RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Early cholecystectomy (E-CCY; 8 weeks or less) after percutaneous cholecystostomy tube (PCT) placement has been associated with increased postoperative complications, but this finding has not been validated at a national level and PCT-related complications and interventions (PCT-RCIs) were not evaluated. STUDY DESIGN: Adults with PCT for acute cholecystitis subsequently undergoing CCY were identified within the Nationwide Readmission Database (2010-2015) and our institution (2017-2019). Adjusted relative risks (aRRs) of postoperative complications were estimated using Poisson regression comparing E-CCY with delayed cholecystectomy (D-CCY; more than 8 weeks) within the nationwide cohort. Institutional PCT-RCIs, operative data, and postoperative outcomes were compared between E-CCY and D-CCY using chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: Of 6,145 patients from the Nationwide Readmission Database, 32.9% were D-CCY. Risk-adjusted analysis identified no differences between E-CCY and D-CCY in complications (aRR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.07), mortality (aRR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.81), or 30-day readmissions (aRR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.27). Risk-adjusted analyses assessing the association of time to interval cholecystectomy (IC) with morbidity indicated an increased risk of surgical complications in the first month after PCT placement (aRR 1.17; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.33). In the institutional cohort (E-CCY, n = 23; D-CCY, n = 45), there were no statistically significant differences found in estimated blood loss, length of stay, and postoperative complications. There were increased PCT-RCIs in the D-CCY group (26.9% E-CCY vs 69% D-CCY; p < 0.01) based on our unadjusted analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Increased operative complications when IC is performed within 1 month of PCT placement and increased PCT-RCIs when IC is performed 8 weeks after PCT placement suggest that the most favorable timing for IC is between 4 and 8 weeks after PCT placement.
Assuntos
Colecistectomia/métodos , Colecistite Aguda/cirurgia , Colecistostomia/métodos , Idoso , Colecistectomia/efeitos adversos , Colecistite Aguda/terapia , Colecistostomia/instrumentação , Bases de Dados como Assunto , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento , Estados UnidosRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: We tested cytoplasmic HuR (cHuR) as a predictive marker for response to chemotherapy by examining tumor samples from the international European Study Group of Pancreatic Cancer-3 trial, in which patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) received either gemcitabine (GEM) or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) adjuvant monotherapy. BACKGROUND: Previous studies have implicated the mRNA-binding protein, HuR (ELAVL1), as a predictive marker for PDA treatment response in the adjuvant setting. These studies were, however, based on small cohorts of patients outside of a clinical trial, or a clinical trial in which patients received multimodality therapy with concomitant radiation. METHODS: Tissue samples from 379 patients with PDA enrolled in the European Study Group of Pancreatic Cancer-3 trial were immunolabeled with an anti-HuR antibody and scored for cHuR expression. Patients were dichotomized into groups of high versus low cHuR expression. RESULTS: There was no association between cHuR expression and prognosis in the overall cohort [disease-free survival (DFS), P = 0.44; overall survival, P = 0.41). Median DFS for patients with high cHuR was significantly greater for patients treated with 5-FU compared to GEM [20.1 months, confidence interval (CI): 8.3-36.4 vs 10.9 months, CI: 7.5-14.2; P = 0.04]. Median DFS was similar between the treatment arms in patients with low cHuR (5-FU, 12.8 months, CI: 10.6-14.6 vs GEM, 12.9 months, CI: 11.2-15.4). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with high cHuR-expressing tumors may benefit from 5-FU-based adjuvant therapy as compared to GEM, whereas those patients with low cHuR appear to have no survival advantage with GEM compared with 5-FU. Further studies are needed to validate HuR as a biomarker in both future monotherapy and multiagent regimens.