The role of extra-hepatic bile duct resection in the surgical management of gallbladder carcinoma. A first meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the clinicopathological and prognostic value of extra-hepatic bile duct resection (EHBDR) in the surgical management of patients with gallbladder carcinoma (GBC), especially in non-jaundiced patients.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched up to March 1^st 2021 for comparative studies between bile duct resected and non-resected groups. RevMan5.3 and Stata 13.0 software were used for the statistical analyses.ResultsEHBDR did not correlate with a better overall survival (OS) (P = 0.17) or disease-free survival (P = 0.27). No survival benefit was also observed in patients with T2N1 (P = 0.4), T3N0 (P = 0.14) disease and node-positive patients (P = 0.75), rather, EHBDR was even harmful for patients with T2N0 (P = 0.01) and node-negative disease (P = 0.02). Significantly higher incidences of recurrent disease (P = 0.0007), postoperative complications (P < 0.00001) and positive margins (P = 0.02) were detected in the bile duct-resected group. The duration of postoperative hospital stay between the two groups was comparable (P = 0.58). Selection bias was also detected in our analysis that a significantly higher proportion of advanced lesions with T3-4 or III-IV disease was observed in the bile duct-resected group (P < 0.00001). EHBDR only contributed to a greater lymph yield (P = 0.01).ConclusionEHBDR has no survival advantage for patients with GBC, especially for those with non-jaundiced disease. Considering the unfairness of comparing OS between jaundiced patients receiving EHBDR with non-jaundiced patients without EHBDR, we could only conclude that routine EHBDR in non-jaundiced patients is not recommended and future well-designed studies with more specific subgroup analyses are required for further validation.     

Review of Variables Associated With Positive Surgical Margins Using Scout Reflector Localizations for Breast Conservation Therapy

ObjectiveTo evaluate factors contributing to positive surgical margins associated with reflector guidance for patients undergoing breast conserving therapy for malignancy.Materials and MethodsA retrospective IRB-approved review of our institutional database was performed for malignant breast lesions preoperatively localized from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020. The following data was recorded using electronic medical records: lesion type and grade, lesion location, reflector and wire placement modality, use of intraoperative ultrasound, margin status, patient age, family history, BMI, and final pathology. Statistical analysis was performed with univariate summary statistics and logistic regression. P < .05 was significant.ResultsA total of 606 image-guided pre-surgical localizations were performed for lumpectomies of breast malignancies. A total of 352 of 606 (58%) wire localizations and 254 of 606 (42%) SCOUT reflector localizations were performed. Sixty out of 352 (17%) of wire-localized patients had positive surgical margins, whereas forty-eight out of 254 (19%) of reflector-localized patients had positive surgical margins. (OR = 1.12, P value: .59). For reflector guided cases, the use of intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) was associated with decreased positive margin status (OR = 0 .28, 95% CI = [0.14, 0.58]) while in situ disease was associated with increased positive margin status (OR = 1.99, 95% CI = [1.05, 3.75]). No association between modality used for localization (mammography vs. ultrasound) and positive margin status was observed (OR = 0.63, 95% CI = [0.33, 1.19]). No association between positive margins and age, family history, tumor location and BMI was observed.ConclusionFor reflector guided surgeries, the use of IOUS was associated with decreased positive margins, by contrast the presence of ductal carcinoma in situ was associated with increased positive margins. There was no statistically significant difference in surgical outcomes for reflector-guided localization compared to wire localizations of the breast.     

Étude de faisabilité : l’utilisation de l’imagerie médicale en éducation thérapeutique en radiothérapie

PurposeAssess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) exploring the use of medical imaging as a therapeutic education (TPE) intervention in external radiation therapy.Materials and methodsExperimental feasibility trial of “RCT” type carried out in a single-center, between November 2019 and March 2020, following adult patients treated by thoracic radiotherapy. In addition to the information usually given, the experimental group benefited from an intervention consisting in the visualization of their own medical images using the open-source software “Stone of Orthanc”.ResultsForty-nine patients were recruited with a refusal rate of 8.16% (4/49). 20 patients were withdrawn from the study for health reasons (COVID), 10 for medical reasons. All the remaining 15 participants completed the process. Although not significant, the experimental group showed a median gain in the perception of knowledge compared to the control group (+ 1.9 (1.6 – 2.2)) vs (+ 1.4 (1.4 – 1.8)), as well as a decrease in scores related to anxiety (? 3.0 (?4.5 - (?2.0)) vs ? 1.0 (?5.0 - 0.0)) and emotional distress ((? 5.0 (? 7.5 - (? 3.5)) vs (? 2.0 (? 5.0 - (? 1.0)) A significant reduction (p = 0.043) is observed for the depression score ((? 2.0 (?3.0 - (?1.5)) vs (0.0 (0.0 – 0.0)).ConclusionThis study demonstrates the feasibility of the project, with promising preliminary results. Some adaptations in order to conduct a larger-scale RCT are highlighted.     

Trifluridine/Tipiracil in Combination with Bevacizumab in First-Line for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Way Forward. A Point of View Based on Cost-Effectiveness

Introduction: The aim of this analysis is to assess the pharmacological costs of trifluridine/tipiracil as first-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients who were not candidates for combination with cytotoxic chemotherapies.Discussion: TASCO1 Trial was considered (153 patients). Differences in costs between the 2 arms (trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab vs. capecitabine plus bevacizumab) was 9113 € (10 264 USD), with a cost savings of 1982 € (2232 USD) per month of overall survival (OS)-gain.Conclusion: Trifluridine/tipiracil could be consider a cost-effective treatment also in first-line for mCRC patients who were not candidates for combination with cytotoxic chemotherapies.