Survival Benefit of Palliative Primary Tumor Resection Based on Tumor Location in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Single-center Retrospective Study.

Backgrounds/Aims: The molecular underpinnings of colorectal cancer (CRC) vary according to the tumor location. The advantages of a palliative primary tumor resection in patients with metastatic CRC are controversial. This study examined the survival outcomes of a palliative primary tumor resection based on the tumor location in patients with metastatic CRC. Methods: The medical records of 600 patients diagnosed with metastatic CRC between January 2000 and June 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients undergoing surgery for both the primary tumor and metastatic lesions were excluded. The clinical factors affecting the long-term outcomes were evaluated according to the primary tumor location, and the long-term survival was compared between patients with and without a palliative primary tumor resection. The data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and multivariate Cox regression models. Results: The median follow-up duration was 18 months (interquartile range, 10-28). Patients with right-sided CRC had a poor overall- and progression-free survival compared to those with left-sided CRC. In multivariate Cox regression analysis, the palliative primary tumor resection was an independent prognostic factor predicting better overall survival in patients with metastatic CRC, regardless of the primary tumor location. Conclusions: The primary tumor location influences the prognosis, and that a primary tumor resection can improve the overall survival in patients with metastatic CRC, regardless of the primary tumor location.

Efficacy and Safety of Etomidate in Comparison with Propofol or Midazolam as Sedative for Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of etomidate with those of propofol or midazolam for the maintenance of sedation during endoscopy. METHODS: The study enrolled patients who underwent sedative endoscopy in our hospital and divided them into three groups. Patients in each group were administered midazolam as induction therapy and were subsequently administered either midazolam (M + M group), propofol (M + P group), or etomidate (M + E group) as maintenance medication. The primary outcome was overall cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events. RESULTS: In total, 105 patients who underwent sedative endoscopic examination were enrolled. The outcomes related to the procedure and sedation were not significantly different among the groups. Overall cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events were observed in 9 patients (25.7%) in the M + M group, 8 patients (23.5%) in the M + P group, and 10 patients (27.8%) in the M + E group. The logistic regression analysis revealed that etomidate use was not an independent risk factor for overall cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events. CONCLUSION: The outcomes following the use of etomidate for maintenance after induction with midazolam for sedation in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were not inferior to those following midazolam or propofol use from the perspectives of safety and efficacy.

The clinical significance of simple endoscopic scoring of patients with rectal cancer after concurrent chemoradiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is an effective treatment option for patients with rectal cancer. In this study, we investigated the clinical efficacy of simple endoscopic scoring of patients with rectal cancer after CCRT. METHODS: Between July 2008 and October 2015, medical records including endoscopic imaging from 41 patients with rectal cancer who received CCRT were retrospectively reviewed. Two expert gastroenterologists reviewed the endoscopic images and assigned scores from 0-3 according to post-CCRT findings. The scoring criteria were as follows: 0= scar without marginal elevation; 1= clean-based ulcer without marginal elevation; 2= clean-based ulcer with marginal elevation; 3= non-clean-based ulcer. We evaluated image scores to predict long-term outcomes using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models. RESULTS: The median follow-up duration was 55 months (interquartile range: 35-76 months). Patients with a low score (≤2) had a 17.2% recurrence rate, whereas patients with a high score [3] had a 50.0% recurrence rate. Patients with a low score had longer disease-free survival (DFS) than those with a high score in log-rank test (P=0.026). In multivariate Cox regression analysis, a high score was a significant predictor of poor DFS in patients with rectal cancer after CCRT treatment (hazard ratio =4.89, 95% confidence interval: 1.11-21.50, P=0.036). CONCLUSIONS: This simple endoscopic scoring approach is helpful for predicting prognosis of patients with rectal cancer after treatment with CCRT.