Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205-213. [PMID: 15273542 DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083]

Trajectories of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios during neoadjuvant chemotherapy correlate with short- and long-term outcomes in gastric cancer: a group-based trajectory analysis

BACKGROUND

Systemic inflammatory factors can predict the survival prognosis of gastric cancer (GC) patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). However, whether longitudinal changes in systemic inflammatory factors are associated with short - and long-term outcomes has not been reported.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of 216 patients with advanced gastric cancer who received NACT between January 2011 and June 2019, comparing receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for screening suitable inflammatory markers. Group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) was used to analyze longitudinal changes in inflammatory markers during NACT to identify different potential subgroups and to compare postoperative complications, recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) among subgroups.

RESULTS

Ultimately, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) had the highest area under the curve (AUC) value in predicting prognosis was included in the GBTM analysis. Three trajectories of NLR were obtained: Stable group (SG) (n = 89), Ascent-descend group (ADG) (n = 80) and Continuous descend group (CDG) (n = 47). Compared with SG, ADG and CDG are associated with an increased risk of postoperative recurrence and death. The median time of RFS and OS of SG was longer than that of ADG and CDG (median RFS 81 vs. 44 and 22 months; median OS 69 vs. 41 and 30 months). In addition, CDG had significantly higher postoperative serious complications than SG and ADG (17 (36.2%) vs. 17 (19.1%) and 12 (15.0%); p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

There were different trajectories of NLR during NACT, and these potential trajectories were significantly associated with severe postoperative complications, recurrence, and mortality in patients with GC.

Practical implications of tumor proximity to landmark vessels in minimally invasive radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy

Careful preoperative planning is key in minimally invasive radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (MI-RAMPS). This retrospective study aims to show the practical implications of computed tomography distance between the right margin of the tumor and either the left margin of the spleno-mesenteric confluence (d-SMC) or the gastroduodenal artery (d-GDA). Between January 2011 and June 2022, 48 minimally invasive RAMPS were performed for either pancreatic cancer or malignant intraductal mucinous papillary neoplasms. Two procedures were converted to open surgery (4.3%). Mean tumor size was 31.1 ± 14.7 mm. Mean d-SMC was 21.5 ± 18.5 mm. Mean d-GDA was 41.2 ± 23.2 mm. A vein resection was performed in 10 patients (20.8%) and the pancreatic neck could not be divided by an endoscopic stapler in 19 operations (43.1%). In patients requiring a vein resection, mean d-SMC was 10 mm (1.5-15.5) compared to 18 mm (10-37) in those without vein resection (p = 0.01). The cut-off of d-SMC to perform a vein resection was 17 mm (AUC 0.75). Mean d-GDA was 26 mm (19-39) mm when an endoscopic stapler could not be used to divide the pancreas, and 46 mm (30-65) when the neck of the pancreas was stapled (p = 0.01). The cut-off of d-GDA to safely pass an endoscopic stapler behind the neck of the pancreas was 43 mm (AUC 0.75). Computed tomography d-SMC and d-GDA are key measurements when planning for MI-RAMPS.

Effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with arterial chemoembolization on short-term clinical outcome of locally advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to explore the short-term efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with arterial chemoembolization for locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 203 patients with LAGC who received neoadjuvant therapy from June 2019 to December 2021. The patients were divided into a neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with arterial chemoembolization group (combined group, n = 102) and a neoadjuvant chemotherapy group (conventional group, n = 101). The adverse events of chemotherapy, postoperative complications and pathological complete response (pCR) rate were compared between the two groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the potential factors affecting pCR.

RESULTS

A total of 78.8% of the patients were in clinical stage III before neoadjuvant therapy. A total of 52.2% of the patients underwent surgery after receiving two cycles of neoadjuvant therapy. There were 21.2% patients with ≥ grade 3 (CTCAE 4.0) adverse events of chemotherapy and 11.3% patients with Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ grade 3 postoperative complications. Compared with the conventional group, the combination group did not experience an increase in the adverse events of chemotherapy or postoperative complications. The pCR rate in the combined group was significantly higher than that in the conventional group (16.7% vs. 4.95%, P = 0.012). The multivariate analysis showed that arterial chemoembolization, pre-treatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and pre-treatment platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) were independent factors affecting pCR.

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with arterial chemoembolization contributed to improving the pCR rate of LAGC patients. Arterial chemoembolization, pre-treatment NLR and pre-treatment PLR were also predictors of pCR.

Living-donor or deceased-donor liver transplantation for hepatic carcinoma: A case-matched comparison

AIM: To compare the surgical outcomes between living-donor and deceased-donor liver transplantation in patients with hepatic carcinoma.

METHODS: From January 2007 to December 2010, 257 patients with pathologically confirmed hepatic carcinoma met the eligibility criteria of the study. Forty patients who underwent living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) constituted the LDLT group, and deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) was performed in 217 patients. Patients in the LDLT group were randomly matched (1:2) to patients who underwent DDLT using a multivariate case-matched method, so 40 patients in the LDLT group and 80 patients in the DDLT group were enrolled into the study. We compared the two groups in terms of clinicopathological characteristics, postoperative complications, long-term cumulative survival and relapse-free survival outcomes. The modified Clavien-Dindo classification system of surgical complications was used to evaluate the severity of perioperative complications. Furthermore, we determined the difference in the overall biliary complication rates in the perioperative and follow-up periods between the LDLT and DDLT groups.

RESULTS: The clinicopathological characteristics of the enrolled patients were comparable between the two groups. The duration of operation was significantly longer (553 min vs 445 min, P < 0.001) in the LDLT group than in the DDLT group. Estimated blood loss (1188 mL vs 1035 mL, P = 0.055) and the proportion of patients with intraoperative transfusion (60.0% vs 43.8%, P = 0.093) were slightly but not significantly greater in the LDLT group. In contrast to DDLT, LDLT was associated with a lower rate of perioperative grade II complications (45.0% vs 65.0%, P = 0.036) but a higher risk of overall biliary complications (27.5% vs 7.5%, P = 0.003). Nonetheless, 21 patients (52.5%) in the LDLT group and 46 patients (57.5%) in the DDLT group experienced perioperative complications, and overall perioperative complication rates were similar between the two groups (P = 0.603). No significant difference was observed in 5-year overall survival (74.1% vs 66.6%, P = 0.372) or relapse-free survival (72.9% vs 70.9%, P = 0.749) between the LDLT and DDLT groups.

CONCLUSION: Although biliary complications were more common in the LDLT group, this group did not show any inferiority in long-term overall survival or relapse-free survival compared with DDLT.