Caution is needed in interpreting the results of comparative studies regarding oncological operations by minimally invasive versus laparotomic access.

We aim to alert the difference between groups while comparing studies of abdominal oncological operations performed either by minimally invasive or laparotomic approaches and potential conflicts of interest in presenting or interpreting the results. Considering the large volume of scientific articles that are published, there is a need to consider the quality of the scientific production that leads to clinical decision making. In this regards, it is important to take into account the choice of the surgical access route. Randomized, controlled clinical trials are the standard for comparing the effectiveness between these interventions. Although some studies indicate advantages in minimally invasive access, caution is needed when interpreting these findings. There is no detailed observation in each of the comparative study about the real limitations and potential indications for minimally invasive procedures, such as the indications for selected and less advanced cases, in less complex cavities, as well as its elective characteristic. Several abdominal oncological operations via laparotomy would not be plausible to be completely performed through a minimally invasive access. These cases should be carefully selected and excluded from the comparative group. The comparison should be carried out, in a balanced way, with a group that could also have undergone a minimally invasive access, avoiding bias in selecting those cases of minor complexity, placed in the minimally invasive group. It is not a question of criticizing the minimally invasive technologies, but of respecting the surgeon's clinical decision regarding the most convenient method, revalidating the well-performed traditional laparotomy route, which has been unfairly criticized or downplayed by many people.

Caution is needed in interpreting the results of comparative studies regarding oncological operations by minimally invasive versus laparotomic access / É necessário cautela na interpretação dos resultados de estudos comparativos de cirurgias oncológicas por acessos minimamente invasivos vs laparotômicos

ABSTRACT We aim to alert the difference between groups while comparing studies of abdominal oncological operations performed either by minimally invasive or laparotomic approaches and potential conflicts of interest in presenting or interpreting the results. Considering the large volume of scientific articles that are published, there is a need to consider the quality of the scientific production that leads to clinical decision making. In this regards, it is important to take into account the choice of the surgical access route. Randomized, controlled clinical trials are the standard for comparing the effectiveness between these interventions. Although some studies indicate advantages in minimally invasive access, caution is needed when interpreting these findings. There is no detailed observation in each of the comparative study about the real limitations and potential indications for minimally invasive procedures, such as the indications for selected and less advanced cases, in less complex cavities, as well as its elective characteristic. Several abdominal oncological operations via laparotomy would not be plausible to be completely performed through a minimally invasive access. These cases should be carefully selected and excluded from the comparative group. The comparison should be carried out, in a balanced way, with a group that could also have undergone a minimally invasive access, avoiding bias in selecting those cases of minor complexity, placed in the minimally invasive group. It is not a question of criticizing the minimally invasive technologies, but of respecting the surgeon's clinical decision regarding the most convenient method, revalidating the well-performed traditional laparotomy route, which has been unfairly criticized or downplayed by many people.

RESUMO Objetivamos alertar a desigualdade entre grupos de pacientes, em estudos comparativos de cirurgias oncológicas abdominais por acessos minimamente invasivos ou laparotômicos, e os possíveis conflitos de interesse na demonstração ou interpretação dos resultados. Diante do grande volume de artigos científicos produzidos, há necessidade de se considerar a qualidade da produção científica de estudos para a tomada da decisão clínica quanto à eleição da via de acesso cirúrgico. Ensaios clínicos randomizados e controlados são o padrão para comparar a eficácia entre estas intervenções em situações diversas. Apesar de alguns estudos indicarem vantagens no acesso minimamente invasivo, é preciso cautela na interpretação desses achados. Não se percebe detalhada discussão que alerte, em cada estudo comparativo, sobre os reais limites e indicações possíveis de cirurgias minimamente invasivas, como indicações para casos selecionados, menos avançados, mais eletivos, e em cavidades menos complexas. Diversas cirurgias oncológicas abdominais via laparotômica não seriam plausíveis de serem, completamente, realizadas por acesso minimamente invasivo. Estas deveriam ser, criteriosamente, selecionadas e excluídas do grupo comparativo. A comparação deve ser, equilibradamente, realizada com grupo que, muito provavelmente, também poderia ter sido submetido ao acesso minimamente invasivo a contento, evitando viés de seleção da concentração de casos de complexidade menor no grupo da cirurgia minimamente invasiva. Não se trata, aqui, de desmerecer as tecnologias minimamente invasivas, mas de respeito à decisão clínica do cirurgião pelo método mais conveniente, revalidando a via laparotômica tradicional bem procedida, a qual tem sido, injustamente, criticada ou inferiorizada por muitos em nosso meio.

HER2 in gastric cancer: comparative analysis of three different antibodies using whole-tissue sections and tissue microarrays.

AIM: To compare the performance of three commercially available anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) antibodies in whole-tissue sections and tissue microarrays (TMAs) of a series of gastric tumors. METHODS: We present a comparative analysis of three anti-HER2 antibodies (HercepTest, 4B5 and SP3) using TMA and whole-tissue sections prepared from the same paraffin blocks of 199 gastric adenocarcinomas operated upon between January 2004 and December 2008 at a Brazilian cancer hospital. The data on the patients' age, sex, the anatomical location of the tumor and the Lauren's histological classification were collected from clinical and pathological records. The immunohistochemical (IHC) results were examined by two pathologists and the cases were classified as positive (3+), equivocal (2+) and negative (0 or 1+), according to the criteria of the IHC scoring system of gastric cancer. TMAs and whole-tissue sections were evaluated separately and independently. All cases yielding discordant IHC results and/or scored as 2+ were subjected to dual-color in situ hybridization in order to determine the final HER2 status. Besides determining the sensitivity and predictive value for HER2-positive status, we measured the accuracy of each antibody by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The agreement between the results obtained using the TMAs and those obtained using the whole-tissue sections was assessed by means of Kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Intratumoral heterogeneity of HER2 expression was observed with all antibodies. HER2-positive expression (3+) in the whole-tissue sections was observed in 23 cases (11.6%) using the 4B5 antibody, in 18 cases (9.1%) using the SP3 antibody and in 10 cases (5.1%) using the HercepTest antibody. In the TMAs, 11 positive cases (5.6%) were identified using SP3 antibody, 9 (4.6%) using the 4B5 antibody and 6 (3%) using the HercepTest antibody. The sensitivity using whole-tissue sections and TMA, respectively, was 95.2% and 42.9% with 4B5, 90.5% and 66.7% with SP3 and 47.6% and 42.9% with HercepTest. The accuracy, calculated from the area under the ROC curve, using whole-tissue sections and TMA, respectively, was 0.91 and 0.79 by 4B5, 0.86 and 0.80 by SP3 and 0.73 and 0.71 by HercepTest. The concordance of the results obtained using whole-tissue sections and TMA was 97.4% (Kappa 0.75) using HercepTest, 85.6% (Kappa 0.56) using SP3 and 84.1% (Kappa 0.38) using 4B5. CONCLUSION: The use of the 4B5 antibody on whole-tissue sections was the most accurate IHC method for evaluating HER2 expression in gastric adenocarcinoma.

Câncer gástrico em adultos jovens / Gastric cancer in young adults

Estudos realizados em outros países relatam que menos de 5 por cento dos casos de câncer gástrico ocorrem em pessoas com menos de 40 anos, faixa etária em que não é comum suspeitar-se desse diagnóstico. O propósito deste estudo foi avaliar os aspectos clínicos e a sobrevida de câncer gástrico em menores de 40 anos. Um estudo retrospectivo no período de 1970 a 1996 foi realizado no Hospital S. Judas Tadeu, Barretos, SP, utilizando os prontuários de 37 (4,9 por cento) pacientes na faixa etária acima. Estadiamento utilizado: TNM (UICC/ União Internacional Contra o Câncer); programa de computação Stata para fazer a análise multivariada, segundo o modelo de Cox, e a análise de sobrevida segundo o método Kaplan-Meier. Dos 37 pacientes, 81,1 por cento tinham idade de 30 a 39 anos e 18,9 por cento de 20 a 29 anos, e 54,3por cento eram do sexo masculino. O sintomas mais comuns foram nessa ordem: dor epigástrica, vômitos, emagrecimento, plenitude pós prandial e astenia. Estadiamento: EC I: 3 pacientes; EC II: 3 pacientes; EC III: 11 pacientes; EC IV: 18 pacientes e em 2 pacientes o estádio não pode ser determinado. A sobrevida média foi de 561 dias, variando de 3 a 3736 dias. Foi encontrada uma diferença significativa (p menor do que 0,005) na comparação da sobrevida entre os pacientes com estádios I e II e os com estádios III e IV. Todos os pacientes com diagnóstico inicial I e II estão vivos e os demais foram ao óbito, em média 9 meses após o diagnóstico.