Viable tumorigenic cancer cells spilled into the peritoneal cavity during surgery, indicating that surgery induces peritoneal metastasis.

This work was supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (no. 13237327 to K.N., no. 26861335 to K.K. and no. 23592407 to H.N.) and the Kanzawa Medical Research Foundation (to K.K.). There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

No abstract

Background:The invasive tumour front may provide prognostic information. We examined the relationship between the presence of cancer stem cells (CSCs) at the invasive tumour front and prognosis in gastric cancer (GC).Methods:CD44 is a CSC marker; accordingly, CD44 standard (CD44s), CD44 variant-6 (CD44v6), and CD44 variant-9 (CD44v9) expression were examined in 123 resected primary GCs and the clinical significance of CSCs at the invasive tumour front was analysed.Results:Thirteen (10.6%), 79 (64.2%), and 47 (38.2%) GCs were CD44s-, CD44v6-, and CD44v9-positive, respectively. Patients with CD44-positive expression at the invasive tumour front had significantly poorer disease-specific survival than those with negative expression (CD44s: P<0.00001, CD44v6: P=0.013, CD44v9: P=0.0002). CD44s expression at the invasive tumour front was an independent prognostic factor in resectable GC patients (hazard ratio=3.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.09–9.01; P=0.035) and was significantly associated with peritoneal (P<0.001), lymphatic (P<0.001), and haematogenous recurrences (P=0.008). In addition, the number of CD44 isoforms expressed in cancer cells at the invasive tumour front was associated with patient prognosis. No conventional clinicopathological factors were independently associated with CD44 expression at the invasive tumour front.Conclusions:CD44-positive cancer stem-like cells at the invasive tumour front indicate poor survival and can be a unique biological prognostic factor for GC.

BackgroundPostoperative delirium is common after extensive surgery, and is known to be associated with sleeping medications. In this study, we aimed to investigate the relationships between sleeping medications and postoperative delirium after pharyngolaryngectomy with esophagectomy.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of 65 patients who underwent pharyngolaryngectomy with esophagectomy at Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital between January 2012 and March 2016. All data were assessed by two psychiatrists, and univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.ResultsPostoperative delirium developed in 9 (13.8%) patients, with most cases (77.8%) occurring between postoperative day (POD) 1 and POD 3. Of the 24 patients taking a minor tranquilizer after surgery, 8 (33.3%) became delirious, but, of the remaining 41 patients taking ramelteon with or without suvorexant, only one (2.4%) became delirious after surgery. Moreover, of the 16 patients taking both ramelteon and suvorexant, no postoperative delirium was observed. Ramelteon with or without suvorexant was significantly associated with a decreased rate of postoperative delirium compared with minor tranquilizer use (p = 0.001). Multivariate analysis confirmed that the use of ramelteon with or without suvorexant was the only significant preventive factor of postoperative delirium (odds ratio 0.060, p = 0.013).ConclusionThe use of ramelteon with or without suvorexant was the only significant preventive factor of postoperative delirium after pharyngolaryngectomy with esophagectomy. However, using minor tranquilizers was associated with postoperative delirium. We recommend ramelteon with or without suvorexant for preventing postoperative delirium after pharyngolaryngectomy with esophagectomy.