RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Sedation increases colonoscopy risks and prolongs recovery time. We examined whether virtual reality (VR) can substitute for sedation. The primary outcome was the overall satisfaction of patients who underwent colonoscopy with VR headset compared with patients who underwent standard sedation. Pain during the procedure, polyp detection rate (PDR), colonoscopy duration, post-colonoscopy adverse events, post-colonoscopy recovery, time-to-return to daily functions, and turnaround time at the endoscopy unit were secondary outcomes. METHODS: The study was approved by Sheba Medical Center's ethics committee IRB number 21-8177-SMC. Sixty patients were sequentially enrolled in a 1:1 ratio to either standard sedated colonoscopy or VR-unsedated procedure, and all patients signed a written informed consent. 28/30 patients successfully completed the colonoscopy using VR headset. Overall satisfaction score was comparable between the groups. RESULTS: There was no difference between VR and controls in colonoscopy duration, or PDR. VR patients had numerically lower rate of post-colonoscopy adverse events than controls. The proportion of VR patients who reported resuming daily activities on the day of the procedure was significantly higher than in the control group. The VR group patients spent significantly less time in the hospital compared to the control group. CONCLUSIONS: VR technology can provide adequate substitution for sedation for most patients undergoing colonoscopy and offers comparable patient satisfaction and faster return to daily activities.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Syndecan-1 (SDC1) has multiple functions in tumorigenesis in general and specifically in pancreatic cancer. We aimed to evaluate SDC1 as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: In this case-control study, patients newly diagnosed with a biopsy-proven PDAC were enrolled alongside healthy individuals in a derivation-validation cohort design. Serum SDC1 was measured by enzyme-linked immunoassay. The diagnostic accuracy of SDC1 levels for diagnosing PDAC was computed. A unified cohort enriched with additional early-stage patients with PDAC was used to evaluate the association of SDC1 with survival outcomes and patient characteristics. RESULTS: In the derivation cohort, serum SDC1 levels were significantly higher in patients with PDAC (n = 39) compared with healthy controls (n = 20) (40.1 ng/mL, interquartile range 29.8-95.3 vs 25.6 ng/mL, interquartile range 17.1-29.8, respectively; P < 0.001). The receiver operating characteristic analysis area under the curve was 0.847 (95% confidence interval 0.747-0.947, P < 0.001). These results were replicated in a separate age-matched validation cohort (n = 38 PDAC, n = 38 controls; area under the curve 0.844, 95% confidence interval 0.757-0.932, P < 0.001). In the combined-enriched PDAC cohort (n = 110), using a cutoff of 35 ng/mL, the median overall 5-year survival between patients below and above this cutoff was not significantly different, although a trend for better survival after 1 year was found in the lower level group (P = 0.06). There were 12 of the 110 patients with PDAC (11%) who had normal CA 19-9 in the presence of elevated SDC1. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest serum SDC1 as a promising novel biomarker for early blood-based diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.