2. Development status of biliary tract imaging technology
Ang LI ; Rui TANG ; Xinjing ZHANG ; Zhizhong REN ; Huayuan HAO ; Jiahong DONG ; Qian LU
Chinese Journal of Surgery 2019;57(3):227-230
Structure of biliary system is complex as well as various, making troubles for optimal surgical treatment of biliary disease. Remarkable imaging of biliary system helps surgeon evaluating patients and planning surgeries. There are several methods to obtain accurate anatomical information of biliary system, such as X-ray fluoroscopy, MRI and fluorescence-based imaging. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Combination of multi-model imaging technologies may improve visual result of anatomical information of biliary tract. More resolvable, legible, and sequential imaging technology of biliary system remains further study. This article reviews various cholangiography methods widely used in the clinical setting.
3.Effect of preoperative immune checkpoint inhibitors on reducing residual lymph node metastases in patients with gastric cancer: a retrospective study
Xinhua CHEN ; Hexin LIN ; Yuehong CHEN ; Xiaodong WANG ; Chaoqun LIU ; Huilin HUANG ; Huayuan LIANG ; Huimin ZHANG ; Fengping LI ; Hao LIU ; Yanfeng HU ; Guoxin LI ; Jun YOU ; Liying ZHAO ; Jiang YU
Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 2024;27(7):694-701
Objective:To investigate the effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors on reducing residual lymph node metastasis in patients with gastric cancer.Methods:The cohort of this retrospective study comprised patients from Nanfang Hospital of Southern Medical University and the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University who had undergone systemic treatment prior to gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy and had achieved Grade 1 primary tumor regression (TRG1) from January 2014 to December 2023. After exclusion of patients who had undergone preoperative radiotherapy, data of 58 patients (Nanfang Hospital: 46; First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University: 12) were analyzed. These patients were allocated to preoperative chemotherapy (Chemotherapy group, N=36 cases) and preoperative immunotherapy plus chemotherapy groups (Immunotherapy group, N=22 cases). There were no significant differences between these groups in sex, age, body mass index, diabetes, tumor location, pathological type, Lauren classification, tumor differentiation, pretreatment depth of invasion by primary tumor, pretreatment lymph node stage, pretreatment clinical stage, mismatch repair protein status, number of preoperative treatment cycles, or duration of preoperative treatment (all P>0.05). The primary outcome measure was postoperative lymph node downstaging. Secondary outcomes included postoperative depth of invasion by tumor, number of lymph nodes examined, and factors affecting residual lymph node metastasis status. Results:Lymph node downstaging was achieved significantly more often in the Immunotherapy group than the Chemotherapy group (pN0: 90.9% [20/22] vs. 61.1% [22/36]; pN1: 4.5% [1/22] vs. 36.1% [13/36]; pN2: 4.5% [1/22) vs. 0; pN3: 0 vs. 2.8% [1/36], Z=-2.315, P=0.021). There were no significant difference between the two groups in number of lymph nodes examined (40.5±16.3 vs. 40.8±17.5, t=0.076, P=0.940) or postoperative depth of invasion by primary tumor (pT1a: 50.0% [11/22] vs. 30.6% [11/36]; pT1b: 13.6% [3/22] vs. 19.4% [7/36]; pT2: 13.6% [3/22] vs. 13.9% [5/36]; pT3: 13.6% [3/22] vs. 25.0% [9/36]; pT4a: 9.1% [2/22] vs. 11.1% [4/36], Z=-1.331, P=0.183). Univariate analysis revealed that both preoperative treatment regimens were associated with residual lymph node metastasis status in patients whose primary tumor regression was TRG1 (χ 2=6.070, P=0.014). Multivariate analysis incorporated the following factors: pretreatment depth of invasion by primary tumor, pretreatment lymph node stage, pretreatment clinical stage, number of preoperative treatment cycles, and preoperative treatment duration. We found that a combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy administered preoperatively was an independent protective factor for reducing residual lymph node metastases in study patients whose primary tumor regression was TRG1 (OR=0.147, 95%CI: 0.026–0.828, P=0.030). Conclusion:Compared with preoperative chemotherapy alone, a combination of preoperative immunotherapy and chemotherapy achieved greater reduction of residual lymph node metastases in the study patients who achieved TRG1 tumor regression in their primary lesions.
4.Effect of preoperative immune checkpoint inhibitors on reducing residual lymph node metastases in patients with gastric cancer: a retrospective study
Xinhua CHEN ; Hexin LIN ; Yuehong CHEN ; Xiaodong WANG ; Chaoqun LIU ; Huilin HUANG ; Huayuan LIANG ; Huimin ZHANG ; Fengping LI ; Hao LIU ; Yanfeng HU ; Guoxin LI ; Jun YOU ; Liying ZHAO ; Jiang YU
Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 2024;27(7):694-701
Objective:To investigate the effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors on reducing residual lymph node metastasis in patients with gastric cancer.Methods:The cohort of this retrospective study comprised patients from Nanfang Hospital of Southern Medical University and the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University who had undergone systemic treatment prior to gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy and had achieved Grade 1 primary tumor regression (TRG1) from January 2014 to December 2023. After exclusion of patients who had undergone preoperative radiotherapy, data of 58 patients (Nanfang Hospital: 46; First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University: 12) were analyzed. These patients were allocated to preoperative chemotherapy (Chemotherapy group, N=36 cases) and preoperative immunotherapy plus chemotherapy groups (Immunotherapy group, N=22 cases). There were no significant differences between these groups in sex, age, body mass index, diabetes, tumor location, pathological type, Lauren classification, tumor differentiation, pretreatment depth of invasion by primary tumor, pretreatment lymph node stage, pretreatment clinical stage, mismatch repair protein status, number of preoperative treatment cycles, or duration of preoperative treatment (all P>0.05). The primary outcome measure was postoperative lymph node downstaging. Secondary outcomes included postoperative depth of invasion by tumor, number of lymph nodes examined, and factors affecting residual lymph node metastasis status. Results:Lymph node downstaging was achieved significantly more often in the Immunotherapy group than the Chemotherapy group (pN0: 90.9% [20/22] vs. 61.1% [22/36]; pN1: 4.5% [1/22] vs. 36.1% [13/36]; pN2: 4.5% [1/22) vs. 0; pN3: 0 vs. 2.8% [1/36], Z=-2.315, P=0.021). There were no significant difference between the two groups in number of lymph nodes examined (40.5±16.3 vs. 40.8±17.5, t=0.076, P=0.940) or postoperative depth of invasion by primary tumor (pT1a: 50.0% [11/22] vs. 30.6% [11/36]; pT1b: 13.6% [3/22] vs. 19.4% [7/36]; pT2: 13.6% [3/22] vs. 13.9% [5/36]; pT3: 13.6% [3/22] vs. 25.0% [9/36]; pT4a: 9.1% [2/22] vs. 11.1% [4/36], Z=-1.331, P=0.183). Univariate analysis revealed that both preoperative treatment regimens were associated with residual lymph node metastasis status in patients whose primary tumor regression was TRG1 (χ 2=6.070, P=0.014). Multivariate analysis incorporated the following factors: pretreatment depth of invasion by primary tumor, pretreatment lymph node stage, pretreatment clinical stage, number of preoperative treatment cycles, and preoperative treatment duration. We found that a combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy administered preoperatively was an independent protective factor for reducing residual lymph node metastases in study patients whose primary tumor regression was TRG1 (OR=0.147, 95%CI: 0.026–0.828, P=0.030). Conclusion:Compared with preoperative chemotherapy alone, a combination of preoperative immunotherapy and chemotherapy achieved greater reduction of residual lymph node metastases in the study patients who achieved TRG1 tumor regression in their primary lesions.
5.Prognostic factors of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma recipients beyond UCSF criteria but without macrovascular invasion
Guangdong WU ; Rui TANG ; Ang LI ; Xuan TONG ; Lihan YU ; Yucheng HOU ; Abudusalamu AINI ; Wei YANG ; Huayuan HAO ; Jingyi LIN ; Qian LU
Chinese Journal of General Surgery 2024;39(5):339-343
Objective:To investigate the prognostic factors for liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma beyond UCSF criteria but without macrovascular invasion.Methods:A retrospective analysis was performed for the clinical data of the hepatocellular carcinoma patients without macrovascular invasion beyond UCSF criteria who underwent liver transplantation at our center from Jan 2018 to Jun 2023. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to assess the predictive power of potential prognosis factors.Results:With this criteria, the 1-, 3-year overall survival rates were 94.1% and 75.0%, respectively, and the 1-, 3-year tumor free survival rates were 82.4% and 38.1%, respectively. The maximum tumor size, number of tumors, AFP, PIVKA-Ⅱ before transplantation, and whether undergo pretransplant down-stage therapy were significant prognostic factors ( P<0.05). Combining the above prognostic factors to construct the receiver operating characteristic curve yielded an area under the curve of 0.967, with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.932, 0.952, respectively. Further, the differentiation, MVI and Ki-67 were significant prognostic factors ( P<0.05). Combining pathological factors to construct the receiver operating characteristic curve yielded an area under the curve of 0.927, with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.769, 1, respectively. Conclusion:The maximum tumor diameter, number of tumors, AFP, PIVKA-Ⅱ before transplantation, and pretransplant down-stage therapy and tumor differentiation, MVI and Ki-67 are all prognostic factors of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma without macrovascular invasion beyond UCSF criteria.