Portal Vein Thrombosis in non cirrhotic patients

Extrahepatic portal vein thrombosis (EPVT) is the most common cause of portal hypertension in non- cirrhotic patients. EPVT has been defined as an obstruction of the extrahepatic portal vein with or without involvement of the intrahepatic portal veins. Although the portal vein accounts for two third of the total hepatic blood flow, interruption of the portal vein has few clinical consequences. This could be explained by two findings. First a compensatory mechanism so called arterial ’buffer’ response, which consists of immediate vasodilatation of the hepatic arterial bed in response to a decreased portal vein blood flow. This mechanism has been well demonstrated experimentally, but also in patients following portal vein clamping at hepatic surgery. The second compensatory mechanism is a rapid development of collateral veins bypassing the thrombosed portion of the portal vein. As a result of the arterial buffer response and development of collaterals, total hepatic blood flow is minimally reduced. Portal pressure, however is increased. This increase in portal pressure can be viewed as a compensatory mechanism allowing portal vein perfusion to be maintained through the collateral veins. So, portal perfusion is maintained at the expense of portal hypertension. The etiology of EPVT is diverse and can be divided into local risk factors such as cirrhosis, hepatobiliary malignancies and pancreatitis, and systemic risk factors such as inherited and acquired prothrombotic disorders. In at least one third of the patients a combination of thrombotic risk factors is demonstrated

Natural History of Barrett’s Esophagus

Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is a very common condition. We have obtained fairly profound knowledge of the natural history of this condition. This results from many cross-sectional and cohort studies, many describing patients undergoing long-term surveillance. Their consent to use their clinical data has improved our knowledge to the benefit of these same and other patients. The prevalence of BE increases with age both in men and in women. This increase starts at a younger age in men than in women. The incidence of high-grade dysplasia and cancer in BE depends on segment length, gender, and age. The latter two likely indicate the duration of the presence of BE in an individual patient. Other factors that influence the incidence of dysplasia and cancer are smoking behavior and use of certain medications such as PPIs, statins, and NSAIDs. Surveillance of BE and treatment of dysplasia can impact the incidence of and mortality due to esophageal adenocarcinoma. This is of major benefit to a subgroup of BE patients. The epidemiology and burden of disease ask for further efforts to develop targeted screening, surveillance, and intervention techniques in coming years

NSAIDs, statins, low-dose aspirin and PPIs, and the risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma among patients with Barrett's oesophagus: A populationbased case-control study

Objectives: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), low-dose aspirin and statins may decrease the risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) among patients with Barrett's oesophagus (BO). However, previous studies did not adequately address bias and confounding. Our objective was to estimate the risk of OAC among patients with BO exposed to NSAIDs, statins and PPIs. Design: Case-control study nested within a BO cohort. Setting: Two primary care databases (the UK and the Netherlands (NL)). Participants: Cases were adults ≥18 years of age with OAC or high-grade dysplasia (HGD) diagnosis ≥1 year after BO diagnosis. Controls were matched on age, sex, year of BO diagnosis and database. Exposure: Drug use was assessed from BO diagnosis until matching date. Outcome measure: Adjusted ORs with 95% CI were calculated by conditional logistic regression. Results: Within the BO cohort (n=15 134), 45 OAC (UK: 40, NL: 5) and 12 HGD cases (NL: 12) were identified. ORa for OAC during NSAID use was 1.2 (95% CI 0.6 to 2.5) and during statin use for <3 years 0.5 (95% CI 0.1 to 1.7). When including HGD cases (n=57), ORa for NSAID use was 0.9 (95% CI 0.5 to 1.8) and for statin use <3 years 0.5 (95% CI 0.1 to 1.7). Higher doses of statins showed lower estimates for OAC and HGD, though not statistically significant. Low-dose aspirin and PPIs did not significantly decrease the risk of OAC and HGD. Conclusions: In this population-based nested case- control study, use of NSAIDs, PPIs, low-dose aspirin or statins did not reduce the risk of HGD and OAC among patients with BO. These findings indicate that for an unselected group of patients with BO chemoprevention by use of drugs to reduce progression to HGD and OAC should not be directly considered as routine care

Reply to Rizzatti et al.

We would like to thank Dr. Rizzatti and colleagues for their interest in our paper entitled “Endoscopic ultrasound and fine-needle aspiration for the detection of residual nodal disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer” [...

Use of immunohistochemical biomarkers as independent predictor of neoplastic progression in Barrett's oesophagus surveillance

__Introduction:__ The low incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in Barrett's oesophagus (BE) patients reinforces the need for risk stratification tools to make BE surveillance more effective. Therefore, we have undertaken a systematic revi

Achalasia and associated esophageal cancer risk: What lessons can we learn from the molecular analysis of Barrett's–associated adenocarcinoma?

Idiopathic achalasia and Barrett's esophagus (BE) are preneoplastic conditions of the esophagus. BE increases the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (

Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Background Costly biologicals in palliative oncology are emerging at a rapid pace. For example, in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma addition of cetuximab to a palliative chemotherapy regimen appears to improve survival. However, it simultaneously results in higher costs. We aimed to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of adding c

Does Routine Endoscopy or Contrast Swallow Study After Esophagectomy and Gastric Tube Reconstruction Change Patient Management?

Background: Anastomotic leakage is a severe complication after esophagectomy. The objective was to investigate the diagnostic and predictive value of routine contrast swallow study and endoscopy for the detection of anastomotic dehiscence in patients after esophagectomy. Methods: All patients who underwent contrast swallow and/or endoscopy within 7 days after oesophagectomy for cancer between January 2005 and December 2009 were selected from an institutional database. Results: Some 173 patients underwent endoscopy, and 184 patients underwent a contrast swallow study. The sensitivity of endoscopy for anastomotic leakage requiring intervention is 56 %, specificity 41 %, positive predictive value (PPV) 8 %, and negative predictive value (NPV) 95 %. The sensitivity of contrast swallow study for detecting leakage requiring intervention in patients without signs of leakage was 20 %, specificity 20 %, PPV 3 %, and NPV 97 %. Conclusions: In patients without clinical suspicion of leakage, there is no benefit to perform routine examinations

First steps towards combining faecal immunochemical testing with the gut microbiome in colorectal cancer screening

Objectives: Many countries use faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) to screen for colorectal cancer. There is increasing evidence that faecal microbiota play a crucial role in colorectal cancer carcinogenesis. We assessed the possibility of measuring faecal microbial features in FIT as potential future biomarkers in colorectal cancer screening. Methods: Bacterial stability over time and the possibility of bacterial contamination were evaluated using quantitative polymerase chain reaction analysis. Positive FIT samples (n = 200) of an average-risk screening cohort were subsequently analysed for universal 16S, and bacteria. Escherichia coli (E. coli), Fusobacterium nucleatum (F. nucleatum), Bacteroidetes and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii (F. prausnitzii) by qPCR. The results were compared with colonoscopy findings. Results: Faecal microbiota in FIT were stably measured up to six days for E. coli (p = 0.53), F. nucleatum (p = 0.30), Bacteroidetes (p = 0.05) and F. prausnitzii (p = 0.62). Overall presence of bacterial contamination in FIT controls was low. Total bacterial load (i.e. 16S) was significantly higher in patients with colorectal cancer and high-grade dysplasia (p = 0.006). For the individual bacteria tested, no association was found with colonic lesions. Conclusions: These results show that the faecal microbial content can be measured in FIT samples and remains stable for six days. Total bacterial load was higher in colorectal cancer and high-grade dysplasia. These results pave the way for further research to determine the potential role of microbiota assessment in FIT screening