Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Ann Surg Oncol ; 2024 Aug 17.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39154152

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) gastroesophageal cancers (GEC) are a distinct subgroup. Among patients with locally advanced disease, previous trial data suggest a good response to neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (nICI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Since 2019, our institution has routinely performed MMR testing for new GEC cases. Patients diagnosed with GEC (2019-2024) were included in the study. Quantitative data are described as the median and interquartile range (IQR); qualitative data are described as quantities and percentages. RESULTS: A total of 24 patients with dMMR GEC were identified following implementation of routine immunohistochemical testing; 14 were potentially resectable with a median follow-up of 14 months (IQR 8-27). All patients underwent pre-treatment positron emission tomography (PET; median SUV 20.9). Among the 14 potentially resectable patients, 4 underwent immediate surgery, 10 were treated with nICI, and 5 underwent surgical resection to date. All regimens included PD-1 inhibitors, with 70% receiving pembrolizumab. Re-staging PET was performed in five patients; the median post-nICI SUV was 5.1 (range 4.7-6.3). All resected specimens had gross ulceration after nICI, but 60% (N = 3) had a pathologic complete response (pCR) following nICI; one patient had a near-complete response (nCR) and one patient had a partial response (pPR). Reduction in SUV was 75% and 82% in the pCR patients, 25% in the nCR patient, and 43% in the pPR patient. CONCLUSIONS: dMMR GECs are responsive to nICI in this limited experience, mirroring early clinical trial data. Given persistent metabolic activity and visible ulceration despite pCR, studies should continue to optimize tools for estimating post-nICI pCR in these patients.

2.
Surg Endosc ; 2024 Aug 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39134721

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) is a common complication after esophagectomy. BOTOX injections and pyloric surgeries (PS), including pyloroplasty (PP) and pyloromyotomy (PM), are performed intraoperatively as prophylaxis against DGE. This study compares the effects of pyloric BOTOX injection and PS for preventing DGE post-esophagectomy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed Moffitt's IRB-approved database of 1364 esophagectomies, identifying 475 patients receiving BOTOX or PS during esophageal resection. PS was further divided into PP and PM. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and postoperative outcomes were compared using Chi-Square, Fisher's exact test, Wilcoxon rank-sum, and ANOVA. Propensity-score matching was performed between BOTOX and PP cohorts. RESULTS: 238 patients received BOTOX, 108 received PP, and 129 received PM. Most BOTOX patients underwent fully minimally invasive robotic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (81.1% vs 1.7%) while most PS patients underwent hybrid open/Robotic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (95.7% vs 13.0%). Anastomotic leak (p = 0.57) and pneumonia (p = 0.75) were comparable between groups. However, PS experienced lower DGE rates (15.9% vs 9.3%; p = 0.04) while BOTOX patients had less postoperative weight loss (9.7 vs 11.45 kg; p = 0.02). After separating PP from PM, leak (p = 0.72) and pneumonia (p = 0.07) rates remained similar. However, PP patients had the lowest DGE incidence (1.9% vs 15.7% vs 15.9%; p = < 0.001) and the highest bile reflux rates (2.8% vs 0% vs 0.4%; p = 0.04). Between matched cohorts of 91 patients, PP had lower DGE rates (18.7% vs 1.1%; p = < 0.001) and less weight loss (9.8 vs 11.4 kg; p = < 0.001). Other complications were comparable (all p > 0.05). BOTOX was consistently associated with shorter LOS compared to PS (all p = < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PP demonstrates lower rates of DGE in unmatched and matched analyses. Compared to BOTOX, PS is linked to reduced DGE rates. While BOTOX is associated with more favorable LOS, this may be attributable to difference in operative approach. PP improves DGE rates after esophagectomy without improving other postoperative complications.

4.
J Gastrointest Oncol ; 15(2): 544-554, 2024 Apr 30.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38756649

RESUMEN

Background: Surgical resection of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancers is a very complex procedure with step learning curve. New technologies have made minimally invasive surgery possible, but challenges still remain for wide spread adoption of these techniques. This article aims to describe the outcomes and salient technical points of a totally minimally invasive, laparoscopic, robot-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (LRAMIE). Methods: Retrospective observational cohort study performed at a specialty cancer center using a prospectively maintained institutional database. Patients undergoing LRAMIE (laparoscopic abdomen, robotic chest) from 2014-2023 were included. Patients undergoing transhiatal and three-field esophagectomy were excluded. Operative and postoperative outcomes were compared over the study period to identify potential associations between outcomes over time. Results: Two-hundred patients were identified who underwent LRAMIE. Median age was 65 years and most were male (87.5%). The open conversion rate was 1% (n=2), which occurred within the first 30 cases. Operative time and blood loss were improved at the 60-case mark (P<0.001). Anastomotic stricture rate improved after 50 cases, and leak rate improved after 80 cases. Postoperative length of stay improved at both 50 and 100 cases with a median LOS of 6 days after 100 cases. Rate of postoperative pneumonia, 30- and 90-day mortality were reduced after 100 cases, although not statistically significant for mortality due to too few events. Conclusions: Totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy at a high-volume center is a safe procedure. Operative outcomes improved significantly after 50-80 cases, followed by improvement in anastomotic results and postoperative outcomes, with corresponding excellent oncologic outcomes.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA