BRAZILIAN CONSENSUS ON INCIDENTAL GALLBLADDER CARCINOMA.

BACKGROUND: Incidental gallbladder cancer is defined as a cancer discovered by histological examination after cholecystectomy. It is a potentially curable disease. However, some questions related to their management remain controversial and a defined strategy is associated with better prognosis. AIM: To develop the first evidence-based consensus for management of patients with incidental gallbladder cancer in Brazil. METHODS: Sixteen questions were selected, and 36 Brazilian and International members were included to the answer them. The statements were based on current evident literature. The final report was sent to the members of the panel for agreement assessment. RESULTS: Intraoperative evaluation of the specimen, use of retrieval bags and routine histopathology is recommended. Complete preoperative evaluation is necessary and the reoperation should be performed once final staging is available. Evaluation of the cystic duct margin and routine 16b1 lymph node biopsy is recommended. Chemotherapy should be considered and chemoradiation therapy if microscopically positive surgical margins. Port site should be resected exceptionally. Staging laparoscopy before reoperation is recommended, but minimally invasive radical approach only in specialized minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary centers. The extent of liver resection is acceptable if R0 resection is achieved. Standard lymph node dissection is required for T2 tumors and above, but common bile duct resection is not recommended routinely. CONCLUSIONS: It was possible to prepare safe recommendations as guidance for incidental gallbladder carcinoma, addressing the most frequent topics of everyday work of digestive and general surgeons.

Brazilian consensus on incidental gallbladder carcinoma / Consenso brasileiro de carcinoma incidental de vesícula biliar

ABSTRACT Background: Incidental gallbladder cancer is defined as a cancer discovered by histological examination after cholecystectomy. It is a potentially curable disease. However, some questions related to their management remain controversial and a defined strategy is associated with better prognosis. Aim: To develop the first evidence-based consensus for management of patients with incidental gallbladder cancer in Brazil. Methods: Sixteen questions were selected, and 36 Brazilian and International members were included to the answer them. The statements were based on current evident literature. The final report was sent to the members of the panel for agreement assessment. Results: Intraoperative evaluation of the specimen, use of retrieval bags and routine histopathology is recommended. Complete preoperative evaluation is necessary and the reoperation should be performed once final staging is available. Evaluation of the cystic duct margin and routine 16b1 lymph node biopsy is recommended. Chemotherapy should be considered and chemoradiation therapy if microscopically positive surgical margins. Port site should be resected exceptionally. Staging laparoscopy before reoperation is recommended, but minimally invasive radical approach only in specialized minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary centers. The extent of liver resection is acceptable if R0 resection is achieved. Standard lymph node dissection is required for T2 tumors and above, but common bile duct resection is not recommended routinely. Conclusions: It was possible to prepare safe recommendations as guidance for incidental gallbladder carcinoma, addressing the most frequent topics of everyday work of digestive and general surgeons.

RESUMO Racional: Carcinoma incidental da vesícula biliar é definido como uma neoplasia descoberta por exame histológico após colecistectomia videolaparoscópica. É potencialmente uma doença curável. Entretanto algumas questões relacionadas ao seu manuseio permanecem controversas e uma estratégia definida está associada com melhor prognóstico. Objetivo: Desenvolver o primeiro consenso baseado em evidências para o manuseio de pacientes com carcinoma incidental da vesícula biliar no Brasil. Métodos: Dezesseis questões foram selecionadas e para responder as questões e 36 membros das sociedades brasileiras e internacionais foram incluídos. As recomendações foram baseadas em evidências da literatura atual. Um relatório final foi enviado para os membros do painel para avaliação de concordância. Resultados: Avaliação intraoperatória da peça cirúrgica, uso de bolsas para retirar a peça cirúrgica e exame histopatológico de rotina, foram recomendados. Avaliação pré-operatória completa é necessária e deve ser realizada assim que o estadiamento final esteja disponível. Avaliação da margem do ducto cístico e biópsia de rotina do linfonodo 16b1 são recomendadas. Quimioterapia deve ser considerada e quimioradioterapia indicada se a margem cirúrgica microscópica seja positiva. Os portais devem ser ressecados excepcionalmente. O estadiamento laparoscópico antes da operação é recomendado, mas o tratamento radical por abordagem minimamente invasiva deve ser realizado apenas em centros especializados em cirurgia hepatopancreatobiliar minimamente invasiva. A extensão da ressecção hepática é aceitável até que seja alcançada a ressecção R0. A linfadenectomia padrão é indicada para tumores iguais ou superiores a T2, mas a ressecção da via biliar não é recomendada de rotina. Conclusões: Recomendações seguras foram preparadas para carcinoma incidental da vesícula biliar, destacando os mais frequentes tópicos do trabalho diário do cirurgião do aparelho digestivo e hepatopancreatobiliar.

LIVER RESECTION IN BRAZIL: A NATIONAL SURVEY.

BACKGROUND: Liver surgery has developed significantly in the past decades. In Brazil, the interest on it has grown significantly, but there is no study regarding its clinical practice. Despite intrinsic limitations, surveys are well suited to descriptive studies and allow understanding the current scenario. AIM: To provide an overview on the current spread of liver surgery in Brazil, focusing on groups´ profile, operative techniques and availability of resources. METHOD: From May to November 2016, was conducted a national survey about liver surgery profile in Brazil composed by 28 questions concerning surgical team characteristics, technical preferences, surgical volume, results and available institutional resources. The survey was sent by e-mail to 84 liver surgery team leaders from different centers including all regions of the country. RESULTS: Forty-three study participants (51.2%), from all Brazilian regions, responded the survey. Most centers have residency/fellowship programs (86%), perform and do laparoscopic procedures (91%); however, laparoscopy is still responsible for a little amount of surgeries (1-9% of laparoscopic procedures over all liver resections in 39.5% of groups). Only seven centers (16.3%) perform more than 50 liver resections/year. Postoperative mortality rate is between 1-3% in 55% of the centers. CONCLUSION: This is the first depiction of liver surgery in Brazil. It showed a surgical practice aligned with worldwide excellence centers, concentrated on hospitals dedicated to academic practice.

Complex biliary stones management: cholangioscopy versus papillary large balloon dilation - a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopic removal of biliary stones has high success rates, ranging between 85 % to 95 %. Nevertheless, some stones may be challenging and different endoscopic methods have evolved. Papillary large balloon dilation after sphincterotomy is a widely used technique with success rates ranging from 68 to 90 % for stones larger than 15 mm. Cholangioscopy allows performing lithotripsy under direct biliary visualization, either by laser or electrohydraulic waves, which have similar success rate (80 % - 90 %). However, there is no study comparing these 2 techniques. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From April 2014 to June 2016, 100 patients were enrolled and randomized in 2 groups, using a non-inferiority hypothesis: cholangioscopy + electrohydraulic lithotripsy (group 1) and endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (group 2). The main outcome was complete stone removal. Adverse events were documented. Mechanical lithotripsy was not performed. Failure cases had a second session with crossover of the methods. RESULTS: The mean age was 56 years. 74 (75.5 %) patients were female. The initial overall complete stone removal rate was 74.5 % (77.1 % in group 1 and 72 % in group 2, P  > 0.05). After second session the overall success rate achieved 90.1 %. Procedure time was significantly lower in group 2, - 25.2 min (CI95 % - 12.48 to - 37.91). There were no significant differences regarding technical success rate, radiologic exposure and adverse events. CONCLUSION: Single-operator cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy and papillary large balloon dilation are effective and safe approaches for removing complex biliary stones.

Liver resection in brazil: a national survey / Cirurgia hepática no brasil: um inquérito nacional

ABSTRACT Background: Liver surgery has developed significantly in the past decades. In Brazil, the interest on it has grown significantly, but there is no study regarding its clinical practice. Despite intrinsic limitations, surveys are well suited to descriptive studies and allow understanding the current scenario. Aim: To provide an overview on the current spread of liver surgery in Brazil, focusing on groups´ profile, operative techniques and availability of resources. Method: From May to November 2016, was conducted a national survey about liver surgery profile in Brazil composed by 28 questions concerning surgical team characteristics, technical preferences, surgical volume, results and available institutional resources. The survey was sent by e-mail to 84 liver surgery team leaders from different centers including all regions of the country. Results: Forty-three study participants (51.2%), from all Brazilian regions, responded the survey. Most centers have residency/fellowship programs (86%), perform and do laparoscopic procedures (91%); however, laparoscopy is still responsible for a little amount of surgeries (1-9% of laparoscopic procedures over all liver resections in 39.5% of groups). Only seven centers (16.3%) perform more than 50 liver resections/year. Postoperative mortality rate is between 1-3% in 55% of the centers. Conclusion: This is the first depiction of liver surgery in Brazil. It showed a surgical practice aligned with worldwide excellence centers, concentrated on hospitals dedicated to academic practice.

RESUMO Racional: A cirurgia hepática se desenvolveu significativamente nas últimas décadas. No Brasil, apesar do crescente interesse pela cirurgia do fígado, não há estudos a respeito da sua prática no país. Assim, foi realizada uma pesquisa do tipo inquérito, apropriada para estudos descritivos, permitindo entender adequadamente o cenário atual nacional. Objetivo: Obter uma visão abrangente da cirurgia hepática no Brasil, com foco no perfil dos grupos, técnicas operatórias e disponibilidade de recursos. Método: De abril a novembro de 2016, foi realizado um inquérito nacional sobre o perfil da cirurgia hepática no Brasil, composta por 28 questões relativas às características das equipes cirúrgicas, preferências técnicas, volume cirúrgico, resultados e disponibilidade de recursos nas instituições. A pesquisa foi enviada por e-mail para 84 cirurgiões hepáticos brasileiros líderes de seus respectivos grupos, abrangendo todas as regiões do país. Resultados: Quarenta e três participantes (51.2%) responderam à pesquisa (42 respostas completas e uma incompleta) de todas as regiões do Brasil. A maioria dos centros tem programa de residência (86%) e faz procedimentos por via laparoscópica (91%); a despeito da laparoscopia corresponder a uma pequena porcentagem das operações (1-9% dos procedimentos são laparoscópicos em 39,5% dos grupos). Apenas sete centros (16.3%) realizam mais do que 50 resecções hepáticas/ano. A taxa de mortalidade pós-operatória é de 1-3% em 55% dos centros. Conclusão: Esta é a primeira avaliação da cirurgia hepática no Brasil e indica que as práticas cirúrgicas estão alinhadas com centros de excelência mundiais, concentradas em hospitais dedicados à prática acadêmica.

PANCREATODUODENECTOMY: BRAZILIAN PRACTICE PATTERNS.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatoduodenectomy is a technically challenging surgical procedure with an incidence of postoperative complications ranging from 30% to 61%. The procedure requires a high level of experience, and to minimize surgery-related complications and mortality, a high-quality standard surgery is imperative. AIM: To understand the Brazilian practice patterns for pancreatoduodenectomy. METHOD: A questionnaire was designed to obtain an overview of the surgical practice in pancreatic cancer, specific training, and experience in pancreatoduodenectomy. The survey was sent to members who declared an interest in pancreatic surgery. RESULTS: A total of 60 questionnaires were sent, and 52 have returned (86.7%). The Southeast had the most survey respondents, with 25 surgeons (48.0%). Only two surgeons (3.9%) performed more than 50% of their pancreatoduodenectomies by laparoscopy. A classic Whipple procedure was performed by 24 surgeons (46.2%) and a standard International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery lymphadenectomy by 43 surgeons (82.7%). For reconstruction, pancreaticojejunostomy was performed by 49 surgeons (94.2%), single limb technique by 41(78.9%), duct-to-mucosa anastomosis by 38 (73.1%), internal trans-anastomotic stenting by 26 (50.0%), antecolic route of gastric reconstruction by 39 (75.0%), and Braun enteroenterostomy was performed by only six surgeons (11.5%). Prophylactic abdominal drainage was performed by all surgeons, and somatostatin analogues were utilized by six surgeons (11.5%). Early postoperative enteral nutrition was routine for 22 surgeons (42.3%), and 34 surgeons (65.4%) reported routine use of a nasogastric suction tube. CONCLUSION: Heterogeneity was observed in the pancreatoduodenectomy practice patterns of surgeons in Brazil, some of them in contrast with established evidence in the literature.

Pancreatoduodenectomy: brazilian practice patterns / Duodenopancreatectomia: prática padrão do brasil

ABSTRACT Background: Pancreatoduodenectomy is a technically challenging surgical procedure with an incidence of postoperative complications ranging from 30% to 61%. The procedure requires a high level of experience, and to minimize surgery-related complications and mortality, a high-quality standard surgery is imperative. Aim: To understand the Brazilian practice patterns for pancreatoduodenectomy. Method: A questionnaire was designed to obtain an overview of the surgical practice in pancreatic cancer, specific training, and experience in pancreatoduodenectomy. The survey was sent to members who declared an interest in pancreatic surgery. Results: A total of 60 questionnaires were sent, and 52 have returned (86.7%). The Southeast had the most survey respondents, with 25 surgeons (48.0%). Only two surgeons (3.9%) performed more than 50% of their pancreatoduodenectomies by laparoscopy. A classic Whipple procedure was performed by 24 surgeons (46.2%) and a standard International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery lymphadenectomy by 43 surgeons (82.7%). For reconstruction, pancreaticojejunostomy was performed by 49 surgeons (94.2%), single limb technique by 41(78.9%), duct-to-mucosa anastomosis by 38 (73.1%), internal trans-anastomotic stenting by 26 (50.0%), antecolic route of gastric reconstruction by 39 (75.0%), and Braun enteroenterostomy was performed by only six surgeons (11.5%). Prophylactic abdominal drainage was performed by all surgeons, and somatostatin analogues were utilized by six surgeons (11.5%). Early postoperative enteral nutrition was routine for 22 surgeons (42.3%), and 34 surgeons (65.4%) reported routine use of a nasogastric suction tube. Conclusion: Heterogeneity was observed in the pancreatoduodenectomy practice patterns of surgeons in Brazil, some of them in contrast with established evidence in the literature.

RESUMO Racional: A duodenopancreatectomia é um procedimento cirúrgico tecnicamente desafiador, com uma incidência de complicações pós-operatórias variando de 30% a 61%. O procedimento requer experiência de alto nível, e para minimizar complicações relacionadas à cirurgia uma padronização de alta qualidade é imperativa. Objetivo: Compreender o padrão da prática brasileira para duodenopancreatectomia. Método: Um questionário foi elaborado com a finalidade de obter uma visão geral da prática cirúrgica em câncer do pâncreas, treinamento específico e experiência em duodenopancreatectomia. O questionário foi enviado para cirurgiões com declarado interesse em cirurgia pancreática. Resultados: Um total de 60 questionários foi enviado e 52 retornaram (86,7%). A região sudeste foi a que mais respondeu, com 25 cirurgiões (48,0%). Apenas dois cirurgiões (3,9%), realizaram mais do que 50% das duodenopancreatectomia por videolaparoscopia. O procedimento clássico de Whipple foi realizado por 24 cirurgiões (46,2%) e a linfadenectomia padrão do Grupo Internacional de Estudo em Cirurgia Pancreática foi realizada por 43 cirurgiões (82,7%). Para a reconstrução, a pancreatojejunostomia foi realizada por 49 cirurgiões (94,2%), em alça única por 41 (78,9%), com anastomose do tipo ducto-mucosa por 38 (73,1%). O cateter transanastomose foi realizado por 26 cirurgiões (50%), reconstrução gástrica antecólica por 39 (75%) e enteroanastomose tipo Braun apenas por seis cirurgiões (11,5%). A drenagem abdominal profilática foi realizada por todos os cirurgiões e o uso de análogos da somatostatina por seis cirurgiões (11,5%). Nutrição enteral precoce no pós-operatório foi utilizada de rotina por 22 cirurgiões (42,3%) e 34 cirurgiões (65,4%), usaram sonda nasogástrica de rotina. Conclusão: Heterogeneidade foi observada na prática padrão da duodenopancreatectomia pelos cirurgiões no Brasil e, algumas delas em contraste com evidências estabelecidas na literatura.

Standardizing terminology for minimally invasive pancreatic resection.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing body of literature pertaining to minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR). Heterogeneity in MIPR terminology, leads to confusion and inconsistency. The Organizing Committee of the State of the Art Conference on MIPR collaborated to standardize MIPR terminology. METHODS: After formal literature review for "minimally invasive pancreatic surgery" term, key terminology elements were identified. A questionnaire was created assessing the type of resection, the approach, completion, and conversion. Delphi process was used to identify the level of agreement among the experts. RESULTS: A systematic terminology template was developed based on combining the approach and resection taking into account the completion. For a solitary approach the term should combine "approach + resection" (e.g. "laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy); for combined approaches the term must combine "first approach + resection" with "second approach + reconstruction" (e.g. "laparoscopic central pancreatectomy" with "open pancreaticojejunostomy") and where conversion has resulted the recommended term is "first approach" + "converted to" + "second approach" + "resection" (e.g. "robot-assisted" "converted to open" "pancreatoduodenectomy") CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines presented are geared towards standardizing terminology for MIPR, establishing a basis for comparative analyses and registries and allow incorporating future surgical and technological advances in MIPR.

Worldwide survey on opinions and use of minimally invasive pancreatic resection.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) into surgical practice has been slow. The worldwide utilization of MIPR and attitude towards future perspectives of MIPR remains unknown. METHODS: An anonymous survey on MIPR was sent to the members of six international associations of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary (HPB) surgery. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 435 surgeons from 50 countries, with each surgeon performing a median of 22 (IQR 12-40) pancreatic resections annually. Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) was performed by 345 (79%) surgeons and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) by 124 (29%). The median total personal experience was 20 (IQR 10-50) MIDPs and 12 (IQR 4-40) MIPDs. Current superiority for MIDP was claimed by 304 (70%) and for MIPD by 44 (10%) surgeons. The most frequently mentioned reason for not performing MIDP (54/90 (60%)) and MIPD (193/311 (62%)) was lack of specific training. Most surgeons (394/435 (90%)) would consider participating in an international registry on MIPR. DISCUSSION: This worldwide survey showed that most participating HPB surgeons value MIPR as a useful development, especially for MIDP, but the role and implementation of MIPD requires further assessment. Most HPB surgeons would welcome specific training in MIPR and the establishment of an international registry.

Proceedings of the first international state-of-the-art conference on minimally-invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR).

The application of minimally-invasive techniques to major pancreatic resection (MIPR) has occurred steadily, but slowly, over the last two decades. Questions linger regarding its safety, efficacy, and broad applicability. On April 20th, 2016, the first International State-of-the-Art Conference on Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Resection convened in Sao Paulo, Brazil in conjunction with the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association's (IHPBA) 10th World Congress. This report describes the genesis, preparation, execution and output from this seminal event. Major themes explored include: (i) scrutiny of best-level evidence outcomes of both MIPR Distal Pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), (ii) Cost/Value/Quality of Life assessment of MIPR, (iii) topics in training, education and credentialing, and (iv) development of best approaches to analyze results of MIPR - including clinical trial design and registry development. Results of a worldwide survey of over 400 surgeons on the practice of MIPR were presented. The proceedings of this event serve as a platform for understanding the role of MIPR in pancreatic resection. Data and concepts presented at this meeting form the basis for further study, application and dissemination of MIPR.

COMPARING THE ENZYME REPLACEMENT THERAPY COST IN POST PANCREATECTOMY PATIENTS DUE TO PANCREATIC TUMOR AND CHRONIC PANCREATITIS.

BACKGROUND: Among late postoperative complications of pancreatectomy are the exocrine and endocrine pancreatic insufficiencies. The presence of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency imposes, as standard treatment, pancreatic enzyme replacement. Patients with chronic pancreatitis, with intractable pain or any complications with surgical treatment, are likely to present exocrine pancreatic insufficiency or have this condition worsened requiring adequate dose of pancreatic enzymes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the required dose of pancreatic enzyme and the enzyme replacement cost in post pancreatectomy patients with and without chronic pancreatitis. METHODS: Observational cross-sectional study. In the first half of 2015 patients treated at the clinic of the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery at Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil, who underwent pancreatectomy for at least 6 months and in use of enzyme replacement therapy were included in this series. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee. The patients were divided into two groups according to the presence or absence of chronic pancreatitis prior to pancreatic surgery. For this study, P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The annual cost of the treatment was R$ 2150.5 ± 729.39; R$ 2118.18 ± 731.02 in patients without pancreatitis and R$ 2217.74 ± 736.30 in patients with pancreatitis. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant difference in the cost of treatment of enzyme replacement post pancreatectomy in patients with or without chronic pancreatitis prior to surgical indication.

Comparing the enzyme replacement therapy cost in post pancreatectomy patients due to pancreatic tumor and chronic pancreatitis

ABSTRACT Background - Among late postoperative complications of pancreatectomy are the exocrine and endocrine pancreatic insufficiencies. The presence of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency imposes, as standard treatment, pancreatic enzyme replacement. Patients with chronic pancreatitis, with intractable pain or any complications with surgical treatment, are likely to present exocrine pancreatic insufficiency or have this condition worsened requiring adequate dose of pancreatic enzymes. Objective - The aim of this study is to compare the required dose of pancreatic enzyme and the enzyme replacement cost in post pancreatectomy patients with and without chronic pancreatitis. Methods - Observational cross-sectional study. In the first half of 2015 patients treated at the clinic of the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery at Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil, who underwent pancreatectomy for at least 6 months and in use of enzyme replacement therapy were included in this series. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee. The patients were divided into two groups according to the presence or absence of chronic pancreatitis prior to pancreatic surgery. For this study, P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results - The annual cost of the treatment was R$ 2150.5 ± 729.39; R$ 2118.18 ± 731.02 in patients without pancreatitis and R$ 2217.74 ± 736.30 in patients with pancreatitis. Conclusion - There was no statistically significant difference in the cost of treatment of enzyme replacement post pancreatectomy in patients with or without chronic pancreatitis prior to surgical indication.

RESUMO Contexto - Dentre as complicações pós-operatórias tardias da pancreatectomia estão as insuficiências pancreáticas exócrina e endócrina. O reconhecimento da presença de insuficiência pancreática exócrina impõe, como tratamento padrão, a reposição de enzimas pancreáticas. Pacientes portadores de pancreatite crônica, com dor clinicamente intratável ou com alguma complicação com indicação de tratamento cirúrgico, podem vir a apresentar insuficiência pancreática exócrina ou ter essa condição agravada requerendo adequação de dose de enzimas pancreáticas. Objetivo - O objetivo deste estudo é comparar a dose necessária de enzima pancreática e o custo do tratamento de reposição enzimática em pacientes pancreatectomizados, com e sem pancreatite crônica. Métodos - Estudo transversal observacional. No primeiro semestre de 2015 pacientes acompanhados no ambulatório de Cirurgia do Aparelho Digestivo do HC-FMUSP, submetidos a pancreatectomia há pelo menos 6 meses e em terapia de reposição enzimática foram incluídos nessa casuística. O estudo foi aprovado pelo Comitê de Ética. Os pacientes foram divididos em dois grupos, de acordo com a presença ou ausência de pancreatite crônica prévia à cirurgia pancreática. Para este estudo, P<0,05 foi considerado como estatisticamente significante. Resultados - O custo anual do tratamento foi R$ 2150,51 ± 729,39; R$ 2118,18 ± 731,02 em pacientes sem pancreatite crônica e R$ 2217,74 ± 736,30 em pacientes com pancreatite crônica. Conclusão - Não houve diferença estatisticamente significante no custo do tratamento de reposição enzimática entre pacientes pancreatectomizados com ou sem pancreatite crônica prévia à indicação cirúrgica.

CDH1 mutations in gastric cancer patients from northern Brazil identified by Next- Generation Sequencing (NGS).

Gastric cancer is considered to be the fifth highest incident tumor worldwide and the third leading cause of cancer deaths. Developing regions report a higher number of sporadic cases, but there are only a few local studies related to hereditary cases of gastric cancer in Brazil to confirm this fact. CDH1 germline mutations have been described both in familial and sporadic cases, but there is only one recent molecular description of individuals from Brazil. In this study we performed Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) to assess CDH1 germline mutations in individuals who match the clinical criteria for Hereditary Diffuse Gastric Cancer (HDGC), or who exhibit very early diagnosis of gastric cancer. Among five probands we detected CDH1 germline mutations in two cases (40%). The mutation c.1023T > G was found in a HDGC family and the mutation c.1849G > A, which is nearly exclusive to African populations, was found in an early-onset case of gastric adenocarcinoma. The mutations described highlight the existence of gastric cancer cases caused by CDH1 germline mutations in northern Brazil, although such information is frequently ignored due to the existence of a large number of environmental factors locally. Our report represent the first CDH1 mutations in HDGC described from Brazil by an NGS platform.

Liver resection for the treatment of post-cholecystectomy biliary stricture with vascular injury.

AIM: To report experience with liver resection in a select group of patients with postoperative biliary stricture associated with vascular injury. METHODS: From a prospective database of patients treated for benign biliary strictures at our hospital, cases that underwent liver resections were reviewed. All cases were referred after one or more attempts to repair bile duct injuries following cholecystectomy (open or laparoscopic). Liver resection was indicated in patients with Strasberg E3/E4 (hilar stricture) bile duct lesions associated with vascular damage (arterial and/or portal), ipsilateral liver atrophy/abscess, recurrent attacks of cholangitis, and failure of previous hepaticojejunostomy. RESULTS: Of 148 patients treated for benign biliary strictures, nine (6.1%) underwent liver resection; eight women and one man with a mean age of 38.6 years. Six patients had previously been submitted to open cholecystectomy and three to laparoscopic surgery. The mean number of surgical procedures before definitive treatment was 2.4. All patients had Strasberg E3/E4 injuries, and vascular injury was present in all cases. Eight patients underwent right hepatectomy and one underwent left lateral sectionectomy without mortality. Mean time of follow up was 69.1 mo and after long-term follow up, eight patients are asymptomatic. CONCLUSION: Liver resection is a good therapeutic option for patients with complex postoperative biliary stricture and vascular injury presenting with liver atrophy/abscess in which previous hepaticojejunostomy has failed.

Prognostic significance of epidermal growth factor receptor overexpression in pancreas cancer and nodal metastasis.

BACKGROUND: Identification of molecular markers in pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) has the potential to guide targeted therapy. The objective of this study is to determine the prognostic significance of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression (membrane and cytoplasmic) in resected PA and its correlation with lymph node metastasis and survival. METHODS: EGFR overexpression was determined by immunohistochemistry, and the pattern of expression was compared between the primary tumour, adjacent normal pancreas and involved lymph nodes. RESULTS: A total of 88 patients had curative resection. No difference was found in mEGFR overexpression between tumoural and metastatic nodal tissues (P = 0.28). Median overall survival time was 22.9 months. Overall cumulative 1-, 3- and 5-year survival was 48%, 20% and 18%, respectively. In positive mEGFR tumour expression, survival was 46% at 1 year, 8% at 3 years and 0% at 5 years (P < 0.05). Univariate analysis showed that male gender, portal vein (PV) resection, perineural, lymphovascular and peri-pancreatic invasion, positive margins and positive mEGFR expression in tumour tissue had worse survival. Multivariate analysis showed that male gender, PV resection, vascular and perineural invasion remained independent predictors of poor survival. CONCLUSION: Positive mEGFR overexpression is associated with decreased survival; however, it is not an independent prognostic factor.

Brazilian consensus in gastric cancer: guidelines for gastric cancer in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: In Brazil, gastric cancer is the fourth most common malignancy among men and sixth among women. The cause is multivariate and the risks are well known. It has prognosis and treatment defined by the location and staging of the tumor and number of lymph nodes resected and involved. AIM: The Brazilian Consensus on Gastric Cancer promoted by ABCG was designed with the intention to issue guidelines that can guide medical professionals to care for patients with this disease. METHODS: Were summarized and answered 43 questions reflecting consensus or not on diagnosis and treatment that may be used as guidance for its multidisciplinary approach. The method involved three steps. Initially, 56 digestive surgeons and related medical specialties met to formulate the questions that were sent to participants for answers on scientific evidence and personal experience. Summaries were presented, discussed and voted in plenary in two other meetings. They covered 53 questions involving: diagnosis and staging (six questions); surgical treatment (35 questions); chemotherapy and radiotherapy (seven questions) and anatomopathology, immunohistochemistry and perspective (five questions). It was considered consensus agreement on more than 70% of the votes in each item. RESULTS: All the answers were presented and voted upon, and in 42 there was consensus. CONCLUSION: It could be developed consensus on most issues that come with the care of patients with gastric cancer and they can be transformed in guidelines.

Prevenção do tromboembolismo na cirurgia do câncer do aparelho digestivo / Thromboembolism prevention in surgery of digestive cancer

RACIONAL: Tromboembolismo venoso é complicação frequente após tratamento cirúrgico em geral e, de um modo especial, na condução terapêutica do câncer. A cirurgia do aparelho digestivo tem sido referida como potencialmente indutora desta complicação. Os pacientes com câncer digestivo, têm risco substancialmente aumentado de iniciarem ou de terem recorrência de processo tromboembólico. OBJETIVO: Oferecer aos cirurgiões que atuam na cirurgia digestiva e geral orientação segura sobre como efetuar a tromboprofilaxia dos pacientes que necessitam de operações no tratamento de doenças malignas digestivas. MÉTODOS: A Diretriz foi baseada a partir da elaboração de 15 questões clínicas relevantes e relacionadas ao risco, tratamento e prognóstico do paciente submetido ao tratamento cirúrgico do câncer do aparelho digestivo. Elas focaram tanto os eventos tromboembólicos associados às operações quanto os aspectos relacionados à sua profilaxia. As questões foram estruturadas por meio do P.I.C.O. (Paciente, Intervenção ou Indicador, Comparação e Outcome), permitindo gerar estratégias de busca da evidência nas principais bases primárias de informação científica (Medline/Pubmed, Embase, Lilacs/Scielo, Cochrane Library, Premedline via OVID). Também foi realizada busca manual da evidência e de teses (BDTD e IBICT). A evidência recuperada foi selecionada a partir da avaliação crítica utilizando instrumentos (escores) discriminatórios de acordo com a categoria da questão: risco, terapêutica e prognóstico (JADAD para Ensaios Clínicos Randomizados e New Castle Otawa Scale para estudos não randômicos). Após definir os estudos potenciais para sustento das recomendações, eles foram selecionados pela força da evidência e grau de recomendação segundo a classificação de Oxford, incluindo a evidência disponível de maior força. RESULTADOS: Foram avaliados 53.555 trabalhos pelo título e/ou resumo. Deste total foram selecionados (1ª seleção) 478 trabalhos avaliados pelo texto completo. A partir deles, para sustentar as recomendações, foram incluídos neste consenso 132 trabalhos. As 15 perguntas formuladas puderam ser respondidas com artigos com grau de evidência correspondentes à 31 A, 130 B, 1 C e 0 D. CONCLUSÃO: Esta revisão possibilitou elaborar orientação segura para a profilaxia do tromboembolismo nas operações sobre o câncer do aparelho digestivo, abordando os tópicos mais frequentes do quotidiano do trabalho dos cirurgiões gerais e do aparelho digestivo.

BACKGROUND: The venous thromboembolism is a common complication after surgical treatment in general and, in particular, on the therapeutic management on cancer. Surgery of the digestive tract has been reported to induce this complication. Patients with digestive cancer have substantial increased risk of initial or recurrent thromboembolism. AIM: To provide to surgeons working in digestive surgery and general surgery guidance on how to make safe thromboprophylaxis for patients requiring operations in the treatment of their gastrointestinal malignancies. METHODS: The guideline was based on 15 relevant clinical issues and related to the risk factors, treatment and prognosis of the patient undergoing surgical treatment of cancer on digestive tract. They focused thromboembolic events associated with operations and thromboprophylaxis. The questions were structured using the PICO (Patient, Intervention or Indicator, Comparison and Outcome), allowing strategies to generate evidence on the main primary bases of scientific information (Medline / Pubmed, Embase, Lilacs / Scielo, Cochrane Library, PreMedline via OVID). Evidence manual search was also conducted (BDTD and IBICT). The evidence was recovered from the selected critical evaluation using discriminatory instruments (scores) according to the category of the question: risk, prognosis and therapy (JADAD Randomized Clinical Trials and New Castle Ottawa Scale for studies not randomized). After defining potential studies to support the recommendations, they were selected by the strength of evidence and grade of recommendation according to the classification of Oxford, including the available evidence of greater strength. RESULTS: A total of 53,555 papers by title and / or abstract related to issue were found. Of this total were selected (1st selection) 478 studies that were evaluated as full-text. From them to support the recommendations were included in the consensus 132 papers. The 15 questions could be answered with evidence grade of articles with 31 A, 130 B, 1 C and 0 D. CONCLUSION: It was possible to prepare safe recommendations as guidance for thromboembolism prophylaxis in operations on the digestive tract malignancies, addressing the most frequent topics of everyday work of digestive and general surgeons.