Metabolomic-Based Noninvasive Serum Test to Diagnose Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis: Results From Discovery and Validation Cohorts

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common type of chronic liver disease worldwide and includes a broad spectrum of histologic phenotypes, ranging from simple hepatic steatosis or nonalcoholic fatty liver (NAFL) to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). While liver biopsy is the reference gold standard for NAFLD diagnosis and staging, it has limitations due to its sampling variability, invasive nature, and high cost. Thus, there is a need for noninvasive biomarkers that are robust, reliable, and cost effective. In this study, we measured 540 lipids and amino acids in serum samples from biopsy-proven subjects with normal liver (NL), NAFL, and NASH. Using logistic regression analysis, we identified two panels of triglycerides that could first discriminate between NAFLD and NL and second between NASH and NAFL. These noninvasive tests were compared to blinded histology as a reference standard. We performed these tests in an original cohort of 467 patients with NAFLD (90 NL, 246 NAFL, and 131 NASH) that was subsequently validated in a separate cohort of 192 patients (7 NL, 109 NAFL, 76 NASH). The diagnostic performances of the validated tests showed an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.88 +/- 0.05, 0.94, and 0.57, respectively, for the discrimination between NAFLD and NL and 0.79 +/- 0.04, 0.70, and 0.81, respectively, for the discrimination between NASH and NAFL. When the analysis was performed excluding patients with glucose levels >136 mg/dL, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the discrimination between NASH and NAFL increased to 0.81 +/- 0.04 with sensitivity and specificity of 0.73 and 0.80, respectively. Conclusion: The assessed noninvasive lipidomic serum tests distinguish between NAFLD and NL and between NASH and NAFL with high accuracy.Supported by the National Institutes of Health Blueprint for Neuroscience Research (R01AT001576 to S.C.L., J.M.M.), Agencia Estatal de Investigacion of the Ministerio de Economia, Industria y Competitividad (SAF2014-52097R to J.M.M.), CIBER Hepatic and Digestive Diseases and Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PIE14/0003 to J.M.M.), Etorgai 2015-Gobierno Vasco (ER-2015/00015 to R.M., I.M.A., C.A., A.C.), Plan de Promocion de la Innovacion 2015-Diputacion Foral de Bizkaia (6/12/IN/2015/00131 to A.C., C.A.), National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (RO1DK81410 to A.J.S.), and Czech Ministry of Health (RVO VFN64165 to L.V.)

Stoma-free Survival After Rectal Cancer Resection With Anastomotic Leakage: Development and Validation of a Prediction Model in a Large International Cohort.

Objective:To develop and validate a prediction model (STOMA score) for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with rectal cancer (RC) with anastomotic leakage (AL).Background:AL after RC resection often results in a permanent stoma.Methods:This international retrospective cohort study (TENTACLE-Rectum) encompassed 216 participating centres and included patients who developed AL after RC surgery between 2014 and 2018. Clinically relevant predictors for 1-year stoma-free survival were included in uni and multivariable logistic regression models. The STOMA score was developed and internally validated in a cohort of patients operated between 2014 and 2017, with subsequent temporal validation in a 2018 cohort. The discriminative power and calibration of the models' performance were evaluated.Results:This study included 2499 patients with AL, 1954 in the development cohort and 545 in the validation cohort. Baseline characteristics were comparable. One-year stoma-free survival was 45.0% in the development cohort and 43.7% in the validation cohort. The following predictors were included in the STOMA score: sex, age, American Society of Anestesiologist classification, body mass index, clinical M-disease, neoadjuvant therapy, abdominal and transanal approach, primary defunctioning stoma, multivisceral resection, clinical setting in which AL was diagnosed, postoperative day of AL diagnosis, abdominal contamination, anastomotic defect circumference, bowel wall ischemia, anastomotic fistula, retraction, and reactivation leakage. The STOMA score showed good discrimination and calibration (c-index: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.66-0.76).Conclusions:The STOMA score consists of 18 clinically relevant factors and estimates the individual risk for 1-year stoma-free survival in patients with AL after RC surgery, which may improve patient counseling and give guidance when analyzing the efficacy of different treatment strategies in future studies

Stoma-free survival after anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resection: worldwide cohort of 2470 patients

Background: The optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection is unclear. This worldwide cohort study aimed to provide an overview of four treatment strategies applied. Methods: Patients from 216 centres and 45 countries with anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection between 2014 and 2018 were included. Treatment was categorized as salvage surgery, faecal diversion with passive or active (vacuum) drainage, and no primary/secondary faecal diversion. The primary outcome was 1-year stoma-free survival. In addition, passive and active drainage were compared using propensity score matching (2: 1). Results: Of 2470 evaluable patients, 388 (16.0 per cent) underwent salvage surgery, 1524 (62.0 per cent) passive drainage, 278 (11.0 per cent) active drainage, and 280 (11.0 per cent) had no faecal diversion. One-year stoma-free survival rates were 13.7, 48.3, 48.2, and 65.4 per cent respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in 556 patients with passive and 278 with active drainage. There was no statistically significant difference between these groups in 1-year stoma-free survival (OR 0.95, 95 per cent c.i. 0.66 to 1.33), with a risk difference of -1.1 (95 per cent c.i. -9.0 to 7.0) per cent. After active drainage, more patients required secondary salvage surgery (OR 2.32, 1.49 to 3.59), prolonged hospital admission (an additional 6 (95 per cent c.i. 2 to 10) days), and ICU admission (OR 1.41, 1.02 to 1.94). Mean duration of leak healing did not differ significantly (an additional 12 (-28 to 52) days). Conclusion: Primary salvage surgery or omission of faecal diversion likely correspond to the most severe and least severe leaks respectively. In patients with diverted leaks, stoma-free survival did not differ statistically between passive and active drainage, although the increased risk of secondary salvage surgery and ICU admission suggests residual confounding