéricos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Oxaliplatino/administración & dosificación , Hospitales de Bajo Volumen/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Gastric poorly cohesive carcinoma (PCC) in advanced stages has a poor prognosis. Total gastrectomy (TG) remains the common treatment for distal gastric PCC, but subtotal gastrectomy (SG) may improve quality of life without compromising outcomes. Currently, no clear recommendation on the best surgical strategy for distal PCC is available. This study aimed to compare overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at 5 years for patients with antropyloric PCC treated by total versus subtotal gastrectomy. METHODS: A large retrospective European multicenter cohort study analyzed 2131 patients treated for gastric cancer between 2007 and 2017 by members of the French Association of Surgery (AFC). The study compared a group of patients who underwent TG with a group who underwent SG for antropyloric PCC. The primary outcomes were 5 year OS and DFS. RESULTS: The study enrolled 269 patients: 140 (52.0%) in the TG group and 129 (48.0%) in the SG group. The baseline characteristics and pTNM stage were similar between the two groups. According to Dindo-Claven classification, the patients treated with TG had more postoperative complications than the patients treated with SG (p < 0.001): grades I to IIIa (77.1% vs 59.5%) and grades IIIb to IVb (14.4% vs 9.0%). No difference in 5-year OS was observed between TG (53.8%; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 43.2-63.3%) and SG (53.0%; 95% CI, 41.4-63.3%) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.68-1.29). The same was observed for 5-year DFS: TG (46.0%; 95% CI, 35.9-55.5%) versus SG (45.3%; 95% CI, 34.3-55.6%) (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.70-1.34). CONCLUSIONS: At 5 years, SG was not associated with worse OS and DFS than TG for distal PCC. Surgical morbidity was higher after TG. Subtotal gastrectomy is a valuable option for distal PCC gastric cancer.
Asunto(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Neoplasias Gástricas , Humanos , Neoplasias Gástricas/patología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Calidad de Vida , Estudios de Cohortes , Tasa de Supervivencia , Adenocarcinoma/cirugía , Gastrectomía/efectos adversosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Although neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) followed by surgery is standard treatment for locally advanced esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (E/GEJ) cancer, the optimal radiation dose is still under debate. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of different preoperative radiation doses (41.4 Gy, 45 Gy or 50.4 Gy) on pathologic response and survival in E/GEJ cancer patients. METHODS: All consecutive patients with E/GEJ tumors, treated with curative intent between January 2009 and December 2016 in two referral centers were divided into three groups (41.4 Gy, 45 Gy and 50.4 Gy) according to the dose of preoperative radiotherapy. Pathologic complete response (pCR) rates, postoperative morbidity, overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared among the three groups, with separate analyses for adenocarcinoma (AC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). RESULTS: From the 326 patients analyzed, 48 were included in the 41.4 Gy group (14.7%), 171 in the 45 Gy group (52.5%) and 107 in the 50.4 Gy group (32.8%). Postoperative complication rates were comparable (p = 0.399). A pCR was observed in 15%, 30%, and 34% of patients in the 41.4 Gy, 45 Gy and 50.4 Gy groups, respectively (p = 0.047). A 50.4 Gy dose was independently associated with pCR (odds ratio 2.78, 95% confidence interval 1.10-7.99) in multivariate analysis. Within AC patients, pCR was observed in 6.2% of patients in the 41.4 Gy group, 29.2% of patients in the 45 Gy group, and 22.7% of patients in the 50.4 Gy group (p = 0.035). No OS or DFS differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: A pCR was less common after a preoperative radiation dose of 41.4 Gy in AC patients. Radiation dose had no impact on postoperative morbidity, long-term survival, and recurrence.
Asunto(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas , Neoplasias Esofágicas , Humanos , Esofagectomía , Neoplasias Esofágicas/patología , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/patología , Terapia Neoadyuvante/efectos adversos , Quimioradioterapia , Adenocarcinoma/patología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: According to current international guidelines, stage cT2N0M0 gastric adenocarcinoma warrants preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery. However, upfront surgery is often preferred in clinical practice, depending on patient clinical status and local treatment preferences. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of cT2N0M0 patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed among 32 centers, including gastric adenocarcinoma patients operated between January 2007 and December 2017. Patients with cT2N0M0 stage were divided into upfront surgery (S) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS) groups. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to compensate for baseline differences between the groups. RESULTS: Among the 202 patients diagnosed with cT2N0M0 stage, 68 (33.7%) were in the CS group and 134 (66.3%) were in the S group. CS patients were younger (mean age 62.7 ± 12.8 vs. 69.8 ± 12.1 years for S patients; p < 0.001) and had a better health status (World Health Organization performance status = 0 in 60.3% of CS patients vs. 34.5% of S patients; p = 0.006). During follow-up, recurrence occurred in 27.2% and 19.6% of CS and S patients, respectively, after IPTW (p = 0.32). Five-year OS was similar between CS and S patients (78.9% vs. 68.3%; p = 0.42), as was 5-year DFS (70.4% vs. 68.5%; p = 0.96). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with neither OS nor DFS in multivariable analysis after IPTW. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cT2N0M0 gastric adenocarcinoma did not present a survival or recurrence benefit if treated with perioperative chemotherapy followed by surgery as opposed to surgery alone.
Asunto(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Terapia Neoadyuvante , Puntaje de Propensión , Neoplasias Gástricas , Humanos , Neoplasias Gástricas/patología , Neoplasias Gástricas/mortalidad , Neoplasias Gástricas/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Gástricas/cirugía , Masculino , Femenino , Terapia Neoadyuvante/mortalidad , Adenocarcinoma/mortalidad , Adenocarcinoma/patología , Adenocarcinoma/tratamiento farmacológico , Adenocarcinoma/cirugía , Adenocarcinoma/terapia , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Anciano , Tasa de Supervivencia , Estudios de Seguimiento , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Quimioterapia Adyuvante/mortalidad , Pronóstico , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Gastrectomía/mortalidadRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Esophageal cancer posed significant global health challenges, particularly due to poor survival rates, especially in advanced stages. Primary endoscopic resection had emerged as an alternative treatment for early esophageal cancer, aiming to preserve organ function and reduce surgical morbidity. METHODS: This retrospective multicenter cohort study included 334 patients with early esophageal cancer (T1a-b, N0) from 30 French-speaking European centers between 2000 and 2010. Patients underwent either primary endoscopic resection followed by esophagectomy (E group, n = 36) or esophagectomy alone (S group, n = 298). Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for TNM stage and propensity score weighting were used to assess the impact of primary endoscopic resection on recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Primary endoscopic resection did not significantly influence RFS (adjusted HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.68, p = 0.88) or OS (adjusted HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.13, p = 0.92) compared to esophagectomy alone. Initial higher thromboembolic complications in the endoscopic resection group were not significant after adjustment (adjusted OR 4.73, 95% CI 0.34 to 64.27, p = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Primary endoscopic resection followed by esophagectomy for early esophageal cancer did not alter oncological outcomes or overall survival in this retrospective cohort. These findings supported the role of primary endoscopic resection as a safe initial treatment strategy, warranting validation in larger prospective studies. REGISTRATION: Our study was registered retrospectively on the Clinicaltrials.com website under the identifier NCT01927016. We acknowledge the importance of prospective registration and regret that this was not done before the commencement of the study.
RESUMEN
Reasons for structural and outcome differences in esophageal cancer surgery in Western Europe remain unclear. This questionnaire study aimed to identify differences in the organization of esophageal cancer surgical care in Western Europe. A cross-sectional international questionnaire study was conducted among upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgeons from Western Europe. One surgeon per country was selected based on scientific output and active membership in the European Society for Diseases of the Esophagus or (inter)national upper GI committee. The questionnaire consisted of 51 structured questions on the structural organization of esophageal cancer surgery, surgical training, and clinical audit processes. Between October 2021 and October 2022, 16 surgeons from 16 European countries participated in this study. In 5 countries (31%), a volume threshold was present ranging from 10 to 26 annual esophagectomies, in 7 (44%) care was centralized in designated centers, and in 4 (25%) no centralizing regulations were present. The number of centers performing esophageal cancer surgery per country differed from 4 to 400, representing 0.5-4.9 centers per million inhabitants. In 4 countries (25%), esophageal cancer surgery was part of general surgical training and 8 (50%) reported the availability of upper GI surgery fellowships. A national audit for upper GI surgery was present in 8 (50%) countries. If available, all countries use the audit to monitor the quality of care. Substantial differences exist in the organization and centralization of esophageal cancer surgical care in Western Europe. The exchange of experience in the organizational aspects of care could further improve the results of esophageal cancer surgical care in Europe.
RESUMEN
The management of gastric cancer has long been debated, particularly the extent of lymph node (LN) dissection required during curative surgery. LN invasion stands out as the most critical prognostic factor in gastric cancer. Historically, Japanese academic societies were the pioneers in defining a classification system for regional gastric LN stations, numbering them from 1 to 16. This classification was later used to differentiate between different types of LN dissection, such as D1, D2 and D3. However, these definitions were often considered too complex to be universally adopted, resulting in wide variations in recommendations from one country to another and making it difficult to compare published studies. In addition, the optimal extent of LN dissection remains uncertain, with initially recommended dissections being extensive but associated with significant morbidity without a clear survival benefit. The aim of this review is to make a case for extending LN dissection based on the existing literature, which includes a comprehensive examination of the current definitions of lymphadenectomy and an analysis of the results of all randomised controlled trials evaluating morbidity, mortality and long-term survival associated with different types of LN dissection. Finally, we provide a summary of the various recommendations issued by organizations such as the Japanese Gastric Research Association, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the European Society for Medical Oncology, and the French National Thesaurus of Digestive Oncology.
Asunto(s)
Gastrectomía , Escisión del Ganglio Linfático , Neoplasias Gástricas , Humanos , Neoplasias Gástricas/cirugía , Neoplasias Gástricas/patología , Neoplasias Gástricas/mortalidad , Escisión del Ganglio Linfático/métodos , Pronóstico , Gastrectomía/métodos , Ganglios Linfáticos/patología , Ganglios Linfáticos/cirugía , Metástasis LinfáticaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Data on clinically relevant post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (CR-PPH) are derived from series mostly focused on pancreatoduodenectomy, and data after distal pancreatectomy (DP) are scarce. METHODS: All non-extended DP performed from 2014 to 2018 were included. CR-PPH encompassed grade B and C PPH. Risk factors, management, and outcomes of CR-PPH were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 1188 patients were included, of which 561 (47.2 %) were operated on minimally invasively. Spleen-preserving DP was performed in 574 patients (48.4 %). Ninety-day mortality, severe morbidity and CR-POPF rates were 1.1 % (n = 13), 17.4 % (n = 196) and 15.5 % (n = 115), respectively. After a median interval of 8 days (range, 0-37), 65 patients (5.5 %) developed CR-PPH, including 28 grade B and 37 grade C. Reintervention was required in 57 patients (87.7 %). CR-PPH was associated with a significant increase of 90-day mortality, morbidity and hospital stay (p < 0.001). Upon multivariable analysis, prolonged operative time and co-existing POPF were independently associated with CR-PPH (p < 0.005) while a chronic use of antithrombotic agent trended towards an increase of CR-PPH (p = 0.081). As compared to CR-POPF, the failure-to-rescue rate in patients who developed CR-PPH was significantly higher (13.8 % vs. 1.3 %, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: CR-PPH after DP remains rare but significantly associated with an increased risk of 90-day mortality and failure-to-rescue.
Asunto(s)
Pancreatectomía , Pancreaticoduodenectomía , Humanos , Pancreatectomía/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Pancreaticoduodenectomía/efectos adversos , Factores de Riesgo , Hemorragia Posoperatoria/etiología , Hemorragia Posoperatoria/terapia , Fístula Pancreática/etiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/terapiaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes associated with esophageal perforation (EP) management at a national level and determine predictive factors of 90-day mortality (90dM), failure-to-rescue (FTR), and major morbidity (MM, Clavien-Dindo 3-4). BACKGROUND: EP remains a challenging clinical emergency. Previous population-based studies showed rates of 90dM up to 38.8% but were outdated or small-sized. METHODS: Data from patients admitted to hospitals with EP were extracted from the French medico-administrative database (2012-2021). Etiology, management strategies, and short and long-term outcomes were analyzed. A cutoff value of the annual EP management caseload affecting FTR was determined using the "Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detector" method. Random effects logistic regression model was performed to assess independent predictors of 90dM, FTR, and MM. RESULTS: Among 4765 patients with EP, 90dM and FTR rates were 28.0% and 19.4%, respectively. Both remained stable during the study period. EP was spontaneous in 68.2%, due to esophageal cancer in 19.7%, iatrogenic postendoscopy in 7.3%, and due to foreign body ingestion in 4.7%. Primary management consisted of surgery (n = 1447,30.4%), endoscopy (n = 590,12.4%), isolated drainage (n = 336,7.0%), and conservative management (n = 2392,50.2%). After multivariate analysis, besides age and comorbidity, esophageal cancer was predictive of both 90dM and FTR. An annual threshold of ≥8 EP managed annually was associated with a reduced 90dM and FTR rate. In France, only some university hospitals fulfilled this condition. Furthermore, primary surgery was associated with a lower 90dDM and FTR rate despite an increase in MM. CONCLUSIONS: We provide evidence for the referral of EP to high-volume centers with multidisciplinary expertise. Surgery remains an effective treatment for EP.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Esofágicas , Perforación del Esófago , Humanos , Estudios de Cohortes , Perforación del Esófago/epidemiología , Perforación del Esófago/etiología , Perforación del Esófago/cirugía , Complicaciones Posoperatorias , Hospitales de Alto Volumen , Hospitales de Bajo Volumen , Neoplasias Esofágicas/cirugía , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To assess the specific results of delayed coloanal anastomosis (DCAA) in light of its 2 main indications. BACKGROUND: DCAA can be proposed either immediately after a low anterior resection (primary DCAA) or after the failure of a primary pelvic surgery as a salvage procedure (salvage DCAA). METHODS: All patients who underwent DCAA intervention at 30 GRECCAR-affiliated hospitals between 2010 and 2021 were retrospectively included. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-four patients (male: 63%; median age: 62 years; interquartile range: 53-69) underwent a DCAA: 66% for primary DCAA and 34% for salvage DCAA. Overall morbidity, major morbidity, and mortality were 57%, 30%, and 1.1%, respectively, without any significant differences between primary DCAA and salvage DCAA ( P = 0.933; P = 0.238, and P = 0.410, respectively). Anastomotic leakage was more frequent after salvage DCAA (23%) than after primary DCAA (15%), ( P = 0.016).Fifty-five patients (10%) developed necrosis of the intra-abdominal colon. In multivariate analysis, intra-abdominal colon necrosis was significantly associated with male sex [odds ratio (OR) = 2.67 95% CI: 1.22-6.49; P = 0.020], body mass index >25 (OR = 2.78 95% CI: 1.37-6.00; P = 0.006), and peripheral artery disease (OR = 4.68 95% CI: 1.12-19.1; P = 0.030). The occurrence of this complication was similar between primary DCAA (11%) and salvage DCAA (8%), ( P = 0.289).Preservation of bowel continuity was reached 3 years after DCAA in 74% of the cohort (primary DCAA: 77% vs salvage DCAA: 68%, P = 0.031). Among patients with a DCAA mannered without diverting stoma, 75% (301/403) have never required a stoma at the last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: DCAA makes it possible to definitively avoid a stoma in 75% of patients when mannered initially without a stoma and to save bowel continuity in 68% of the patients in the setting of failure of primary pelvic surgery.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Defining robust and standardized outcome references for distal pancreatectomy (DP) by using Benchmark analysis. BACKGROUND: Outcomes after DP are recorded in medium or small-sized studies without standardized analysis. Therefore, the best results remain uncertain. METHODS: This multicenter study included all patients undergoing DP for resectable benign or malignant tumors in 21 French expert centers in pancreas surgery from 2014 to 2018. A low-risk cohort defined by no significant comorbidities was analyzed to establish 18 outcome benchmarks for DP. These values were tested in high risk, minimally invasive and benign tumor cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 1188 patients were identified and 749 low-risk patients were screened to establish Benchmark cut-offs. Therefore, Benchmark rate for mini-invasive approach was ≥36.8%. Benchmark cut-offs for postoperative mortality, major morbidity grade ≥3a and clinically significant pancreatic fistula rates were 0%, ≤27%, and ≤28%, respectively. The benchmark rate for readmission was ≤16%. For patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, cut-offs were ≥75%, ≥69.5%, and ≥66% for free resection margins (R0), 1-year disease-free survival and 3-year overall survival, respectively. The rate of mini-invasive approach in high-risk cohort was lower than the Benchmark cut-off (34.1% vs ≥36.8%). All Benchmark cut-offs were respected for benign tumor group. The proportion of benchmark cases was correlated to outcomes of DP. Centers with a majority of low-risk patients had worse results than those operating complex cases. CONCLUSION: This large-scale study is the first benchmark analysis of DP outcomes and provides robust and standardized data. This may allow for comparisons between surgeons, centers, studies, and surgical techniques.
Asunto(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Pancreatectomía/métodos , Benchmarking , Adenocarcinoma/cirugía , Páncreas/cirugía , Estudios Retrospectivos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of delayed surgical intervention following chemoradiotherapy (CRT) on survival from esophageal cancer. BACKGROUND: CRT is a core component of multimodality treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer. The timing of surgery following CRT may influence the probability of performing an oncological resection and the associated operative morbidity. METHODS: This was an international, multicenter, cohort study, including patients from 17 centers who received CRT followed by surgery between 2010 and 2020. In the main analysis, patients were divided into 4 groups based upon the interval between CRT and surgery (0-50, 51-100, 101-200, and >200 days) to assess the impact upon 90-day mortality and 5-year overall survival. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression provided hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs adjusted for relevant patient, oncological, and pathologic confounding factors. RESULTS: A total of 2867 patients who underwent esophagectomy after CRT were included. After adjustment for relevant confounders, prolonged interval following CRT was associated with an increased 90-day mortality compared with 0 to 50 days (reference): 51 to 100 days (HR=1.54, 95% CI: 1.04-2.29), 101 to 200 days (HR=2.14, 95% CI: 1.37-3.35), and >200 days (HR=3.06, 95% CI: 1.64-5.69). Similarly, a poorer 5-year overall survival was also observed with prolonged interval following CRT compared with 0 to 50 days (reference): 101 to 200 days (HR=1.41, 95% CI: 1.17-1.70), and >200 days (HR=1.64, 95% CI: 1.24-2.17). CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged interval following CRT before esophagectomy is associated with increased 90-day mortality and poorer long-term survival. Further investigation is needed to understand the mechanism that underpins these adverse outcomes observed with a prolonged interval to surgery.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Esofágicas , Terapia Neoadyuvante , Humanos , Estudios de Cohortes , Estudios Retrospectivos , Quimioradioterapia , EsofagectomíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To assess the rate of textbook outcome (TO) and textbook oncological outcome (TOO) in the European population based on the GASTRODATA registry. BACKGROUND: TO is a composite parameter assessing surgical quality and strongly correlates with improved overall survival. Following the standard of treatment for locally advanced gastric cancer, TOO was proposed as a quality and optimal multimodal treatment parameter. METHODS: TO was achieved when all the following criteria were met: no intraoperative complications, radical resection according to the surgeon, pR0 resection, retrieval of at least 15 lymph nodes, no severe postoperative complications, no reintervention, no admission to the intensive care unit, no prolonged length of stay, no postoperative mortality and no hospital readmission. TOO was defined as TO with the addition of perioperative chemotherapy compliance. RESULTS: Of the 2558 patients, 1700 were included in the analysis. TO was achieved in 1164 (68.5%) patients. The use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy [odds ratio (OR) = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.04-1.70] and D2 or D2+ lymphadenectomy (OR = 1.55, 95% CI: 1.15-2.10) had a positive impact on TO achievement. Older age (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.54-0.94), pT3/4 (OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63-0.99), ASA 3/4 (OR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.54-0.86) and total gastrectomy (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.45-0.70), had a negative impact on TO achievement. TOO was achieved in 388 (22.8%) patients. Older age (OR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.27-0.53), pT3 or pT4 (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.39-0.69), and ASA 3 or 4 (OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.43-0.79) had a negative impact on TOO achievement. CONCLUSIONS: Despite successively improved surgical outcomes, stage-appropriate chemotherapy in adherence to the current guidelines for multimodal treatment of gastric cancer remains poor. Further implementation of oncologic quality metrics should include greater emphasis on perioperative chemotherapy and adequate lymphadenectomy.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Gástricas , Humanos , Neoplasias Gástricas/cirugía , Escisión del Ganglio Linfático/efectos adversos , Ganglios Linfáticos/patología , Gastrectomía/efectos adversos , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Genetic counselling (GC) is a key step in the identification of inherited germline mutations. However, the oncogenetic practices are poorly described for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) in Europe. The CAPANCOGEN study aimed to describe the GC referral practices in France and assess the implementation of international guidelines in patients with PA. METHODS: Information about GC referrals with PA was collected in 13 French centres from September 2019 to October 2021. In the 5 largest centres, personal and familial histories of cancers and diseases associated with a higher risk of germline mutations were collected in 460 patients, according to international, American, European and French GC referral guidelines. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to identify the factors influencing GC referral. RESULTS: Among 833 patients, a total of 100 patients (12%) had an indication of GC according to local multidisciplinary tumour board meetings (MTBM). Among these patients, 41% did not undergo GC. The median time between MTBM and GC was 55 days (IQR: 14.5-112). Among 460 patients with collected personal and familial history, 31.5% were not referred to a GC despite an existing indication. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, suspected CDKN2A (p = 0.032) or BRCA mutation (p < 0.001), familial pancreatic cancer history (p < 0.001) and controlled disease with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (p < 0.001) increased the referral rate. Conversely, older age (p = 0.002) and a locally advanced PA (p = 0.045) decreased the risk of GC referral. CONCLUSIONS: GC referral is inadequate despite valuable information in patients' medical files.
Asunto(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Asesoramiento Genético , Pruebas Genéticas , Adenocarcinoma/genética , Adenocarcinoma/terapia , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/genética , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/terapia , Predisposición Genética a la Enfermedad , Estudios de Cohortes , Derivación y Consulta , Neoplasias PancreáticasRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Traditionally, the literature investigating patient-reported outcomes in relation to cancer survival focused on negative factors such as distress. Meta-analyses in this field have provided a clear identification of negative affect that reduce cancer survival (e.g., depression). Nevertheless, positive psychological factors and especially positive affect might be equally crucial for cancer survival but have been neglected so far. While studies in this domain have been conducted, they remain less numerous and have produced mixed results. METHODS: A pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis (https://osf.io/jtw7x) aimed at identifying the positive affect linked to mortality in cancers were conducted. Four databases (Pubmed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were searched to find longitudinal studies linking positive affect to survival in cancers. Two reviewers completed each stage of the study selection process, the data extraction, and the Quality in Prognosis Studies risk of bias assessments. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies involving 822,789 patients were included based on the 2462 references identified. The meta-analysis reveals that positive affect is associated with longer survival (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 0.91; 95% CI [0.86, 0.96], z = -3.58, p < 0.001) and lower mortality (Odd Ratio [OR] = 0.59; 95% CI [0.45, 0.78], z = -3.70, p < 0.001). Sub-group analyses indicated that the main predictors of survival are emotional and physical well-being, optimism, and vitality. CONCLUSION: This work emphasizes the need to consider the role of affective mechanisms in patients with cancer, including their levels of well-being or optimism to provide the most favorable conditions for survival. Therefore, stronger and continuous effort to improve patients' positive affect could be particularly beneficial for their life expectancy.
Asunto(s)
Emociones , Neoplasias , Humanos , Neoplasias/psicología , Pronóstico , FelicidadRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To compare overall survival of patients with a cCR undergoing active surveillance versus standard esophagectomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: One-third of patients with esophageal cancer have a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Active surveillance may be of benefit in patients with cCR, determined with diagnostics during response evaluations after chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed comparing overall survival between patients with cCR after chemoradiotherapy undergoing active surveillance versus standard esophagectomy. Authors were contacted to supply individual patient data. Overall and progression-free survival were compared using random effects meta-analysis of randomized or propensity score matched data. Locoregional recurrence rate was assessed. The study-protocol was registered (PROSPERO: CRD42020167070). RESULTS: Seven studies were identified comprising 788 patients, of which after randomization or propensity score matching yielded 196 active surveillance and 257 standard esophagectomy patients. All authors provided individual patient data. The risk of all-cause mortality for active surveillance was 1.08 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.62-1.87, P = 0.75] after intention-to-treat analysis and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.56-1.54, P = 0.75) after per-protocol analysis. The risk of progression or all-cause mortality for active surveillance was 1.14 (95% CI: 0.83-1.58, P = 0.36). Five-year locoregional recurrence rate during active surveillance was 40% (95% CI: 26%-59%). 95% of active surveillance patients undergoing postponed esophagectomy for locoregional recurrence had radical resection. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival was comparable in patients with cCR after chemoradiotherapy undergoing active surveillance or standard esophagectomy. Diagnostic follow-up is mandatory in active surveillance and postponed esophagectomy should be offered to operable patients in case of locoregional recurrence.