Unexpected pancreatic mixed neuroendocrine-nonneuroendocrine neoplasms (MiNEN)-reflection on a case report.

The authors present a case involving a 51-year-old male who was diagnosed with a 4-cm mass in the body of the pancreas, initially suspected to be a ductal adenocarcinoma due to an elevated Ca 19.9 during routine analysis. Subsequent imaging studies confirmed a resectable disease without suspicious lymph nodes or distant metastasis, leading to the proposal of surgery. The patient underwent a laparoscopic distal splenopancreatectomy, which was uneventful. The histopathological examination revealed a 3.7-cm pancreatic mixed neuroendocrine neoplasia (MiNEN) with a predominant high-grade ductal adenocarcinoma component and a concurrent high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma, with negative margins. Two lymph node metastases were identified, each representing metastasis of one of the components. The tumor was classified as pT2N1M0. Currently, the patient is undergoing chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX. This case prompts reflection on the optimal treatment strategy for pancreatic MiNEN and raises the question of how the preoperative diagnosis could influence the patient's outcome.

Not a neuroendocrine tumor: A case of hepatocellular carcinoma in ectopic liver tissue in the pancreas.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) accounts for most of the hepatic neoplasms and can also occur in ectopic liver tissue. We present a case of a 55-year-old male complaining of weight loss. The imaging studies reported a 2.9 cm nodule in the pancreatic body, with a neuroendocrine tumor diagnosis by cytology. A corpo-caudal pancreatectomy was performed. Pathology showed a well-differentiated HCC developed in ectopic liver tissue with free margins and no lymph node metastases. HCC presenting in ectopic liver tissue is rare. In this case, the preoperative study did not establish the diagnosis, warranting the need for suspicion of this neoplasm.

LitKDM2 study: the impact of health Literacy and knowledge about the disease on the metabolic control of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIMS: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a common chronic disease with serious individual and socioeconomic consequences. Low health literacy (HL) has been associated with higher morbimortality. Health knowledge about DM (HK-DM) may also influence individual health. We aimed to assess HL and HK-DM in patients with type 2 DM and their associations with metabolic control. METHODS: Our sample comprised 194 diabetic patients from a primary care health centre. We collected clinical and demographic data and applied two validated questionnaires, the Newest Vital Sign (NST) and Diabetes Knowledge Test (DKT), to assess HL and HK-DM, respectively. Metabolic control was defined as HbA1c < 7.0%. Participants were classified according to the NST as having "high likelihood of limited HL" (HLL-HL), "possibility of limited HL" (PL-HL), or "adequate HL" (A-HL) and by the DKT as having "low", "average" and "good" HK. Statistical analysis included logistic regression models, using p < 0.05 as a cut-off for statistical significance. RESULTS: Overall, 72.7 and 34.7% of participants had HLL-HL and low HK-DM, respectively. A-HL (OR = 6.02; 95% CI: 1.691-21.450) and PL-HL (OR = 4.78; 95% CI: 1.350-16.899) were significantly associated with better metabolic control than HLL-HL. We did not find a significant association between HK-DM and metabolic control. CONCLUSIONS: HL seems to be associated with better metabolic control. We also found a high prevalence of illiteracy and scarce knowledge about DM. Primary care physicians should promote HL to help patients achieve better metabolic control.

Predictive factors of non-sentinel lymph node disease in breast cancer patients with positive sentinel lymph node.

INTRODUCTION: Management of positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in breast cancer remains a matter of debate. Our aim was to evaluate the incidence and identify predictive factors of non-sentinel lymph node metastases. METHODS: Retrospective review of all cN0 breast cancer patients treated between January 2013 and December 2017, with positive SLNB that were submitted to ALND. RESULTS: Of the 328 patients included, the majority of tumors were cT1 or cT2, with lymphovascular invasion in 58.4% of cases. The mean isolated nodes in SLNB was 2.7, with a mean of 1.6 positive nodes, 60.7% with extracapsular extension. Regarding ALND, a mean of 13.9 nodes were isolated, with a mean of 2.1 positive nodes. There was no residual disease in the ALND in 50.9% of patients, with 18.9% having ≥4 positive nodes. In the multivariate analysis, lymphovascular invasion, extracapsular extension in SLN, largest SLN metastases size (>10 mm) and ratio of positive SNL (>50%) were independent predictors of non-sentinel lymph node metastases. These four factors were used to build a non-pondered score to predict the probability of a positive ALND after a positive SLNB. The AUC of the model was 0.69 and 81% of patients with score = 0 and 65.6% with score = 1 had no additional disease in ALND. CONCLUSION: The absence of non-sentinel lymph node metastases in the majority of patients with 1-2 positive SLN with low risk score questions the need of ALND in this population. The identified predictive factors may help select patients in which ALND can be omitted.

Factores predictivos de metástasis en ganglios no centinela en el cáncer de mama con ganglio centinela positivo / Predictive factors of non-sentinel lymph node disease in breast cancer patients with positive sentinel lymph node Mariana Peyroteo

Introducción: Manejo del ganglio centinela positivo en cáncer de mama sigue siendo un tema de debate. El objetivo es evaluar la incidencia e identificar los factores predictivos de metástasis en ganglios no centinela. Métodos: Revisión retrospectiva de los pacientes con cáncer de mama con axila clínicamente negativa (cN0) tratados entre enero del 2013 y diciembre del 2017, con biopsia de ganglio centinela (BGC) positiva a quienes se les realizó linfadenectomía axilar (LA). Resultados: De los 328 pacientes incluidos, la mayoría tenía tumores cT1 o cT2, con invasión linfovascular en el 58,4% de casos. La media de ganglios detectados en BGC fue 2,7, con una media de 1,6 ganglios positivos, el 60,7% con extensión extracapsular. En LA, una media de 13,9 ganglios fueron detectados, con media de 2,1 ganglios positivos. No se observó metástasis en LA en el 50,9% de los pacientes y el 18,9% tenía ≥ cuatro ganglios positivos. En análisis multivariado, la invasión linfovascular, la extensión extracapsular, la dimensión de mayor metástasis (>10 mm) y la ratio de ganglios centinela positivos (> 50%) fueron factores predictivos independientes de metástasis en ganglios no centinela. Estos factores fueron usados para construir un score para predecir la posibilidad de LA positiva después de BGC positiva. El área bajo la curva ROC (AUC) del modelo fue 0,69 y el 81% de los pacientes con score = 0, y el 65,6% con score = 1 no tenían metástasis en la LA. Conclusión: La ausencia de metástasis en ganglios no centinela en la mayoría de los casos con uno a dos ganglios positivos en la BGC con score de bajo riesgo cuestiona la necesidad de hacer LA en estos pacientes. Los factores predictivos identificados pueden ayudar a seleccionar pacientes para omitir la LA (AU)

Introduction: Management of positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in breast cancer remains a matter of debate. Our aim was to evaluate the incidence and identify predictive factors of non-sentinel lymph node metastases. Methods: Retrospective review of all cN0 breast cancer patients treated between January 2013 and December 2017, with positive SLNB that were submitted to ALND.ResultsOf the 328 patients included, the majority of tumors were cT1 or cT2, with lymphovascular invasion in 58.4% of cases. The mean isolated nodes in SLNB was 2.7, with a mean of 1.6 positive nodes, 60.7% with extracapsular extension. Regarding ALND, a mean of 13.9 nodes were isolated, with a mean of 2.1 positive nodes. There was no residual disease in the ALND in 50.9% of patients, with 18.9% having ≥ four positive nodes. In the multivariate analysis, lymphovascular invasion, extracapsular extension in SLN, largest SLN metastases size (>10 mm) and ratio of positive SNL (> 50%) were independent predictors of non-sentinel lymph node metastases. These four factors were used to build a non-pondered score to predict the probability of a positive ALND after a positive SLNB. The AUC of the model was 0.69 and 81% of patients with score = 0 and 65.6% with score = 1 had no additional disease in ALND. Conclusion: The absence of non-sentinel lymph node metastases in the majority of patients with 1-2 positive SLN with low risk score questions the need of ALND in this population. The identified predictive factors may help select patients in which ALND can be omitted (AU)

Predictive factors of non-sentinel lymph node disease in breast cancer patients with positive sentinel lymph node. / Factores predictivos de metástasis en ganglios no centinela en el cáncer de mama con ganglio centinela positivo.

INTRODUCTION: Management of positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in breast cancer remains a matter of debate. Our aim was to evaluate the incidence and identify predictive factors of non-sentinel lymph node metastases. METHODS: Retrospective review of all cN0 breast cancer patients treated between January 2013 and December 2017, with positive SLNB that were submitted to ALND. RESULTS: Of the 328 patients included, the majority of tumors were cT1 or cT2, with lymphovascular invasion in 58.4% of cases. The mean isolated nodes in SLNB was 2.7, with a mean of 1.6 positive nodes, 60.7% with extracapsular extension. Regarding ALND, a mean of 13.9 nodes were isolated, with a mean of 2.1 positive nodes. There was no residual disease in the ALND in 50.9% of patients, with 18.9% having ≥ four positive nodes. In the multivariate analysis, lymphovascular invasion, extracapsular extension in SLN, largest SLN metastases size (>10 mm) and ratio of positive SNL (> 50%) were independent predictors of non-sentinel lymph node metastases. These four factors were used to build a non-pondered score to predict the probability of a positive ALND after a positive SLNB. The AUC of the model was 0.69 and 81% of patients with score = 0 and 65.6% with score = 1 had no additional disease in ALND. CONCLUSION: The absence of non-sentinel lymph node metastases in the majority of patients with 1-2 positive SLN with low risk score questions the need of ALND in this population. The identified predictive factors may help select patients in which ALND can be omitted.

Impact of the 8th edition of the AJCC TNM classification on gastric cancer prognosis-study of a western cohort.

INTRODUCTION: The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM classification for gastric cancer introduced changes, mainly in stage III, with the incorporation of the pN3 sub-classification in the final staging group. The goal was to compare the 7th and 8th editions to evaluate the discriminative capacity of the new edition. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of patients with gastric cancer treated with surgery in 2013 and 2014. RESULTS: We analysed 310 patients, with a median age of 66 years and out of which 55.5% were male. The most commonly performed surgery was subtotal gastrectomy (n = 158; 51%), with a median of 30 lymph nodes removed. With a median follow-up of 39.5 months, the 1- and 3-year overall survival (OS) was 82% and 59%, respectively. In stage III (n = 115), there was stage migration in 40 cases (34.8%), with upstage in 11 cases and downstage in 29 cases. In this group, there was a statistically significant difference in OS between N3a and N3b patients (p = 0.002), as well as a statistically significant difference in OS between stages IIIA, IIIB and IIIC when the 8th edition was applied (p = 0.001), which was not verified with the 7th edition (p = 0.057). In multivariate analysis, both extracapsular extension and N classification from TNM were independent prognostic factors (p = 0.033 and p = 0.024, respectively). CONCLUSION: The 8th edition of the AJCC TNM classification allows for a better prognostic refinement, namely in the new stage III groups after the stratification of lymph node disease in N3a and N3b. Factors that evaluate the biological behaviour of the disease remain excluded from this edition, such as extracapsular extension, which had a prognostic impact in our series.