Search

Simple Summary: Histological sampling is the cornerstone of diagnosis for patients with solid pancreatic lesions. Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle biopsy (EUS FNB) is the most commonly used pancreatic tissue sampling technique. Our aim was to assess the diagnostic yield of a second EUS FNB after a first negative one. The second puncture enabled histological diagnosis in 74% of cases, making it a very efficient procedure in this situation according to this study. In addition, morbidity was very low. The rate of benign diagnoses was 26% after a negative first puncture, which tends to suggest a second puncture rather than surgery in this situation. Patients and methods: we performed a retrospective case-control study, including cases with repeat EUS FNB for a solid pancreatic lesion, matched on a 1:2 ratio on age, sex, tumor location and presence of chronic pancreatitis with cases diagnosed on the first EUS FNB. Results: thirty-four cases and 68 controls were included in the analysis. Diagnostic accuracies were 80% and 88% in the repeat and single EUS FNB groups, respectively (p = 0.824). The second EUS FNB had a sensitivity of 80%, a specificity of 75%, a positive predictive value of 96%, and a negative predictive value of 33%. Of the 34 patients in the repeat EUS FNB group, 25 (74%) had a positive diagnosis with the second EUS FNB, 4 (12%) after surgery due to a second negative EUS FNB, 4 (12%) during clinical follow-up, and 1 (3%) after a third EUS FNB. Of the 25 patients diagnosed on the repeat EUS FNB, 17 (68%) had pancreatic adenocarcinomas, 2 (8%) neuroendocrine tumors, 2 (8%) other autoimmune pancreatitis, 2 (8%) chronic pancreatitis nodules, 1 (4%) renal cancer metastasis, and 1 (4%) other malignant diagnostic. There were no complications reported after the second EUS FNB in this study. Conclusion: repeat EUS FNB made a diagnosis in three fourths of patients with solid pancreatic lesions and a first negative EUS FNB, with 26% of benign lesions. This supports the repetition of EUS FNB sampling in this clinical situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sarcopenia, defined as decreased muscle mass and strength, can be evaluated by a computed tomography (CT) examination and might be associated with reduced survival in patients with carcinoma. The prognosis of patients with metastatic pancreatic carcinoma is poor. The FOLFIRINOX (a combination of 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) chemotherapy regimen is a validated first-line treatment option. We investigated the impact of sarcopenia on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic pancreatic carcinoma. Clinical data and CT examinations of patients treated with FOLFIRINOX were retrospectively reviewed. Sarcopenia was estimated using baseline CT examinations. Seventy-five patients were included. Forty-three (57.3%) were classified as sarcopenic. The median OS of non-sarcopenic and sarcopenic patients were 15.6 and 14.1 months, respectively (p = 0.36). The median PFS was 10.3 in non-sarcopenic patients and 9.3 in sarcopenic patients (p = 0.83). No differences in toxicity of FOLFIRINOX were observed. There was a trend towards a higher probability of short-term death (within 4 months of diagnosis) in sarcopenic patients. In this study, the detection of sarcopenia failed to predict a longer OS or PFS in selected patients deemed eligible by a physician for triplet chemotherapy and receiving the FOLFIRINOX regimen in a first-line setting, confirming the major importance of a comprehensive patient assessment by physicians in selecting the best treatment option. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Pancreas cancer will become the second deadliest cancer in 2030. One-third of patients with pancreatic cancer are treated with surgery followed by intravenous chemotherapy. This aggressive treatment has to be delivered to people fit enough to receive it. Many variables are used to define this status, such as performance status, albuminemia or sarcopenia. In our study, we calculated the sarcopenia status by measuring via computer tomography the area of the psoas; if it is low in terms of sex and BMI, the patient is considered sarcopenic. We found out that sarcopenic patients with operated pancreatic cancer have a lower overall survival no matter the type of chemotherapy used. Background: Despite its toxicity, modified FOLFIRINOX is the main chemotherapy for localized, operable pancreatic adenocarcinomas. Sarcopenia is known as a factor in lower overall survival (OS). The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of sarcopenia on OS in patients with localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who received modified FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine as adjuvant chemotherapy. Methods: Patients with operated PDAC who received gemcitabine-based (GEM group) or oxaliplatin-based (OXA group) adjuvant chemotherapy between 2008 and 2021 were retrospectively included. Sarcopenia was estimated on a baseline computed tomography (CT) examination using the skeletal muscular index (SMI). The primary evaluation criterion was OS. Secondary evaluation criteria were disease-free survival (DFS) and toxicity. Results: Seventy patients treated with gemcitabine-based (n = 49) and oxaliplatin-based (n = 21) chemotherapy were included, with a total of fifteen sarcopenic patients (eight in the GEM group and seven in the OXA group). The median OS was shorter in sarcopenic patients (25 months) compared to non-sarcopenic patients (158 months) (p = 0.01). A longer OS was observed in GEM non-sarcopenic patients (158 months) compared to OXA sarcopenic patients (14.4 months) (p < 0.01). The median OS was 157.7 months in the GEM group vs. 34.1 months in the OXA group (p = 0.13). No differences in median DFS were found between the GEM group and OXA group. More toxicity events were observed in the OXA group (50%) than in the GEM group (10%), including vomiting (p = 0.02), mucositis (p = 0.01) and neuropathy (p = 0.01). Conclusion: Sarcopenia is associated with a worse prognosis in patients with localized operated PDAC whatever the delivered adjuvant chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The aim of our work is to describe the level of evidence supporting therapeutic recommendations in United States pancreatic adenocarcinoma guidelines, and its evolution over time. We recorded the level of evidence for each therapeutic recommendation extracted from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. In both United States guidelines, less than 9% of therapeutic recommendations are supported by a high level of evidence. In the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, there was no significant increase in high level of evidence recommendations over time. However, guidelines authors can only deal with the available evidence to develop recommendations while highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of included studies. There is a need for a more collaborative effort in pancreatic adenocarcinoma treatment to tackle important therapeutic questions and challenge the current framework of evidence. Cancer guidelines are ideally based on high levels of evidence (LOE). We aim to evaluate the LOE supporting recommendations in United States (US) guidelines on pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) treatment and its evolution over time. We searched for current guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and their prior publicly available versions on societies' websites and/or MEDLINE. We recorded the LOE and class of recommendation (opinion of the writing panel) for each recommendation. We defined high LOE as: a "high" quality of evidence from the GRADE methodology (ASCO) and "Category 1" (NCCN). Our main outcome was the proportion of PDAC recommendations supported by high LOE. Proportions of high LOE recommendations were 5% (2/40) and 8% (12/153) in current ASCO and NCCN guidelines, respectively. Less than 10% of class I recommendations were based on high LOE. For NCCN guidelines, the proportion of high LOE recommendations did not improve over time and only three recommendations increased their LOE. We identified a small percentage of high LOE recommendations for PDAC treatment in US guidelines. However, guidelines authors can only deal with the available evidence. The current framework of evidence should be challenged with consideration of observational evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are one of the most prescribed classes of drugs worldwide as a first-line treatment of acid-related disorders. Although adverse effects are rare and rapidly reversible after a short exposure, concerns have been recently raised about a greater toxicity on cardiovascular health after a longer exposure, especially when combined with clopidogrel. We aimed to evaluate the safety of long-term PPI use on cardiovascular health in patients with known atheromatous cardiovascular disease. Methods: A literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases and grey literature in April 2022. Articles published between 2014 and 2022 were considered relevant if they were designed as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included post hoc analyses or prospective observational studies and if they investigated clinical cardiovascular outcomes associated with PPI use for 6 months or more in patients suffering from cardiovascular disease requiring antiplatelet agent therapy and/or coronary angioplasty. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4 software (Computer program, the Cochrane Collaboration, 2020, London, UK). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for the RCTs and the Newcastle–Ottawa scale for the observational studies. Results: A total of 10 full-text articles involving 53,302 patients were included. Substantial heterogeneity was found among the 10 included studies. The primary analysis showed no significant differences between the PPI group and the control group for the risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), all-cause death (ACD), or target vessel revascularization (TVR) using a random-effects model (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98–1.35, p = 0.08, I2 = 73%; OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.94–1.65, p = 0.13, I2 = 63%; and OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.76–1.87, p = 0.45, I2 = 61%, respectively). The primary analysis yielded similar results for the risks of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and cardiovascular death (CVD) using a fixed-effects model (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88–1.09, p = 0.66, I2 = 0%; OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90–1.17, p = 0.73, I2 = 0%; and OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94–1.16, p = 0.44, I2 = 35%, respectively). Likewise, a subgroup analysis based on eight randomized controlled trials failed to identify any association between PPI use and the risks of MACEs, MI, stroke, TVR, ACD, or CVD using a fixed-effects model (overall pooled OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96–1.06; p = 0.66; I2 = 0%). The pulled data from the two included observational studies (OS) demonstrated a significantly increased risk of MACEs in the PPI group (OR 1.42, 95% CI [1.29–1.57], p <0.001; I2 = 0%). In another subgroup analysis, no evidence of an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events in the co-therapy PPI/clopidogrel versus clopidogrel alone groups was found with the exception of the risk of ACD (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.23–1.82, p = 0.001, I2 = 0%). Nevertheless, after performing a sensitivity analysis reaching heterogeneity I2 = 0%, the co-prescription of PPIs and clopidogrel was at increased risk of MACEs (p < 0.001), CVD (p = 0.008), and TVR (p < 0.001) but remained statistically non-significant for the risk of MI (p = 0.11). Conclusions: The overall results of this meta-analysis showed that long-term PPI use was not associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events. However, inconsistent results were found for combined PPI/clopidogrel therapy. These results should be considered with caution in light of the significant heterogeneity, the limited number of included studies, and the lack of adjustment for potential confounders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Hepatocellular carcinoma is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide and a major health problem. Overall survival is poor, with a five-year relative survival rate of 18.4% and only 2% in metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma. In 2020, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab improved survival compared to sorafenib and was validated as the first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. In case of disease progression, regorafenib and cabozantinib are recommended in the second-line setting. Transarterial chemoembolization can also be proposed for downstaging or in the palliative setting. Being able to reliably estimate liver function is a major issue in therapeutic management because patients with intermediate liver function are no longer eligible to receive systemic treatments. The aim of this review was to discuss systemic treatment management for patients with advanced unresectable HCC for whom liver-directed therapy is not appropriate. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) usually occurs in the setting of liver cirrhosis and more rarely in a healthy liver. Its incidence has increased in the past years, especially in western countries with the rising prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. The prognosis of advanced HCC is low. In the first-line setting of advanced HCC, sorafenib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was the only validated treatment for many years. In 2020, the combination of atezolizumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor, and bevacizumab showed superiority to sorafenib alone in survival, making it the first-line recommended treatment. Regorafenib and lenvatinib, other multikinase inhibitors, were also validated in the second and first-line settings, respectively. Transarterial chemoembolization can be an alternative treatment for patients with intermediate-stage HCC and preserved liver function, including unresectable multinodular HCC without extrahepatic spread. The current challenge in advanced HCC lies in the selection of a patient for the optimal treatment, taking into account the underlying liver disease and liver function. Indeed, all trial patients present with a Child–Pugh score of A, and the optimal approach for other patients is still unclear. Furthermore, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab should be considered in the absence of medical contraindication. Many trials testing immune checkpoint inhibitors in association with anti-angiogenic agents are ongoing, and primary results are promising. The landscape in advanced HCC management is undergoing profound change, and many challenges remain for optimal patient management in the years to come. This review aimed to provide an overview of current systemic treatment options for patients with advanced unresectable HCC who are not candidates for liver-directed therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Esophageal cancer (EC) is the eighth most frequent cancer worldwide, with a poor prognosis. Current imaging modalities for staging and follow-up mainly include computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET)/CT, and endoscopic ultrasound. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which is a non-irradiating and non-invasive modality, can provide identification of the esophageal wall and esophagogastric junction. MRI has shown encouraging capabilities in regional and local staging of EC as well as in the assessment of treatment response to therapy. Technical refinements in MRI technique and sequences overtime have contributed to its increasing diagnostic performance as well as its generalizability. MRI could become a routine imaging technique for EC management in the future, alone or in combination with other modalities. Esophageal cancer (EC) is the eighth more frequent cancer worldwide, with a poor prognosis. Initial staging is critical to decide on the best individual treatment approach. Current modalities for the assessment of EC are irradiating techniques, such as computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography/CT, or invasive techniques, such as digestive endoscopy and endoscopic ultrasound. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a non-invasive and non-irradiating imaging technique that provides high degrees of soft tissue contrast, with good depiction of the esophageal wall and the esophagogastric junction. Various sequences of MRI have shown good performance in initial tumor and lymph node staging in EC. Diffusion-weighted MRI has also demonstrated capabilities in the evaluation of tumor response to chemoradiotherapy. To date, there is not enough data to consider whole body MRI as a routine investigation for the detection of initial metastases or for prediction of distant recurrence. This narrative review summarizes the current knowledge on MRI for the management of EC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: As we are facing an increasing incidence of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs), it appears necessary to better classify this disease—and in 2017 the WHO classification introduced a new category of well differentiated grade 3 tumors. pNETs treatment requires some specific background and recent reviews on the multimodal management of this disease are missing. Indeed, those modalities constantly evolve and this review, focusing on Grade 1 and Grade 2 pNETs, aims to clarify both oncological and surgical treatment options from localized tumors to multi metastatic disease. Every aspect of the strategy are discussed in this review from the oncologist and the surgeon's point of view and with a special focus on a minimally invasive approach. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (p-NETs) are rare tumors with a recent growing incidence. In the 2017 WHO classification, p-NETs are classified into well-differentiated (i.e., p-NETs grade 1 to 3) and poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (i.e., p-NECs). P-NETs G1 and G2 are often non-functioning tumors, of which the prognosis depends on the metastatic status. In the localized setting, p-NETs should be surgically managed, as no benefit for adjuvant chemotherapy has been demonstrated. Parenchymal sparing resection, including both duodenum and pancreas, are safe procedures in selected patients with reduced endocrine and exocrine long-term dysfunction. When the p-NET is benign or borderline malignant, this surgical option is associated with low rates of severe postoperative morbidity and in-hospital mortality. This narrative review offers comments, tips, and tricks from reviewing the available literature on these different options in order to clarify their indications. We also sum up the overall current data on p-NETs G1 and G2 management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We can distinguish acute pancreatitis, usually caused by alcohol intake or gallstone disease [[12]], from chronic pancreatitis. Other pancreatic tumors include pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (pNENs) and cystic neoplasms such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs), serous neoplasms, mucinous neoplasms (MCNs) and solid pseudopapillary neoplasms. [Extracted from the article]

Simple Summary: In this narrative review, we describe the current data and management of neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC) of the digestive tract. These tumors are very rare and suffer from a lack of clinical trials which would allow for standardized therapeutic management. To date, most guidelines come from studies in small-cell lung cancer, which is a similar entity in the lung. The incidence of NEC is rising and their prognostic is very low, underlying the urgent need for more trials to help define their best management. Neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC) are rare tumors with a rising incidence. They show poorly differentiated morphology with a high proliferation rate (Ki-67 index). They frequently arise in the lung (small and large-cell lung cancer) but rarely from the gastrointestinal tract. Due to their rarity, very little is known about digestive NEC and few studies have been conducted. Therefore, most of therapeutic recommendations are issued from work on small-cell lung cancers (SCLC). Recent improvement in pathology and imaging has allowed for better detection and classification of high-grade NEN. The 2019 World Health Organization (WHO) classification has described a new entity of well-differentiated grade 3 neuroendocrine tumors (NET G-3), with better prognosis, that should be managed separately from NEC. NEC are aggressive neoplasms often diagnosed at a metastatic state. In the localized setting, surgery can be performed in selected patients followed by adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is also an option for NEC of the lung, rectum, and esophagus. In metastatic NEC, chemotherapy is administered with a classic combination of platinum salts and etoposide in the first-line setting. Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) has shown positive results in high-grade NEN populations and immunotherapy trials are still ongoing. Available therapies have improved the overall survival of NEC but there is still an urgent need for improvement. This narrative review sums up the current data on digestive NEC while exploring future directions for their management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: We herein present the latest data on characteristics and therapeutic management of gastro-entero-pancreatic well-differentiated neuroendocrine grade 3 tumors (GEP-NET G-3). Although neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) of the digestive tract are rare tumors, progress in diagnosis has allowed their better identification. Since 2017, a new category of NEN showing well-differentiated morphology and high Ki-67 index has been defined, the NET G-3. These tumors show differences not only in morphology but also in genotype, clinical features, and treatment response, compared with classical high-grade NEN. Therefore, they should be managed differently but suffer from lack of data. We find our work important, underlying the need to conduct new rigorous clinical studies in this population. Digestive well-differentiated grade 3 neuroendocrine tumors (NET G-3) have been clearly defined since the 2017 World Health Organization classification. They are still a rare category lacking specific data and standardized management. Their distinction from other types of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) not only lies in morphology but also in genotype, aggressiveness, functional imaging uptake, and treatment response. Most of the available data comes from pancreatic series, which is the most frequent tumor site for this entity. In the non-metastatic setting, surgical resection is recommended, irrespective of grade and tumor site. For metastatic NET G-3, chemotherapy is the main first-line treatment with temozolomide-based regimen showing more efficacy than platinum-based regimen, especially when Ki-67 index <55%. Targeted therapies, such as sunitinib and everolimus, have also shown some positive therapeutic efficacy in small samples of patients. Functional imaging plays a key role for detection but also treatment selection. In the second or further-line setting, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy has shown promising response rates in high-grade NEN. Finally, immunotherapy is currently investigated as a new therapeutic approach with trials still ongoing. More data will come with future work now focusing on this specific subgroup. The aim of this review is to summarize the current data on digestive NET G-3 and explore future directions for their management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2017 World Health Organization (WHO) classification of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) of the digestive tract introduced a new category of tumors named well-differentiated grade 3 neuroendocrine tumors (NET G−3). These lesions show a number of mitosis, or a Ki−67 index higher than 20% with a well-differentiated morphology, therefore separating them from neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC) which are poorly differentiated. It has become clear that NET G−3 show differences not only in morphology but also in genotype, clinical presentation, and treatment response. The incidence of digestive NET G−3 represents about one third of NEN G−3 with main tumor sites being the pancreas, the stomach and the colon. Treatment for NET G−3 is not yet standardized because of lack of data. In a non-metastatic setting, international guidelines recommend surgical resection, regardless of tumor grading. For metastatic lesion, chemotherapy is the main treatment with similar regimen as NET G−2. Sunitinib has also shown some positive results in a small sample of patients but this needs confirmation. Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) and immunotherapy could be future available treatments after ongoing studies. The goal of this review was to sum up the latest data on the epidemiology and management of digestive NET G−3. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]