Search

Background: BMI ≤18.5 kg/m2 and preoperative weight loss may lead to inaccurate assessment of nutritional status, given the increasing prevalence of obesity. The aim of this study was to assess whether clinical evaluation of malnutrition based on these parameters is sufficient to predict complications after colorectal cancer surgery. Materials and Methods: The American College of Surgeons-National Quality Improvement Program database was queried from 2005 to 2018. Patients undergoing elective colorectal cancer surgery were divided into 4 groups: (1) albumin <3.1 g/dL within 21 days of surgery, (2) European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) 2 clinical parameters for malnutrition (≥10% loss of weight/6 months plus [BMI <20 kg/m2 if age <70 years OR BMI <22 kg/m2 if age ≥70 years]), (3) both aforementioned criteria, and (4) none of aforementioned criteria. Results: Of 82,280 patients, 5,932 (7.2%) had hypoalbuminemia <3.1 g/dL, 764 (0.9%) fulfilled clinical ESPEN 2 parameters, and 338 (0.4%) met both criteria. After adjusting for baseline confounders, patients in the hypoalbuminemia group had a higher risk of overall complications (odds ratio [OR] 1.92, p < 0.05 vs. OR 1.18 in the ESPEN 2 group, p < 0.05), major complications (OR 1.98, p < 0.05 vs. OR 1.20, p < 0.05), surgical complications (OR 1.77, 95% p < 0.05 vs. OR 1.1, p > 0.05), medical complications (OR 1.73, p < 0.05 vs. OR 1.16, p > 0.05), surgical site infection (OR 1.32, p < 0.05 vs. OR 0.86, p > 0.05), and prolonged hospitalization (OR 1.79, p < 0.05 vs. OR 1.22, p < 0.05). Patients who met both criteria were at highest risk. Conclusions: Preoperative measurement of serum albumin appears to be essential to identify patients at risk for complications after colorectal cancer surgery. Clinical evaluation through BMI and weight loss alone may underestimate surgery-associated risks in the USA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Through a meta-analysis of seven randomized-controlled trials we found difference in terms of complete response and survival rates between microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). While local recurrence rate was similar between MWA and RFA, distant recurrence rate was significantly lower with MWA. As a consequence, disease-free survival at 1, 2, and 3 years was similar between the two groups whereas disease-free survival at 5 years was significantly in favor of MWA. Adverse event rate was similar between the two treatments. Our results indicate a similar efficacy and safety profile between the two techniques. MWA seems to decrease the rate of long-term recurrences, but this finding needs to be confirmed in further trials. There are limited and discordant results on the comparison between microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This meta-analysis aims to compare the two treatments in terms of efficacy and safety, based on a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs). A computerized bibliographic search was performed on the main databases throughout August 2020. The primary outcome was the complete response rate, while survival rate (at 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year), disease-free survival rate (at 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year), local and distant recurrence rate, adverse event rate, and number of treatment sessions were the secondary outcomes. Seven RCTs enrolling 921 patients were included. No difference in terms of complete response between the two treatments was observed (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.99–1.02). Survival rates were constantly similar, with RRs ranging from 1.05 (0.96–1.15) at 1 year to 0.91 (0.81–1.03) at 5 years. While local recurrence rate was similar between MWA and RFA (RR 0.70, 0.43–1.14), distant recurrence rate was significantly lower with MWA (RR 0.60, 0.39–0.92). Disease-free survival at 1, 2, and 3 years was similar between the two groups with RR 1.00 (0.96–1.04), 0.94 (0.84–1.06), and 1.06 (0.93–1.21), respectively. On the other hand, RR for disease-free survival at 5 years was significantly in favor of MWA (3.66, 1.32–42.27). Adverse event rate was similar between the two treatments (RR 1.06, 0.48–2.34), with bleeding and hematoma representing the most frequent complications. Our results indicate a similar efficacy and safety profile between the two techniques. MWA seems to decrease the rate of long-term recurrences, but this finding needs to be confirmed in further trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regorafenib showed promising results as a second-line agent after sorafenib failure in hepatocellular carcinoma patients. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of regorafenib in hepatocarcinoma patients. A computerized bibliographic search was performed on the main databases. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival, tumor response, and the adverse events rate. Outcomes were pooled through a random-effects model and summary estimates were expressed in terms of median and 95% confidence interval or rates, as appropriate. One randomized-controlled trial and seven non-randomized studies with 809 patients were included. The great majority of recruited patients were in Child-Pugh A and ECOG 0 stage. Median overall survival was 11.08 months (9.46–12.71) and sensitivity analyses confirmed this finding, with a median survival ranging from 10.2 to 13.8 months. Duration of regorafenib therapy was 3.58 months, whereas median progression-free survival was 3.24 months (2.68–3.86). The pooled objective response rate was 10.1% (7.8–12.5%) while the disease control rate was 65.5% (61.3–69.7%) with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0%; Diarrhea, fatigue, and hand-foot skin reaction were the most frequent adverse events. The current meta-analysis shows that regorafenib represents a valuable and relatively safe therapeutic option in intermediate/advanced hepatocellular carcinomapatients who progress on sorafenib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]