Dietary habits, ethanol and tobacco consumption as predictive factors in the development of esophageal carcinoma in patients with head and neck neoplasms

Patients with primary head and neck cancers have a higher risk of developing esophageal cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate esophageal cancer prevalence, its risk factors (ethanol and tobacco consumption) and dietary habits in patients with head and neck cancer. Three hundred and twenty-six adults with primary head and neck cancer were followed by a retrospective observational study in a general university hospital in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Flexible videoendoscopy with lugol chromoscopy was the method used to investigate esophageal cancer prevalence. All subjects were interviewed face-to-face, revealing detailed information about their tobacco and alcohol use, as well as their dietary habits. Thirty-six patients with esophageal cancer were diagnosed and the overall prevalence rate was 11.04%. Patients who developed second esophageal tumors had the following characteristics: earlier age of initial ethanol consumption (P < 0.05), longer duration period of ethanol consumption (P < 0.05) and higher weekly consumption rate (P < 0.05). There was an increased risk of esophageal carcinoma in those patients who both smoked and drank (P < 0.05). There was no association between carcinoma of the esophagus and dietary habits in patients who developed esophageal neoplasms, compared with those who did not. Prevalence rate of esophageal neoplasms was 11.04% in patients with head and neck carcinoma, whose ethanol consumption was associated with esophageal cancer. There was an increased risk between ethanol and tobacco consumption and esophageal carcinoma development. On the other hand, there was no association regarding dietary habits between patients who developed esophageal cancer and those who did not.

Reduction of abdominal pressure in patients with ascites reduces gastroesophageal reflux

The effect of the reduction of intra-abdominal pressure on the lower esophageal sphincter pressure (LESP) and the 24-hour pH monitoring were studied in 16 patients with ascites before and after paracentesis. LESP did not change (P > 0.05) with the reduction of intra-abdominal pressure (before paracentesis: 17.48 mmHg and postparacentesis: 18.67 mmHg). The results were divided into two groups according to the achieved reduction in intra-abdominal pressure group A were those in who the reduction was greater than 70% and B consisted of those a reduction of less than 70%. LESP did not change even when results for each group were considered separately (P > 0.05): group A (before: 15.60 mmHg; after: 18.09 mmHg); group B (before: 23.09 mmHg; after: 20.40 mmHg). However the 24-h pH monitoring showed pathological reflux in patients with ascites that was reduced with the paracentesis (P < 0.05; total number of reflux episodes before paracentesis was 520.26, and after, 136.26). All pH-monitoring parameters were statistically different (P < 0.05) before and after the reduction of intra-abdominal pressure for group A but not for group B. LESP does not change significantly (P > 0.05) when the intra-abdominal pressure is significantly reduced (P < 0.05). Patients with ascites showed gastroesophageal reflux. Intra-abdominal pressure reduction greater than 70% lead to a significant reduction in gastroesophageal reflux.

Intrasphincteric botulinum toxin injection in the treatment of chagasic achalasia

According to the WHO, 16-18 million people in Central and South America are infected by Trypanosoma cruzi. Chagasic achalasia affects between 7.1% and 10.6% of the population. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of Botox injections in the clinical response and esophageal function of patients with dysphagia due to chagasic achalasia. In total, 24 symptomatic patients with chagasic achalasia were randomly chosen to receive Botulinum Toxin (BT) or saline injected by endoscopy in the lower esophageal sphincter (LES). Patients were monitored with a clinical score of dysphagia and an objective assessment (esophagograms, scintillography, manometry, and nutritional assessment) for a period of 6 months. Clinical improvement of dysphagia was statistically significant (P < 0.001) in patients receiving BT when compared with the placebo. There was no significant difference in the placebo group regarding clinical score, LES basal pressure and esophageal emptying time. Esophageal emptying time in the toxin group was significantly lower than in the placebo (P=0.04) after 90 days. There were non-significant increases in esophageal emptying of 25.36% and 17.39%, respectively, at 90 and 180 days, in the BT group (P=0.266). Gender, age, and baseline LES pressure did not influence the response to BT. Our data strongly suggests that intrasphincteric injection of BT in LES is clinically effective in the treatment of chagasic achalasia.

Efficacy and tolerability of pantoprazole versus ranitidine in the treatment of reflux esophagitis and the influence of Helicobacter pylori infection on healing rate

Patients with reflux esophagitis (grade II or III, Savary-Miller, intention-to-treat, n=256, age range 19-82 years) were randomly assigned to a double-blind, double-dummy treatment with either pantoprazole 40 mg once daily or ranitidine 150 mg twice daily. After 4 weeks, each patient was clinically and endoscopically assessed. Failure to heal required a further 4 weeks of treatment and a new evaluation thereafter. After 4 weeks, healing of lesions was confirmed in 63% (69 out of 109) of patients receiving pantoprazole and in 22% (25 out of 113) receiving ranitidine (P < 0.001, per protocol population). After 8 weeks, the cumulative healing rates were 88% and 46%, respectively (P < 0.001). Complete freedom from esophagitis-related symptoms (acid eructation, heartburn, pain while swallowing) was greater in the pantoprazole than in ranitidine group after 2 and 4 weeks (74% vs. 47%; 87% vs. 52%, respectively, P < 0.001). After 4 weeks, the healing rate was 76% in Helicobacter pylori (Hp)-positive vs. 45% in Hp-negative patients treated with pantoprazole (P < 0.01). The Hp status did not influence healing rates in patients treated with ranitidine. The most frequent adverse events in the pantoprazole group were diarrhea and somnolence (2-3% of patients), and in the ranitidine group, headache, diarrhea, dizziness, increase of liver enzymes and pruritus (2-4% of patients). In conclusion, pantoprazole was more effective than ranitidine in the healing rate and relief from reflux esophagitis-associated symptoms, and Hp infection was associated with higher healing rate during therapy with pantoprazole but not with ranitidine.