Survival in node-positive early oral squamous cell carcinoma: sentinel node biopsy versus elective neck dissection

Patients undergoing sentinel node biopsy (SLNB) for early oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) who harbour occult metastases (pN+ve) may be at greater risk of mortality due to prolonged overall treatment times than those identified as pN+ve on elective neck dissection (ELND). A retrospective comparative survival analysis was therefore undertaken to test this hypothesis. Patients were identified from the South Glasgow multidisciplinary team (MDT) database. Group 1 comprised 38 patients identified as pN+ve, or who were false negative, on sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Group 2 comprised 146 patients staged pN+ve on ELND. The groups were compared with the Kaplan Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model. In addition, a matched-pair analysis was performed. A unique and specifically designed algorithm was deployed to optimise the pairings. No difference in disease-specific or overall survival was found between the groups. Patients undergoing SLNB as the initial neck staging modality in early OSCC and are identified as pN+ve do not appear to be at a survival disadvantage compared with those staged with ELND.     

Efficacy and safety of cold snare polypectomy for sessile serrated polyps ≥ 10 mm: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundCold snare polypectomy (CSP) is a promising technique for the removal of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) ≥ 10 mm. However, the efficacy and safety of this technique remain undetermined.AimsWe aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of CSP for SSPs ≥ 10 mm.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2021.ResultsA total of 10 studies consisting of 1727 SSPs (range, 10–40 mm) from 1021 patients were included. The overall rates of technical success, adverse events (AEs) and residual SSPs were 100%, 0.7% and 2.9%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that the rates of technical success and AEs were comparable between CSP and cold endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) (99.9% vs. 100% and 1.3% vs. 0.5%, respectively), between the proximal and distal colon (100% vs. 99.9% and 0.3% vs. 0, respectively), and between polyps of 10–19 mm and ≥20 mm (99.8% vs. 100% and 0.9% vs. 0, respectively). However, subgroup analysis showed that the rate of residual SSPs was slightly lower in CSP compared with cold EMR (1.3% vs. 3.9%), as well as in polyps of 10–19 mm compared with those ≥20 mm (3.1% vs. 4.7%).ConclusionCSP was an effective and safe technique for removing SSPs ≥ 10 mm.     

SLC及其受体CCR7与Ⅰ期非小细胞肺癌淋巴结微转移的相关性

目的 探讨溶质载体蛋白（SLC）及其受体趋化因子受体7（CCR7）与I期非小细胞肺癌（NSCLC）淋巴结微转移的相关性。方法 选取2019年1月~2020年3月于我院就诊的I期NSCLC患者127例为研究对象，按照淋巴结微转移情况分为对照组92例和转移组35例，所有患者入院后均通过根治术切除病灶，通过免疫组化方式检测病灶中SLC7A11及CCR7含量，并收集患者临床资料、实验室检查资料及影像学检查资料。通过Logistic回归分析评价SLC7A11及CCR7与淋巴结微转移之间的关系。最后通过建立ROC曲线分析两者及其联合检测对NSCLC患者微淋巴结转移的预测价值。结果 两组患者SLC7A11及CCR7表达水平存在显著差异（P＜0.05）。转移组患者病灶直径、支气管受累及TLG显著高于对照组（P＜0.05）。病灶直径（OR=49.254,95%CI=11.062~507.604）是影响NSCLC淋巴结微转移的独立危险因素（P＜0.05）。SLC7A11（OR=8.622）及CCR7（OR=8.709）表达水平是影响NSCLC淋巴结微转移的独立因素（P＜0.05）。SLC7A11、CCR7及联合诊断对NSCLC淋巴结微转移具有较好的检测价值（均P＜0.05）。联合检测特异度显著高于 SLC7A11及CCR7单独检测（2=7.292，15.125；均P＜0.01）。结论 SLC家族的中SLC7A11及其受体CCR7与NSCLC患者微淋巴结转移显著相关。     

Assessing Antibiotic Adherence and Improving Antibiotic Stewardship in Common Interventional Radiology Procedures

PurposeIn 2018, The Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology (JVIR) updated its guidelines regarding periprocedural antibiotics. However, some institutions are slower to adopt these new guidelines. Additionally, antibiotic-resistant bacteria and sepsis are serious concerns due in part to incorrect usage of antibiotics. The purpose of this study is to assess institutional adherence to 2018 JVIR guidelines for the purpose of improving antibiotic stewardship.Materials and methodsA total of 800 cases over a 10-month time period were retrospectively identified and charted following the release of guidelines. Inclusion criteria for the study were adults aged 21 years or older undergoing mediport placement, tunneled central line (TCL) placement, nephrostomy tube exchange, percutaneous biliary drain, or cholecystostomy tube exchange. Exclusion criteria included immunocompromised and pregnant individuals as 2018 guidelines may not fit these patient populations. Guideline adherence for each procedure was recorded as a percentage; the timing of the antibiotic usage was also recorded and compared to the guidelines (within 60 minutes before incision).ResultsIn total, 49 mediport placements, 118 tunneled central line placements – 44 hemodialysis (HD) catheters and 74 nonhemodialysis (non-HD) catheters, 100 nephrostomy exchanges, and 82 biliary tube exchanges were included. Antibiotics were used in 83.6% (41/49) of mediport patients, 11.3% (5/44) of non-HD TCL patients, 20.5% (15/74) of HD TCL patients, 55% (55/100) nephrostomy tube changes, and 65.4% (55/84) of biliary or cholecystostomy tube exchanges. Out of those given prophylaxis, guideline-recommended antibiotics were used in 100% (41/41) of mediport, 100% (20/20) of TCL (both HD and non-HD catheters), 9% (5/55) of nephrostomy tube exchanges, and 1.8% (1/55) of biliary tube exchanges. Guideline-recommended timing was followed in 75.3% across all cases (ranging from 72.2% in mediports to 79.3% in biliary exchanges).ConclusionThis study of antibiotic practices at a single university-based academic institution revealed that antibiotic usage is not fully up to date with 2018 guidelines. For mediports, non-HD TCL placements, and nephrostomy tube exchanges, institutional changes should be made to reduce periprocedural antibiotic use, as antibiotics are no longer recommended for these procedures. For HD TCL and biliary exchanges, proper adherence to recommended prophylactic antibiotics should be followed. In addition, education about the correct antibiotic timing should be emphasized to increase compliance with guidelines.     

直肠癌淋巴结转移的深度神经网络评判研究进展

正目前,临床上对于直肠癌常用的影像评估方法有MRI、螺旋CT、PET-CT、直肠腔内超声(ERUS)等。而MRI作为首选检查方式,对肿瘤位置、浸润深度、淋巴结转移、血管侵犯、环周切缘及周围器官侵犯等方面的评估均具有明显优势~([1-2])。通过MRI诊断淋巴结的方法通常是影像科医师逐层浏览每一幅图像,从中识别淋巴结的形状、界限及密度来判断,这种传统方式耗时较长且存在主观偏倚,导致