Minimally invasive drainage in critically ill patients with severe necrotizing pancreatitis is associated with better outcomes: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Infected pancreatic necrosis, which occurs in about 40% of patients admitted for acute necrotizing pancreatitis, requires combined antibiotic therapy and local drainage. Since 2010, drainage by open surgical necrosectomy has been increasingly replaced by less invasive methods such as percutaneous radiological drainage, endoscopic necrosectomy, and laparoscopic surgery, which proved effective in small randomized controlled trials in highly selected patients. Few studies have evaluated minimally invasive drainage methods used under the conditions of everyday hospital practice. The aim of this study was to determine whether, compared with conventional open surgery, minimally invasive drainage was associated with improved outcomes of critically ill patients with infection complicating acute necrotizing pancreatitis. METHODS: A single-center observational study was conducted in patients admitted to the intensive care unit for severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis to compare the characteristics, drainage techniques, and outcomes of the 62 patients managed between September 2006 and December 2010, chiefly with conventional open surgery, and of the 81 patients managed between January 2011 and August 2015 after the introduction of a minimally invasive drainage protocol. RESULTS: Surgical necrosectomy was more common in the early period (74% versus 41%; P <0.001), and use of minimally invasive drainage increased between the early and late periods (19% and 52%, respectively; P <0.001). The numbers of ventilator-free days and catecholamine-free days by day 30 were higher during the later period. The proportions of patients discharged from intensive care within the first 30 days and from the hospital within the first 90 days were higher during the second period. Hospital mortality was not significantly different between the early and late periods (19% and 22%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In our study, the implementation of a minimally invasive drainage protocol in patients with infected pancreatic necrosis was associated with shorter times spent with organ dysfunction, in the intensive care unit, and in the hospital. Mortality was not significantly different. These results should be interpreted bearing in mind the limitations inherent in the before-after study design.

The Activity of Crizotinib in Chemo-Refractory MET-Amplified Esophageal and Gastric Adenocarcinomas: Results from the AcSé-Crizotinib Program.

BACKGROUND: The AcSé-crizotinib program provides extensive screening of crizotinib-targeted genomic alteration in several malignancies. We here report the results in patients with esogastric MET-amplified adenocarcinomas. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of crizotinib in patients with pretreated esogastric MET-amplified adenocarcinoma who have no alternative treatment options. PATIENTS AND METHODS: MET expression was evaluated by fluorescence in situ hybridization in tumor samples with immunohistochemistry scores ≥ 2+. Patients with chemo-refractory tumors showing ≥ 6 MET copies were eligible for crizotinib 250 mg twice daily. The primary efficacy outcome was the objective response rate after two cycles of crizotinib. RESULTS: MET was prospectively analyzed in 570 esogastric adenocarcinomas. Amplifications were found in 35/570 adenocarcinomas (29/523 gastric and 6/47 esophageal). Nine patients were treated with crizotinib. The objective response rate after two cycles was 33.3% (95% CI 7.5-70), the best overall response rate was 55.6% (95% CI 21.2-86.3), with median progression-free survival of 3.2 months (95% CI 1.0-5.4), and overall survival of 8.1 months (95% CI 1.7-24.6). Safety was consistent with that previously reported for crizotinib. CONCLUSIONS: Large-scale screening for MET-amplified esogastric adenocarcinomas is feasible. MET amplification was observed in 5.5% of gastric and 12.8% of esophageal adenocarcinomas. Crizotinib shows encouraging results in selected patients. Thus, c-MET inhibition for MET-amplified tumors deserves further evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02034981. DATE OF REGISTRATION: 14 January 2014.