Search

Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common cause of acute abdominal pain. Diagnosis of AA is challenging; a variable combination of clinical signs and symptoms has been used together with laboratory findings in several scoring systems proposed for suggesting the probability of AA and the possible subsequent management pathway. The role of imaging in the diagnosis of AA is still debated, with variable use of US, CT and MRI in different settings worldwide. Up to date, comprehensive clinical guidelines for diagnosis and management of AA have never been issued. In July 2015, during the 3rd World Congress of the WSES, held in Jerusalem (Israel), a panel of experts including an Organizational Committee and Scientific Committee and Scientific Secretariat, participated to a Consensus Conference where eight panelists presented a number of statements developed for each of the eight main questions about diagnosis and management of AA. The statements were then voted, eventually modified and finally approved by the participants to The Consensus Conference and lately by the board of co-authors. The current paper is reporting the definitive Guidelines Statements on each of the following topics: 1) Diagnostic efficiency of clinical scoring systems, 2) Role of Imaging, 3) Non-operative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis, 4) Timing of appendectomy and in-hospital delay, 5) Surgical treatment 6) Scoring systems for intra-operative grading of appendicitis and their clinical usefulness 7) Non-surgical treatment for complicated appendicitis: abscess or phlegmon 8) Pre-operative and post-operative antibiotics.

Background: Gene expression profiling is being widely applied in cancer research to identify biomarkers for clinical endpoint prediction. Since RNA-seq provides a powerful tool for transcriptome-based applications beyond the limitations of microarrays, we sought to systematically evaluate the performance of RNA-seq-based and microarray-based classifiers in this MAQC-III/SEQC study for clinical endpoint prediction using neuroblastoma as a model. Results: We generate gene expression profiles from 498 primary neuroblastomas using both RNA-seq and 44 k microarrays. Characterization of the neuroblastoma transcriptome by RNA-seq reveals that more than 48,000 genes and 200,000 transcripts are being expressed in this malignancy. We also find that RNA-seq provides much more detailed information on specific transcript expression patterns in clinico-genetic neuroblastoma subgroups than microarrays. To systematically compare the power of RNA-seq and microarray-based models in predicting clinical endpoints, we divide the cohort randomly into training and validation sets and develop 360 predictive models on six clinical endpoints of varying predictability. Evaluation of factors potentially affecting model performances reveals that prediction accuracies are most strongly influenced by the nature of the clinical endpoint, whereas technological platforms (RNA-seq vs. microarrays), RNA-seq data analysis pipelines, and feature levels (gene vs. transcript vs. exon-junction level) do not significantly affect performances of the models. Conclusions: We demonstrate that RNA-seq outperforms microarrays in determining the transcriptomic characteristics of cancer, while RNA-seq and microarray-based models perform similarly in clinical endpoint prediction. Our findings may be valuable to guide future studies on the development of gene expression-based predictive models and their implementation in clinical practice. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13059-015-0694-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: In the INRG dataset, the hypothesis that any segmental chromosomal alteration might be of prognostic impact in neuroblastoma without MYCN amplification (MNA) was tested. Methods: The presence of any segmental chromosomal alteration (chromosome 1p deletion, 11q deletion and/or chromosome 17q gain) defined a segmental genomic profile. Only tumours with a confirmed unaltered status for all three chromosome arms were considered as having no segmental chromosomal alterations. Results: Among the 8800 patients in the INRG database, a genomic type could be attributed for 505 patients without MNA: 397 cases had a segmental genomic type, whereas 108 cases had an absence of any segmental alteration. A segmental genomic type was more frequent in patients >18 months and in stage 4 disease (P<0.0001). In univariate analysis, 11q deletion, 17q gain and a segmental genomic type were associated with a poorer event-free survival (EFS) (P<0.0001, P=0.0002 and P<0.0001, respectively). In multivariate analysis modelling EFS, the parameters age, stage and a segmental genomic type were retained in the model, whereas the individual genetic markers were not (P<0.0001 and RR=2.56; P=0.0002 and RR=1.8; P=0.01 and RR=1.7, respectively). Conclusion: A segmental genomic profile, rather than the single genetic markers, adds prognostic information to the clinical markers age and stage in neuroblastoma patients without MNA, underlining the importance of pangenomic studies.