EAES and SAGES 2018 consensus conference on acute diverticulitis management:evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice

Background Acute diverticulitis (AD) presents a unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for general surgeons. This collaborative project between EAES and SAGES aimed to summarize recent evidence and draw statements of recommendation to guide our members on comprehensive AD management. Methods Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted across six AD topics by an international steering group including experts from both societies. Topics encompassed the epidemiology, diagnosis, management of non-complicated and complicated AD as well as emergency and elective operative AD management. Consensus statements and recommendations were generated, and the quality of the evidence and recommendation strength rated with the GRADE system. Modified Delphi methodology was used to reach consensus among experts prior to surveying the EAES and SAGES membership on the recommendations and likelihood to impact their practice. Results were presented at both EAES and SAGES annual meetings with live re-voting carried out for recommendations with < 70% agreement. Results A total of 51 consensus statements and 41 recommendations across all six topics were agreed upon by the experts and submitted for members’ online voting. Based on 1004 complete surveys and over 300 live votes at the SAGES and EAES Diverticulitis Consensus Conference (DCC), consensus was achieved for 97.6% (40/41) of recommendations with 92% (38/41) agreement on the likelihood that these recommendations would change practice if not already applied. Areas of persistent disagreement included the selective use of imaging to guide AD diagnosis, recommendations against antibiotics in non-complicated AD, and routine colonic evaluation after resolution of non-complicated diverticulitis. Conclusion This joint EAES and SAGES consensus conference updates clinicians on the current evidence and provides a set of recommendations that can guide clinical AD management practice

Phase II Feasibility and Biomarker Study of Neoadjuvant Trastuzumab and Pertuzumab With Chemoradiotherapy for Resectable Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Esophageal Adenocarcinoma:TRAP Study

PURPOSE: Approximately 15% to 43% of esophageal adenocarcinomas (EACs) are human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive. Because dual-agent HER2 blockade demonstrated a survival benefit in breast cancer, we conducted a phase II feasibility study of trastuzumab and pertuzumab added to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in patients with EAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resectable HER2-positive EAC received standard nCRT with carboplatin and paclitaxel and 41.4 Gy of radiotherapy, with 4 mg/kg of trastuzumab on day 1, 2 mg/kg per week during weeks 2 to 6, and 6 mg/kg per week during weeks 7, 10, and 13 and 840 mg of pertuzumab every 3 weeks. The primary end point was feasibility, defined as ≥ 80% completion of treatment with both trastuzumab and pertuzumab. An exploratory comparison of survival with a propensity score-matched cohort receiving standard nCRT was performed, as were exploratory pharmacokinetic and biomarker analyses. RESULTS: Of the 40 enrolled patients (78% men; median age, 63 years), 33 (83%) completed treatment with trastuzumab and pertuzumab. No unexpected safety events were observed. R0 resection was achieved in all patients undergoing surgery, with pathologic complete response in 13 patients (34%). Three-year progression-free and overall survival (OS) were 57% and 71%, respectively (median follow-up, 32.1 months). Compared with the propensity score-matched cohort, a significantly longer OS was observed with HER2 blockade (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.97). Results of pharmacokinetic analysis and activity on [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scans did not correlate with survival or pathologic response. Patients with HER2 3+ overexpression or growth factor receptor-bound protein 7 (Grb7) -positive tumors at baseline demonstrated significantly better survival (P = .007) or treatment response (P = .016), respectively. CONCLUSION: Addition of trastuzumab and pertuzumab to nCRT in patients with HER2-positive EAC is feasible and demonstrates potentially promising activity compared with historical controls. HER2 3+ overexpression and Grb7 positivity are potentially predictive for survival and treatment response, respectively

Long-Term Outcome of Immediate Versus Postponed" Intervention in Patients With Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis" (POINTER)" Multicenter Randomized Trial

Objective: To compare the long-term outcomes of immediate drainage versus the postponed-drainage approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Background: In the randomized POINTER trial, patients assigned to the postponed-drainage approach using antibiotic treatment required fewer interventions, as compared with immediate drainage, and over a third were treated without any intervention. Methods: Clinical data of those patients alive after the initial 6-month follow-up were re-evaluated. The primary outcome was a composite of death and major complications. Results: Out of 104 patients, 88 were re-evaluated with a median followup of 51 months. After the initial 6-month follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 7 of 47 patients (15%) in the immediate-drainage group and 7 of 41 patients (17%) in the postponed-drainage group (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.33-2.28; P=0.78). Additional drainage procedures were performed in 7 patients (15%) versus 3 patients (7%) (RR 2.03; 95% CI 0.56-7.37; P=0.34). The median number of additional interventions was 0 (IQR 0-0) in both groups (P=0.028). In the total follow-up, the median number of interventions was higher in the immediate-drainage group than in the postponed-drainage group (4 vs. 1, P=0.001). Eventually, 14 of 15 patients (93%) in the postponed-drainage group who were successfully treated in the initial 6-month follow-up with antibiotics and without any intervention remained without intervention. At the end of follow-up, pancreatic function and quality of life were similar. Conclusions: Also, during long-term follow-up, a postponed-drainage approach using antibiotics in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis results in fewer interventions as compared with immediate drainage and should therefore be the preferred approach.</p

Molecular signatures for CCN1, p21 and p27 in progressive mantle cell lymphoma

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a comparatively rare non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma characterised by overexpression of cyclin D1.Many patients present with or progress to advanced stage disease within 3 years. MCL is considered an incurable disease withmedian survival between 3 and 4 years. We have investigated the role(s) of CCN1 (CYR61) and cell cycle regulators inprogressive MCL. We have used the human MCL cell lines REC1 G519 > JVM2 cells by RQ-PCR, depicting a decrease in CCN1expression with disease progression. Investigation of CCN1 isoform expression by western blotting showed that whilst expres-sion of full-length CCN1 was barely altered in the cell lines, expression of truncated forms (18–20 and 28–30 kDa) decreasedwith disease progression. We have then demonstrated that cyclin D1 and cyclin dependent kinase inhibitors (p21CIP1and p27KIP1)are also involved in disease progression. Cyclin D1 was highly expressed in REC1 cells (OD: 1.0), reduced to one fifth in G519cells (OD: 0.2) and not detected by western blotting in JVM2 cells. p27KIP1followed a similar profile of expression as cyclin D1.Conversely, p21CIP1was absent in the REC1 cells and showed increasing expression in G519 and JVM2 cells. Subcellularlocalization detected p21CIP1/p27KIP1primarily within the cytoplasm and absent from the nucleus, consistent with altered roles in treatment resistance. Dysregulation of the CCN1 truncated forms are associated with MCL progression. In conjunction withreduced expression of cyclin D1 and increased expression of p21, this molecular signature may depict aggressive disease andtreatment resistance

Cost estimation of redispensing unused medicines that are returned to the pharmacy: A micro-costing study

Background and Objective: Redispensing of unused medicines returned to the pharmacy by patients may optimise the use of health care resources and reduce medication waste. Little is known about the costs associated with the pharmacy proceedings for redispensing, and which medicines might be eligible for redispensing from a cost-perspective. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost of the redispensing process in the pharmacy and the minimal economic value (MEV) of unused medicines that are eligible for redispensing. Setting and Method: A micro-costing study was performed in four outpatient pharmacies in the Netherlands in 2016. First, all proceedings and resources needed for redispensing were identified from pharmacist reviews. Second, the time required to redispense unused medicines was measured by simulating the proceedings in each pharmacy. Third, time measurements were quantified into costs using salary scales and purchasing prices. Lastly, a model was made to calculate the MEV for medicines requiring room or cold storage. Influence of assumptions (market prices, proportion of dispensed medicines returned to the pharmacy and proportion of medicines eligible for redispensing) was assessed using sensitivity analysis. Main outcome measures: Measured time and related costs associated with performing the proceedings of redispensing medicines in the pharmacy, and the MEV for medicines requiring room or cold storage. Results: Redispensing medicines in the pharmacy require that an (electronic) system is dispensed with the medicines that assure proper home storage. This requires extra handling, which takes approximately 6.30 min for medicines requiring room temperature storage and 8.05 min for medicines requiring storage between 2 and 8 °C. Estimated costs amounted to respectively €5.95 and € 106.00 (due to additional resources needed for quality control like temperature chips). The MEV for room temperature stored medicines eligible for redispensing is €94 and for cooled stored medicines €201. Sensitivity analysis showed that the proportion of dispensed medicines returned to the pharmacy has the strongest influence on the MEV. Conclusion: Redispensing unused medicines in the pharmacy is not time consuming, however, only expensive medicines are eligible for redispensing from a cost perspective. Most costs are made with medicines' dispensing as only a small proportion of dispensed medicines are returned to the pharmacy