Gut hormones profile after an Ivor Lewis gastro-esophagectomy and its relationship to delayed gastric emptying.

Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) is common after an Ivor Lewis gastro-esophagectomy (ILGO). The risk of a dilated conduit is the much-feared anastomotic leak. Therefore, prompt management of DGE is required. However, the pathophysiology of DGE is unclear. We proposed that post-ILGO patients with/without DGE have different gut hormone profiles (GHP). Consecutive patients undergoing an ILGO from 1 December 2017 to 31 November 2019 were recruited. Blood sampling was conducted on either day 4, 5, or 6 with baseline sample taken prior to a 193-kcal meal and after every 30 minutes for 2 hours. If patients received pyloric dilatation, a repeat profile was performed post-dilatation and were designated as had DGE. Analyses were conducted on the following groups: patient without dilatation (non-dilated) versus dilatation (dilated); and pre-dilatation versus post-dilatation. Gut hormone profiles analyzed were glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and peptide tyrosine tyrosine (PYY) using radioimmunoassay. Of 65 patients, 24 (36.9%) had dilatation and 41 (63.1%) did not. For the non-dilated and dilated groups, there were no differences in day 4, 5, or 6 GLP-1 (P = 0.499) (95% confidence interval for non-dilated [2822.64, 4416.40] and dilated [2519.91, 3162.32]). However, PYY levels were raised in the non-dilated group (P = 0.021) (95% confidence interval for non-dilated [1620.38, 3005.75] and dilated [821.53, 1606.18]). Additionally, after pyloric dilatation, paired analysis showed no differences in GLP-1, but PYY levels were different at all time points and had an exaggerated post-prandial response. We conclude that DGE is associated with an obtunded PYY response. However, the exact nature of the association is not yet established.

Positron emission tomography-computed tomography in oesophageal cancer staging: a tailored approach.

BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) scanning is used routinely in the staging of oesophageal cancer to identify occult metastases not apparent on CT and changes the management in typically 3-18% patients. The authors aim to re-evaluate its role in the management of oesophageal cancer, investigating whether it is possible to identify a group of patients that will not benefit and can safely be spared from this investigation. METHODS: Consecutive patients with oesophageal cancer undergoing PET-CT staging between 2010 and 2013 were identified from a specialist modern multidisciplinary team database. Without knowledge of the PET-CT result, patients were stratified into low-risk or high-risk groups according to the likelihood of identifying metastatic disease on PET-CT based on specified criteria routinely available from endoscopy and CT reports. Clinical outcomes in the two groups were investigated. RESULTS: In 383 undergoing PET-CT, metastatic disease was identified in 52 (13.6%) patients. Eighty-three patients were stratified as low risk and 300 as high risk. None of the low-risk patients went on to have metastatic disease identified on PET-CT. Of the high-risk patients, 17% had metastatic disease identified on PET-CT. CONCLUSIONS: In one of the largest studies to date investigating the influence of staging PET-CT on management of patients with oesophageal cancer, the authors report a classification based on endoscopy/CT criteria is able to accurately stratify patients according to the risk of having metastatic disease. This could be used to avoid unnecessary PET-CT 22% of patients, saving cost, inconvenience and reducing potential delay to definitive treatment in this group.