A multicenter randomized clinical trial of primary anastomosis or Hartmann's procedure for perforated left colonic diverticulitis with purulent or fecal peritonitis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the outcome after Hartmann's procedure (HP) versus primary anastomosis (PA) with diverting ileostomy for perforated left-sided diverticulitis. BACKGROUND: The surgical management of left-sided colonic perforation with purulent or fecal peritonitis remains controversial. PA with ileostomy seems to be superior to HP; however, results in the literature are affected by a significant selection bias. No randomized clinical trial has yet compared the 2 procedures. METHODS: Sixty-two patients with acute left-sided colonic perforation (Hinchey III and IV) from 4 centers were randomized to HP (n = 30) and to PA (with diverting ileostomy, n = 32), with a planned stoma reversal operation after 3 months in both groups. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary end point was the overall complication rate. The study was discontinued following an interim analysis that found significant differences of relevant secondary end points as well as a decreasing accrual rate (NCT01233713). RESULTS: Patient demographics were equally distributed in both groups (Hinchey III: 76% vs 75% and Hinchey IV: 24% vs 25%, for HP vs PA, respectively). The overall complication rate for both resection and stoma reversal operations was comparable (80% vs 84%, P = 0.813). Although the outcome after the initial colon resection did not show any significant differences (mortality 13% vs 9% and morbidity 67% vs 75% in HP vs PA), the stoma reversal rate after PA with diverting ileostomy was higher (90% vs 57%, P = 0.005) and serious complications (Grades IIIb-IV: 0% vs 20%, P = 0.046), operating time (73 minutes vs 183 minutes, P < 0.001), hospital stay (6 days vs 9 days, P = 0.016), and lower in-hospital costs (US $16,717 vs US $24,014) were significantly reduced in the PA group. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomized clinical trial favoring PA with diverting ileostomy over HP in patients with perforated diverticulitis.

A randomized multi-center phase II trial of the angiogenesis inhibitor Cilengitide (EMD 121974) and gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Anti-angiogenic treatment is believed to have at least cystostatic effects in highly vascularized tumours like pancreatic cancer. In this study, the treatment effects of the angiogenesis inhibitor Cilengitide and gemcitabine were compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer. METHODS: A multi-national, open-label, controlled, randomized, parallel-group, phase II pilot study was conducted in 20 centers in 7 countries. Cilengitide was administered at 600 mg/m2 twice weekly for 4 weeks per cycle and gemcitabine at 1000 mg/m2 for 3 weeks followed by a week of rest per cycle. The planned treatment period was 6 four-week cycles. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, quality of life (QoL), effects on biological markers of disease (CA 19.9) and angiogenesis (vascular endothelial growth factor and basic fibroblast growth factor), and safety. An ancillary study investigated the pharmacokinetics of both drugs in a subset of patients. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were randomized. The median overall survival was 6.7 months for Cilengitide and gemcitabine and 7.7 months for gemcitabine alone. The median PFS times were 3.6 months and 3.8 months, respectively. The overall response rates were 17% and 14%, and the tumor growth control rates were 54% and 56%, respectively. Changes in the levels of CA 19.9 went in line with the clinical course of the disease, but no apparent relationships were seen with the biological markers of angiogenesis. QoL and safety evaluations were comparable between treatment groups. Pharmacokinetic studies showed no influence of gemcitabine on the pharmacokinetic parameters of Cilengitide and vice versa. CONCLUSION: There were no clinically important differences observed regarding efficacy, safety and QoL between the groups. The observations lay in the range of other clinical studies in this setting. The combination regimen was well tolerated with no adverse effects on the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of either agent.

Laparoscopic management of appendicitis and symptomatic cholelithiasis during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery during pregnancy is a challenging procedure that most surgeons are reluctant to perform. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether laparoscopic appendectomy and cholecystectomy is safe in pregnant women. The management of these situations remains controversial. We report a single center study describing the successful management of 16 patients during pregnancy. METHODS: More than 3,356 laparoscopic procedures were performed in our institutions between May 1990 and June 2005. Sixteen of these patients were operated on in the second and third trimester between 22 and 32 weeks of estimated gestational age. We performed 11 laparoscopic appendectomies and 5 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. We also reviewed the management and operative technique used in these patients. RESULTS: In this study, the laparoscopic appendectomy or cholecystectomy was performed successfully in all patients. Three patients were in their second trimester, weeks 22, 23, and 25, and 13 were in the third trimester, weeks 27 (three patients), 28 (five patients), 31 (three patients), and 32 (two patients). No maternal or fetal morbidity occurred. Open laparoscopy was performed safely in all patients and all patients delivered healthy babies. CONCLUSION: From our experience laparoscopic management of appendicitis and biliary colic during pregnancy is safe, however the second trimester is preferable for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Pregnancy is not a contraindication to the laparoscopic approach to appendicitis or symptomatic cholelithiasis. We believe that laparoscopic operations, when performed by experienced surgeons, are safe and even preferable for the mother and the fetus.

[Hepatocellular carcinoma: a multidisciplinary approach]. / Le carcinome hépatocellulaire: une approche multidisciplinaire.

The treatment of the hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is multidisciplinary. Hepatic transplantation offers the best chances of survival for patients with hepatic cirrhosis and HCC. However the indications for transplantation are limited. For patients that do not qualify for liver transplantation, surgical excision and percutaneous ablative treatment can also be curative. Five years survival then reaches 50%. The choice of treatment is based upon the patient's clinical state, the hepatic function and the cancer clinical stage. Follow-up is crucial as recurrences can be treated by following similar algorithms. The efficacy of oncological adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment is not yet proved.

Evidence-based surgery in chronic pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: In the past two decades our knowledge of the pathophysiology and surgical treatment options in chronic pancreatitis has improved substantially. Surgical treatment in chronic pancreatitis has evolved from extending to organ-preserving procedures. DISCUSSION: The classical Whipple resection is no longer a standard procedure in chronic pancreatitis, and is continuously being replaced by operations such as the duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection and pylorus-preserving Whipple. These procedures allow the preservation of exocrine and endocrine pancreatic function, provides pain relief in up to 90% of patients, and contributes to an improvement in life quality. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to presently available results from randomized controlled trials, new studies comparing available surgical approaches in chronic pancreatitis are needed to determine which procedure is the most effective in the treating chronic pancreatitis.

Staging laparoscopy and its indications in pancreatic cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy has become a popular and widespread surgical technique. An important goal in the treatment of patients with pancreatic cancer is to avoid any unnecessary procedure. Laparoscopy has been suggested as a routine tool for staging in order to prevent unnecessary laparotomies in these patients. METHODS: In this article we present our experience regarding the value of laparoscopic staging and review the literature on this topic. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: A direct and conclusive comparison of the controversial literature is difficult because of different study designs. Inconsistent use of high-quality CT scans significantly affects the results. However, recent studies reveal that not more than 14% of the patients benefit from diagnostic laparoscopy when a state-of-the-art CT scan has been performed previously. Therefore, we conclude that routine diagnostic laparoscopy is not justified in all patients with pancreatic cancer. Rather, selective use is appropriate, especially in patients in whom ascites is an indirect sign of peritoneal metastases, or if liver metastases cannot be surely excluded preoperatively. This approach is cost-effective and limits diagnostic laparoscopy to a subgroup of patients in whom a laparotomy can be avoided.

Influences of the lysosomal associated membrane proteins (Lamp-1, Lamp-2) and Mac-2 binding protein (Mac-2-BP) on the prognosis of pancreatic carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Lamps and Mac-2-BP are ligands of galectin-3, and they were suggested to influence tumor proliferation and metastasis formation. The authors studied the expression of Lamp-1, Lamp-2, and Mac-2-BP in pancreatic carcinoma and evaluated their influence on patient prognosis. METHODS: Northern blot analysis, in situ hybridization, and immunohistochemistry were performed in 12 normal and 28 pancreatic carcinoma tissue samples and in pancreatic carcinoma cell lines. The molecular findings in the tumor samples were correlated with the prognosis and histopathologic tumor characteristics. In addition, in Lamp-1 transfected CAPAN-1 pancreatic carcinoma cells, cell proliferation was analyzed. RESULTS: Lamp-1, Lamp-2, and Mac-2-BP were overexpressed in 61% (1.6-fold increase, not significant), 71% (3.0-fold increase, P < 0.01), and 93% (5.6-fold increase, P < 0.01) of the pancreatic carcinoma samples. Lamp-1 and Lamp-2 immunoreactivity was present at the luminal side of the ductal carcinoma cells whereas Mac-2-BP immunoreactivity was diffusely spread over the whole cytoplasm and the nucleolus of ductal carcinoma cells. Correlation of the molecular data with clinical patient parameters revealed that patients whose tumors exhibited high Lamp-1 mRNA expression lived significantly longer (median, 17 months) after tumor resection than patients whose tumors exhibited low to moderate Lamp-1 mRNA levels (median, 8 months; P < 0.02). No relation between Lamp-2 and Mac-2-BP mRNA expression and any of the histopathologic parameters was found. Lamp-1 transfected CAPAN-1 cells showed decreased cell growth compared with the nontransfected cells. CONCLUSIONS: Lamp-1 might influence local tumor progression rather than the formation of tumor metastasis in pancreatic carcinoma, whereas Mac-2-BP and Lamp-2 seem to have little influence on these parameters in pancreatic carcinoma.

Adhesion molecules in human pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Adhesion molecules are cell surface glycoproteins that are important in cell-to-cell and cell-to-extracellular matrix interactions. In the present study, we analyzed the adhesion molecules ICAM-1 (intercellular adhesion molecule-1), VCAM-1 (vascular cell adhesion molecule-1), and ELAM-1 (endothelial leukocyte adhesion molecule-1) in human pancreatic cancer. METHODS: ICAM-1, VCAM-1, and ELAM-1 were analyzed in 20 pancreatic cancer specimens and 20 normal pancreatic tissues. mRNA expression encoding ICAM-, VCAM-1, and ELAM-1 was assessed with Northern blot analysis. The distribution and localization of ICAM-1, VCAM-1, and ELAM-1 was determined in the pancreatic specimens by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Northern blot analysis revealed a 5.4-fold increase of ICAM-1 (P<0.01) and a 3.7-fold increase in VCAM-1 (P<0.01) mRNA expression in cancer samples in comparison with normal controls. In contrast, ELAM-1 mRNA levels did not show significant differences between the cancer and the normal tissues. Immunohistochemical analysis of cancer tissues showed strong immunostaining for ICAM-1 and VCAM-1, and faint immunostaining for ELAM-1 in the pancreatic cancer cells. Fibrotic or noncancerous pancreatic tissue adjacent to the cancer mass was devoid of any immunoreactivity for ICAM-1, ELAM-1, and VCAM-1. In contrast, the normal pancreas exhibited no immunoreactivity of ICAM-1, ELAM-1, and VCAM-1. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced expression of ICAM-1 and VCAM-1 in human pancreatic cancers suggests a role in tumor pathogenesis. The increase of these adhesion molecules might influence the detachment of cancer cells in the primary tumor, might contribute to cancer cell migration and the spread of cancer cells to distant organs, or both.