Surgical treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors of the duodenum. A literature review

Background: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) are the most frequent mesenchymal tumours in the digestive tract. The duodenal GIST (dGIST) is the rarest subtype, representing only 4–5% of all GIST, but up to 21% of the resected ones. The diagnostic and therapeutic management of dGIST may be difficult due to the rarity of this tumor, its anatomical location, and the clinical behavior that often mimic a variety of conditions; moreover, there is lack of consent for their treatment. This study has evaluated the scientific literature to provide consensus on the diagnosis of dGIST and to outline possible options for surgical treatment. Methods: An extensive research has been carried out on the electronic databases MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE and Cochrane to identify all clinical trials that report an event or case series of dGIST. Results: Eighty-six studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified with five hundred forty-nine patients with dGIST: twenty-seven patients were treated with pancreatoduodenectomy and ninety-six with only local resection (segmental/wedge resections); in four hundred twenty-six patients it is not possible identify the type of treatment performed (pancreatoduodenectomy or segmental/wedge resections). Conclusions: dGISTs are a very rare subset of GISTs. They may be asymptomatic or may involve symptoms of upper GI bleeding and abdominal pain at presentation. Because of the misleading clinical presentation the differential diagnosis may be difficult. Tumours smaller than 2 cm have a low biological aggressiveness and can be followed annually by endoscopic ultrasound. The biggest ones should undergo radical surgical resection (R0). In dGIST there is no uniformly adopted surgical strategy because of the low incidence, lack of experience, and the complex anatomy of the duodenum. Therefore, individually tailored surgical approach is recommended. R0 resection with 1–2 cm clear margin is required. Lymph node dissection is not recommended due to the low incidence of lymphatic metastases. Tumor rupture should be avoided

Survival and predictors of death in tuberculosis/HIV coinfection cases in Porto Alegre, Brazil : a historical cohort from 2009 to 2013

Background: Tuberculosis is a curable disease, which remains the leading cause of death among infectious diseases worldwide, and it is the leading cause of death in people living with HIV. The purpose is to examine survival and predictors of death in Tuberculosis/HIV coinfection cases from 2009 to 2013. Methods: We estimated the survival of 2,417 TB/HIV coinfection cases in Porto Alegre, from diagnosis up to 85 months of follow-up. We estimated hazard ratios and survival curves. Results: The adjusted risk ratio (aRR) for death, by age, hospitalization, and Directly Observed Treatment was 4.58 for new cases (95% CI: 1.14–18.4), 4.51 for recurrence (95% CI: 1.11–18.4) and 4.53 for return after abandonment (95% CI: 1.12–18.4). The average survival time was 72.56 ± 1.57 months for those who underwent Directly Observed Treatment and 62.61 ± 0.77 for those who did not. Conclusions: Case classification, age, and hospitalization are predictors of death. The occurrence of Directly Observed Treatment was a protective factor that increased the probability of survival. Policies aimed at reducing the mortality of patients with TB/HIV coinfection are needed

Survival and predictors of death in tuberculosis/HIV coinfection cases in Porto Alegre, Brazil: A historical cohort from 2009 to 2013.

BackgroundTuberculosis is a curable disease, which remains the leading cause of death among infectious diseases worldwide, and it is the leading cause of death in people living with HIV. The purpose is to examine survival and predictors of death in Tuberculosis/HIV coinfection cases from 2009 to 2013.MethodsWe estimated the survival of 2,417 TB/HIV coinfection cases in Porto Alegre, from diagnosis up to 85 months of follow-up. We estimated hazard ratios and survival curves.ResultsThe adjusted risk ratio (aRR) for death, by age, hospitalization, and Directly Observed Treatment was 4.58 for new cases (95% CI: 1.14-18.4), 4.51 for recurrence (95% CI: 1.11-18.4) and 4.53 for return after abandonment (95% CI: 1.12-18.4). The average survival time was 72.56 ± 1.57 months for those who underwent Directly Observed Treatment and 62.61 ± 0.77 for those who did not.ConclusionsCase classification, age, and hospitalization are predictors of death. The occurrence of Directly Observed Treatment was a protective factor that increased the probability of survival. Policies aimed at reducing the mortality of patients with TB/HIV coinfection are needed

Long-Term Results of Stenting versus Endarterectomy for Carotid-Artery Stenosis

BACKGROUND: In the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial, we found no significant difference between the stenting group and the endarterectomy group with respect to the primary composite end point of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period or any subsequent ipsilateral stroke during 4 years of follow-up. We now extend the results to 10 years. METHODS: Among patients with carotid-artery stenosis who had been randomly assigned to stenting or endarterectomy, we evaluated outcomes every 6 months for up to 10 years at 117 centers. In addition to assessing the primary composite end point, we assessed the primary end point for the long-term extension study, which was ipsilateral stroke after the periprocedural period. RESULTS: Among 2502 patients, there was no significant difference in the rate of the primary composite end point between the stenting group (11.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.1 to 14.8) and the endarterectomy group (9.9%; 95% CI, 7.9 to 12.2) over 10 years of follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.44). With respect to the primary long-term end point, postprocedural ipsilateral stroke over the 10-year follow-up occurred in 6.9% (95% CI, 4.4 to 9.7) of the patients in the stenting group and in 5.6% (95% CI, 3.7 to 7.6) of those in the endarterectomy group; the rates did not differ significantly between the groups (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.52). No significant between-group differences with respect to either end point were detected when symptomatic patients and asymptomatic patients were analyzed separately. CONCLUSIONS: Over 10 years of follow-up, we did not find a significant difference between patients who underwent stenting and those who underwent endarterectomy with respect to the risk of periprocedural stroke, myocardial infarction, or death and subsequent ipsilateral stroke. The rate of postprocedural ipsilateral stroke also did not differ between groups. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and Abbott Vascular Solutions; CREST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00004732.