ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The classification for HD was developed by Goligher in 1980 and does not contemplate important aspects of this disease, which limits its use in guiding treatment. The aim of this study if to apply in clinical practice the new classification for hemorrhoids named BPRST (bleeding, prolapse, reduction, skin tags, thrombosis), to compare it with the original classification proposed by Goligher and to propose an algorithm for treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective study conducted at the University of São Paulo's teaching hospital and Hospital 9 de Julho. Patients with HD treated from March 2011 to July 2013 were included. Patients were classified according to BPRST and Goligher classifications and treated according to personal experience and most updated guidelines. The association between both classifications and the treatment adopted was compared and an algorithm for treatment was developed. RESULTS: 229 patients were included in this study and 28 patients were lost due to follow-up. According to Goligher, 29, 61, 85 and 26 were classified as grades I, II, III and IV, respectively. According to the BPRST, 23 were classified as stage I, 95 as stage II and 83 as stage III. Six patients classified as Goligher I were reclassified as BPRST stage III and required conventional hemorrhoidectomy, either due to thrombosis (n = 4) or intolerable skin tags (n = 2). The BPRST classification was more closely associated with the type of treatment employed and had few outliers than Goligher (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: There are limitations to the use of Goligher's classification in clinical practice. The novel BPRST classification includes important aspects of HD that should be considered when deciding the best treatment option. Our algorithm for treatment contemplates the most commonly used techniques and can help to guide the treatment of this complex disease.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSES: Tumor regression grade (TRG) of the primary tumor after neoadjuvant therapy is one of the most sensitive prognostic factors among patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, although no TRG system is fully accepted. The Ryan score was proposed in 2005 to evaluate TRG in rectal cancer and could be adaptable for pathological evaluation of esophageal cancer. The objective of this study is to evaluate the prognostic value of the Ryan score for esophageal cancer in the setting of trimodal therapy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study in which patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, submitted to neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgical resection, were selected. One hundred thirty-four patients were selected. All tissue specimens were assessed as per the TRG system proposed by Ryan et al. Survival curves were assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Chi-square test or likelihood-ratio test was used for absolute and relative variables. Kruskal-Wallis and analysis of variance tests were used to assess significant differences on a continuous dependent variable by a categorical independent variable. RESULTS: Of the 134 included patients, 94 (70.1%) had squamous cell carcinoma, and 40 (29.9%) adenocarcinoma. Ryan score was correlated with histological type (p < 0.001), and clinical (p = 0.044) and pathological (p < 0.001) staging. Mean follow-up was 31.1 months. Multivariate analysis showed that Ryan score can safely predict survival, and systemic and lymphatic recurrence (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Ryan score is an effective system to evaluate TRG and can predict risk for lymph node or distant metastasis, overall survival, and disease-free survival.
