NET-Related Gene as Potential Diagnostic Biomarkers for Diabetic Tubulointerstitial Injury.

Background: Tubulointerstitial injury plays a pivotal role in the progression of diabetic kidney disease (DKD), yet the link between neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) and diabetic tubulointerstitial injury is still unclear. Methods: We analyzed microarray data (GSE30122) from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database to identify differentially expressed genes (DEGs) associated with DKD's tubulointerstitial injury. Functional and pathway enrichment analyses were conducted to elucidate the involved biological processes (BP) and pathways. Weighted gene coexpression network analysis (WGCNA) identified modules associated with DKD. LASSO regression and random forest selected NET-related characteristic genes (NRGs) related to DKD tubulointerstitial injury. Results: Eight hundred ninety-eight DEGs were identified from the GSE30122 dataset. A significant module associated with diabetic tubulointerstitial injury overlapped with 15 NRGs. The hub genes, CASP1 and LYZ, were identified as potential biomarkers. Functional enrichment linked these genes with immune cell trafficking, metabolic alterations, and inflammatory responses. NRGs negatively correlated with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in the Neph v5 database. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) validated increased NRGs in DKD tubulointerstitial injury. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the CASP1 and LYZ genes may serve as potential diagnostic biomarkers for diabetic tubulointerstitial injury. Furthermore, NRGs involved in diabetic tubulointerstitial injury could emerge as prospective targets for the diagnosis and treatment of DKD.

Quality of life after pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic surgery is challenging owing to the anatomical characteristics of the pancreas. Increasing attention has been paid to changes in quality of life (QOL) after pancreatic surgery. AIM: To summarize and analyze current research results on QOL after pancreatic surgery. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature available on PubMed and EMBASE was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Relevant studies were identified by screening the references of retrieved articles. Studies on patients' QOL after pancreatic surgery published after January 1, 2012, were included. These included prospective and retrospective studies on patients' QOL after several types of pancreatic surgeries. The results of these primary studies were summarized inductively. RESULTS: A total of 45 articles were included in the study, of which 13 were related to pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), seven to duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR), nine to distal pancreatectomy (DP), two to central pancreatectomy (CP), and 14 to total pancreatectomy (TP). Some studies showed that 3-6 months were needed for QOL recovery after PD, whereas others showed that 6-12 months was more accurate. Although TP and PD had similar influences on QOL, patients needed longer to recover to preoperative or baseline levels after TP. The QOL was better after DPPHR than PD. However, the superiority of the QOL between patients who underwent CP and PD remains controversial. The decrease in exocrine and endocrine functions postoperatively was the main factor affecting the QOL. Minimally invasive surgery could improve patients' QOL in the early stages after PD and DP; however, the long-term effect remains unclear. CONCLUSION: The procedure among PD, DP, CP, and TP with a superior postoperative QOL is controversial. The long-term benefits of minimally invasive versus open surgeries remain unclear. Further prospective trials are warranted.

Long-term quality of life between duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection and pancreatoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The authors aimed to compare the differences in quality of life (QOL) and overall survival (OS) between duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) and pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) during long-term follow-up. DPPHR and PD have been shown to be effective in alleviating symptoms and controlling malignancies, but there is ongoing debate over whether DPPHR has an advantage over PD in terms of long-term benefits. METHOD: The authors searched the PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science databases for relevant studies comparing DPPHR and PD published before 1 May 2023. This study was registered with PROSPERO. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies were included. The Mantel-Haenszel model and inverse variance method were used as statistical approaches for data synthesis. Subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate the heterogeneity of the results. The primary outcome was the global QOL score, measured using the QLQ-C30 system. RESULTS: The authors analysed ten studies involving 976 patients (456 DPPHR and 520 PD). The global QOL score did not differ significantly between the DPPHR and PD groups [standard mean difference (SMD) 0.21, 95% CI (-0.05, 0.46), P =0.109, I2 =70%]; however, the OS time of patients with DPPHR was significantly improved [hazard ratio 0.59, 95% CI (0.44, 0.77), P <0.001, I2 =0%]. The follow-up length may be an important source of heterogeneity. Studies with follow-up length between two to seven years showed better global QOL for DPPHR than for PD [SMD 0.43, 95% CI (0.23, 0.64), P <0.001, I2 =0%]. There were no significant differences between the two groups in any of the functional scales of the QLQ-C30 system (all P >0.05). On the symptom scale, patients in the DPPHR group had lower scores for fatigue, nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, insomnia, and diarrhoea than those in the PD group (all P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in global QOL scores between the two surgeries; however, DPPHR had advantages over PD in terms of safer perioperative outcomes, lower long-term symptom scores, and longer OS times. Therefore, DPPHR should be recommended over PD for the treatment of benign pancreatic diseases and low-grade malignant tumours.

A comparative study of the "superior mesenteric artery first" approach versus the conventional approach in short-term and long-term outcomes in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma undergoing laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: The use of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) in pancreatic head cancer remains controversial, and an appropriate surgical approach can help improve perioperative safety and oncological outcomes. This study aimed to assess the short-term outcomes and long-term survival of the superior mesenteric artery first (SMA-first) approach in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) undergoing LPD. METHODS: The data of 91 consecutive PDAC patients who underwent LPD from June 2014 to June 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups, the modified SMA-first approach group, using a combined posterior and anterior approach, and the conventional approach group. Perioperative outcomes, pathologic results, and overall survival (OS) were compared between groups, and propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed. RESULTS: The number of lymph nodes harvested was greater in the SMA-first approach group (19 vs. 15, P = 0.021), as did the results in the matched cohort (21 vs. 15, P = 0.046). No significant difference was observed in the R0 resection rate (93.3% vs. 82.6%, P = 0.197), but the involvement of the SMA margin was indeed lower in the SMA-first approach group (0 vs. 13%). There were no obvious variances between the two groups in terms of intraoperative bleeding, operative time, overall and major postoperative complication rates, and mortality in either the original cohort or matched cohort. The median OS was 21.8 months in the SMA-first group, whereas it was 19.8 months in the conventional group (P = 0.900). Survival also did not differ in the matched cohort (P = 0.558). TNM stage, resection margin, overall complications, and adjuvant therapy were independent risk factors affecting OS. CONCLUSION: The modified SMA-first approach is safe and feasible for PDAC patients undergoing LPD. It had a slight advantage in specimen quality, but OS was not significantly prolonged.