Esophagectomy--it's not just about mortality anymore: standardized perioperative clinical pathways improve outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal resection (ER) remains the standard therapy for early esophageal cancer; however, because of concerns regarding high levels of morbidity and mortality reported in analyses of national databases, many patients are relegated to less effective endoscopic or chemotherapeutic approaches. METHODS: All patients undergoing esophagectomy by a single surgeon for cancer or high-grade dysplasia between 05/91-05/06 were prospectively entered into an IRB-approved database. All aspects of work-up and treatment were guided by an evolving standardized perioperative clinical pathway. RESULTS: Three hundred forty consecutive patients, mean age of 64 (33-90), underwent ER for Barrett's esophagus (17) or invasive cancer stages I-87, II-133, III-94, IV-9. One hundred thirty-nine (41%) had neoadjuvant therapy. Sixty-three percent were American Society of Anesthesiologists class III or IV, and five different operative approaches were used. Patient were managed intraoperatively with a "fluid restriction" protocol. Mean intraoperative blood loss was 230 cc. 99.5% of patients were extubated immediately, and mean ICU and hospital stays were 2.25 (1-30) and 11.5 (6-49) days, respectively. Postoperative analgesia was managed with patient-controlled epidural analgesia in 98.5%, and 86% were mobilized on day 1 after surgery. Complications occurred in 153 patients (45%), most commonly atrial dysrhythmia (13%), and postoperative delirium (11%). Anastomotic leaks occurred in 13 patients (3.8%). Mortality occurred in one patient (0.3%). No significant differences were seen in length of stay, operative time, blood loss, or complications in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy. For stages I, II, and III, patients between 1998-2004 Kaplan-Meier 5-year cumulative survival was 92.4, 57.1, and 34.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment of esophageal cancer can be done with moderate morbidity and very low mortality, and the expectation of improved levels of survival, especially in early-stage patients. Standardized perioperative clinical pathways can provide the infrastructure for the treatment of these patients and should include increased efforts to minimize blood loss and transfusions, improve postoperative pain control and extubation rates, and facilitate early mobilization and discharge. ER, as sole therapy or in combination with radiation/chemotherapy, should remain the standard of care in patients with early and locoregional esophageal cancer.

Phase II trial of imatinib (Gleevec) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Fourteen patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) were treated on a Phase II trial with imatinib. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed RCC, metastatic and measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), Karnofsky performance status (KPS) of at least 70%, life expectancy of more than 3 months, and adequate hematological, renal, and liver function. Imatinib was given orally at a dose of 400 mg bid. The most common toxicities were Grade II/III nausea (28%) and Grade II renal insufficiency (14%). All patients had tumor tested by immunohistochemistry (IHC) for KIT protein (CD117, DAKO). One tumor (7%) demonstrated strong, diffuse expression and the rest were negative. No complete or partial responses were observed in 12 evaluable patients treated with imatinib.

Gemcitabine combined with docetaxel for the treatment of unresectable pancreatic carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and toxicity of combination therapy with gemcitabine and docetaxel in patients with unresectable pancreatic carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients with unresectable stage III, IVA, and IVB pancreatic carcinoma were eligible for this study. The first 18 patients received gemcitabine 800 mg/m2 intravenously (i.v.) on days 1, 8, and 15 and docetaxel 75 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1, repeated every 28 days. Due to a high incidence of myelosuppression in this first group, the treatment schedule was modified in the remaining patients to gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 i.v. and docetaxel 40 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day schedule. The primary study endpoints were objective response rate and duration of survival. RESULTS: Ten of 33 evaluable patients achieved a partial response, for an overall response rate of 30.3% (95% CI, 16.21%-48.87%). Partial responses noted in the pancreas and a variety of metastatic sites were maintained for 4 to 12 months (median 6 months). Twelve additional patients (36%) experienced stable disease. The median time to progression was 6 months, and median survival was 10.5 months. The toxicity profile of the modified gemcitabine/docetaxel schedule was more favorable than that associated with the initial regimen, particularly with respect to hematologic toxicity. CONCLUSION: The response and survival data reported here for combination therapy with gemcitabine and docetaxel are encouraging given the poor prognosis associated with unresectable pancreatic cancer. These data suggest that gemcitabine plus docetaxel may be more effective than either agent alone in the treatment of pancreatic cancer and warrants further study.

Bee envenomation: a rare cause of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) is characterized by the pentad of microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, neurologic symptoms, renal insufficiency, and fever. Although many underlying diseases and conditions are associated with TTP, there has been only one previously documented case of bee-sting-associated TTP. In this article, we describe the case of a woman who developed life-threatening TTP temporally related to a honeybee sting and who required prolonged plasma exchange before her condition improved. We also briefly review evolving concepts in the pathogenesis of TTP and speculate on the etiopathogenicity of TTP and bee envenomation.