274 research outputs found

    Implementation of a patient blood management in an Italian City Hospital: is it effective in reducing the use of red blood cells?

    Get PDF
    To evaluate the effect of patient blood management (PBM) since its introduction, we analyzed the need for transfusion and the outcomes in patients undergoing abdominal surgery for different types of tumor pre- and post-PBM. Patients undergoing elective gastric, liver, pancreatic, and colorectal surgery between 2017 and 2020 were included. The implementation of the PBM program was completed on May 1, 2018. The patients were grouped as follows: those who underwent surgery before the implementation of the program (pre-PBM) versus after the implementation (post-PBM). A total of 1302 patients were included in the analysis (445 pre-PBM vs. 857 post-PBM). The number of transfused patients per year decreased significantly after the introduction of PBM. A strong tendency for a decreased incidence of transfusion was evident in gastric and pancreatic surgery and a similar decrease was statistically significant in liver surgery. With regard to gastric surgery, a single-unit transfusion scheme was used more frequently in the post-PBM group (7.7% vs. 55% after PBM; p = 0.049); this was similar in liver surgery (17.6% vs. 58.3% after PBM; p = 0.04). Within the subgroup of patients undergoing liver surgery, a significant reduction in the use of blood transfusion (20.5% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.002) and a decrease in the Hb trigger for transfusion (8.5, 8.2-9.5 vs. 8.2, 7.7-8.4 g/dl; p = 0.039) was reported after the PBM introduction. After the implementation of a PBM protocol, a significant reduction in the number of patients receiving blood transfusion was demonstrated, with a strong tendency to minimize the use of blood products for most types of oncologic surgery

    Outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with sorafenib: A meta-analysis of Phase III trials

    Get PDF
    Aim: To benchmark overall survival (OS) and time to radiological progression (TTP) of patients enrolled in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma using individual participant survival data, and to meta-analyze prognostic factors for OS and TTP. Methods: RCTs were identified through literature search until December 2018. Individual participant survival was reconstructed with an algorithm from published Kaplan–Meier curves. Results: Ten RCTs were included. Median OS was 10.0 months (95% CI: 9.6–10.5), and median TTP was 4.1 months (95% CI: 3.8–4.3). Multivariable analyses showed HCV positivity, absence of macrovascular invasion and extra-hepatic disease as predictors of longer OS. Conclusion: We provided a benchmark for future studies on sorafenib. The present results can be used in the decision making for the early shift to second-line strategy

    Preoperative Chemotherapy and Resection Margin Status in Colorectal Liver Metastasis Patients: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

    Get PDF
    In this article, we compared the early and long-term outcomes of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy followed by resection with those of patients undergoing surgery first, focusing our analysis on resection margin status. Patients who underwent liver resection with curative intent for colorectal liver metastases from July 2001 to January 2018 were included in the analysis. Propensity score matching was used to reduce treatment allocation bias. The cohort comprised 164 patients; 117 (71.3%) underwent liver resection first, whereas the remaining 47 (28.7%) had preoperative chemotherapy. After a 1:1 ratio of propensity score matching, 47 patients per group were evaluated. A positive resection margin was found in 13 patients in the surgery-first group (25.5%) versus 4 (8.5%) in the preoperative chemotherapy group (P = 0.029). Postmatched logistic regression analysis showed that only preoperative chemotherapy was significantly associated with the rate of positive resection margin (odds ratio 0.24, 95% confidence interval 0.07-0.81; P = 0.022). Median follow-up was 41 months (interquartile range 8-69). Cox proportional hazard regression analysis revealed that only positive resection margin was a significant negative prognostic factor (hazard ratio 2.2, 95% CI 1.18-4.11; P = 0.014). Within the preoperative chemotherapy group, median overall survival was 40 months in R0 patients and 10 months in R1 patients (P = 0.016). Although preoperative chemotherapy in colorectal liver metastasis patients may affect the rate of positive resection margin, its impact on survival seems to be limited. In the present study, the most important prognostic factor was the resection margin status

    Cytoreduction plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinomatosis in colorectal cancer patients: a single-center cohort study

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: In this study, we report our experience of cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) from colorectal cancer (CRC), focusing on the factors affecting survival. METHODS: All patients with surgically treated PC from colorectal cancer and with no involvement of other organs referred to our institute from March 2005 to December 2017 were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients underwent CRS-HIPEC, and all had a completeness of cytoreduction score of 0 (CC0). The median operating time was 645 min (interquartile range [IQR] 565-710). Five patients (13.1%) had Clavien-Dindo grade >\u20092 postoperative complications. Median overall survival (OS) was 60 months. In the Cox regression for OS, calculated on the CRS-HIPEC group, the peritoneal cancer index (PCI) >\u20096 (hazard ratio [HR] 4.48, IQR 1.68-11.9, P = 0.003) and significant nodal involvement (N2) (HR 3.89, IQR 1.50-10.1, P = 0.005) were independent prognostic factors. Median disease-free survival (DFS) was 16 months. Only N2 (HR 2.44, IQR 1.11-5.36, P = 0.027) was a significantly negative prognostic factor for DFS in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: CRS-HIPEC can substantially improve survival. However, patients with high PCI (PCI >\u20096) and significant nodal involvement (N2) may not benefit from the procedure

    Microbiota in the Natural History of Pancreatic Cancer: From Predisposition to Therapy

    Get PDF
    Simple Summary Pancreatic cancer is still burdened with a severe prognosis, despite advances in the diagnosis and surgical management of this disease. The gut microbiome is gaining increasing interest in the development and management in this setting. The intent of our review is to provide a comprehensive review for researchers and clinicians in the field to fully understand the role of the gut microbiome in the history of pancreatic cancer. We analyzed current literature from pre-cancerous conditions to cancer characteristics and how this may alter the therapeutic approach. Evidence and concerns can guide future research in this area. Early microbiome insights came from gut microbes and their role among intestinal and extraintestinal disease. The latest evidence suggests that the microbiota is a true organ, capable of several interactions throughout the digestive system, attracting specific interest in the biliopancreatic district. Despite advances in diagnostics over the last few decades and improvements in the management of this disease, pancreatic cancer is still a common cause of cancer death. Microbiota can influence the development of precancerous disease predisposing to pancreatic cancer (PC). At the same time, neoplastic tissue shows specific characteristics in terms of diversity and phenotype, determining the short- and long-term prognosis. Considering the above information, a role for microbiota has also been hypothesized in the different phases of the PC approach, providing future revolutionary therapeutic insights. Microbiota-modulating therapies could open new issues in the therapeutic landscape. The aim of this narrative review is to assess the most updated evidence on microbiome in all the steps regarding pancreatic adenocarcinoma, from early development to response to antineoplastic therapy and long-term prognosis

    Regret affects the choice between neoadjuvant therapy and upfront surgery for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer

    Get PDF
    Background: When treating potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, therapeutic decisions are left to the sensibility of treating clinicians who, faced with a decision that post hoc can be proven wrong, may feel a sense of regret that they want to avoid. A regret-based decision model was applied to evaluate attitudes to-ward neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgery for potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.Methods: Three clinical scenarios describing high-, intermediate-, and low-risk disease-specific mortality after upfront surgery were presented to 60 respondents (20 oncologists, 20 gastroenterologists, and 20 surgeons). Respondents were asked to report their regret of omission and commission regarding neo-adjuvant chemotherapy on a scale between 0 (no regret) and 100 (maximum regret). The threshold model and a multilevel mixed regression were applied to analyze respondents' attitudes toward neo-adjuvant therapy.Results: The lowest regret of omission was elicited in the low-risk scenario, and the highest regret in the high-risk scenario (P < .001). The regret of the commission was diametrically opposite to the regret of omission (P < .001). The disease-specific threshold mortality at which upfront surgery is favored over the neoadjuvant therapy progressively decreased from the low-risk to the high-risk scenarios (P <=.001). The nonsurgeons working in or with lower surgical volume centers (P = .010) and surgeons (P = .018) accepted higher disease-specific mortality after upfront surgery, which resulted in the lower likelihood of adopting neoadjuvant therapy.Conclusion: Regret drives decision making in the management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Being a surgeon or a specialist working in surgical centers with lower patient volumes reduces the likelihood of recommending neoadjuvant therapy.(c) 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved
    • …
    corecore