Continuous drain irrigation as a risk mitigation strategy for postoperative pancreatic fistula: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pancreatic fistula serves as the principle cause for the morbidity and mortality observed after pancreatectomy. Continuous drain irrigation as a treatment strategy for infected pancreatic necrosis has previously been described; however, its role adter pancreatectomy has yet to be determined. The aim of this study was to determine whether continuous drain irrigation reduces postoperative pancreatic fistula. METHODS: A meta-analysis of the pre-existing literature was performed. The primary end point was whether continuous drain irrigation reduced postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatectomy. The secondary end point evaluated its impact on postoperative morbidity, mortality, and length of stay. RESULTS: Nine articles involving 782 patients were included. Continuous drain irrigation use was associated with a statistically significant reduction in postoperative pancreatic fistula rates (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.40 [0.19-0.82], P = .01). Upon subgroup analysis, a significant reduction in clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula was also noted (odds ratio 0.37 [0.20-0.66], P = .0008). A reduction in postoperative complications was also observed-delayed gastric emptying (0.45 [0.24-0.84], P = .01) and the need for re-operation (0.33 [0.11-0.96], P = .04). This reduction in postoperative complications translated into a reduced length of stay (mean difference -2.62 [-4.97 to -0.26], P = .03). CONCLUSION: Continuous drain irrigation after pancreatectomy is a novel treatment strategy with a limited body of published evidence. After acknowledging the limitations of the data, initial analysis would suggest that it may serve as an effective risk mitigation strategy against postoperative pancreatic fistula. Further research in a prospective context utilizing patient risk stratification for fistula development is, however, required to define its role within clinical practice.

Circulating biomarkers and outcomes from a randomised phase 2 trial of gemcitabine versus capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy for pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Phase 2 SCALOP trial compared gemcitabine with capecitabine-based consolidation chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). METHODS: Thirty-five systematically identified circulating biomarkers were analysed in plasma samples from 60 patients enroled in SCALOP. Each was measured in triplicate at baseline (prior to three cycles of gemcitabine-capecitabine induction chemotherapy) and, for a subset, prior to CRT. Association with overall survival (OS) was determined using univariable Cox regression and optimal thresholds delineating low to high values identified using time-dependent ROC curves. Independence from known prognostic factors was assessed using Spearman correlation and the Wilcoxon rank sum test prior to multivariable Cox regression modelling including independent biomarkers and known prognostic factors. RESULTS: Baseline circulating levels of C-C motif chemokine ligand 5 (CCL5) were significantly associated with OS, independent of other clinicopathological characteristics. Patients with low circulating CCL5 (CCL5low) had a median OS of 18.5 (95% CI 11.76-21.32) months compared to 11.3 (95% CI 9.86-15.51) months in CCL5high; hazard ratio 1.95 (95% CI 1.04-8.65; p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: CCL5 is an independent prognostic biomarker in LAPC. Given the known role of CCL5 in tumour invasion, metastasis and the induction of an immunosuppressive micro-environment, targeting of CCL5-mediated pathways may offer therapeutic potential in pancreatic cancer. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The SCALOP trial was registered with ISRCTN, number 96169987 (registered 29 May 2008).

The 100 most influential manuscripts in gastric cancer: A bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Bibliometric analysis highlights the key topics and publications which have shaped the understanding and management of Gastric cancer. Here the 100 most cited manuscripts in the field of gastric cancer (GC) are analysed. METHODS: The Thomson Reuters Web of Science database with the search terms 'gastric cancer' or 'gastric carcinoma' or 'stomach cancer' or 'stomach carcinoma' or 'gastroscopy' was used to identify all English language full manuscripts for the study. The 100 most cited papers were further analysed by topic, journal, author, year and institution. RESULTS: 122,616 eligible papers were returned and the median (range) citation number was 417 (2893-299). The most cited paper (by Parsonnet) focused on H.Pylori risk and gastric cancer (2893 citations). Cancer Research published the highest number of papers (n = 13, 6901 citations) and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) had the most citations (n = 8, 9358 citations). The country and year with the greatest number of publications were the USA (n = 29), and 1998 (n = 10). The most ubiquitous topic was the pathology of gastric cancer (n = 57) followed by aetiology of gastric cancer (n = 47), and basic science of gastric cancer (n = 44). CONCLUSION: The most cited manuscripts highlighted in this study describe the science related to the pathogenesis of GC including surgery and regimens that have resulted in the contemporary understanding and treatment of GC. This work provides the most influential references related to GC and serves as a guide as to what makes a citable paper.

Profiling for primary-care presentation, investigation and referral for liver cancers: evidence from a national audit.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The incidence of liver cancer across Europe is increasing. There is a lack of evidence within the current literature on the identification and investigation of liver cancer within primary care. We aimed to profile liver cancer recognition and assessment as well as the timeliness of liver cancer diagnosis from within the primary-care setting in the UK. METHODS: Data were obtained from the National Audit of Cancer Diagnosis in Primary Care 2009-2010 and analysed. We calculated the patient interval, the primary-care interval and the number of prereferral consultations for liver cancer. We then compared these data with prior data on the respective indicators for other common cancers. RESULTS: The median patient interval was 9 days (interquartile range 0-31 days), and the median primary-care interval for liver cancer was 11 days (interquartile range 0-40 days). Of the 90 patients, 21 (23.3%) had three or more consultations with their general practitioner before specialist referral. For the three metrics (patient interval, primary-care interval and number of prereferral consultations), liver cancer has average or longer intervals when compared with other cancers. The most common symptomatic presentation of liver cancer within the primary-care setting was right upper quadrant pain (11%), followed by decompensated liver failure (9%). Of the patients, 12% were diagnosed with liver cancer on the basis of an incidental finding of an abnormal liver function test. CONCLUSION: This study provides a detailed and thorough overview of the recognition of liver cancer and the promptness of liver cancer identification in an English context, and should inform strategies for improving the timeliness of diagnosis.