AIMTo compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).METHODSA literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database up to June 30, 2015 was performed. The following key words were used: pancreas, distal pancreatectomy, pancreatic, laparoscopic, laparoscopy, robotic, and robotic-assisted. Fixed and random effects models were applied. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.RESULTSSeven non-randomized controlled trials involving 568 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with LDP, RADP was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes harvested, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.CONCLUSIONRADP is a safe and feasible alternative to LDP with regard to short-term outcomes. Further studies on the long-term outcomes of these surgical techniques are required.Core tipTo date, there is no consensus on whether laparoscopic or robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy is more beneficial to the patient. This is the first meta-analysis to compare laparoscopic and robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy. We found that robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy was associated with longer operating time, lower estimated blood loss, a higher spleen-preservation rate, and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference in transfusion, conversion to open surgery, overall complications, severe complications, pancreatic fistula, severe pancreatic fistula, ICU stay, total cost, and 30-day mortality between the two groups.

Sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor, is considered as the only approved drug to cure the advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, the acquired chemoresistance caused by intratumoral hypoxia through sorafenib long term therapy induces sorafenib inefficacy. We demonstrated here that hypoxia significantly attenuated sensitivity of HCC cells to sorafenib treatment and reduced its proliferation. Autophagy was observed in sorafenib-treated HCC cells in hypoxia, and inhibition of autophagy by 3-MA eliminated hypoxia-induced sorafenib resistance. Further study revealed hypoxia-activated FOXO3a, an important cellular stress transcriptional factor, via inducing its dephosphorylation and nuclear location; and FOXO3a-dependent transcriptive activation of beclin-1 was responsible for hypoxia-induced autophagy in HCC cells. Knockout of FOXO3a inhibited the autophagy induced by sorafenib itself in normoxia and significantly enhanced the cytotoxicity of sorafenib in HCC cells; and it also inhibited the hypoxia-induced autophagy and achieved the same effect in sorafenib sensitivity-enhancement in HCC cells as it in normoxia. Finally, knockout of intratumoral FOXO3a significantly enhanced curative efficacy of sorafenib via inhibition of autophagy in xenograft tumors in nude mice. Collectively, our study suggests that FOXO3a plays a key role in regulating hypoxia-induced autophagy in sorafenib-treated HCC, and FOXO3-targeted therapy may serve as a promising approach to improve clinical prognosis of patients suffering from HCC.

Background: Colon adenocarcinoma (COAD) is one of the most lethal cancers. It is particularly important to accurately predict prognosis and to provide individualized treatment. Several lines of evidence suggest that genetic factors and clinicopathological characteristics are related to cancer onset and progression. The aim of this study was to identify potential prognostic genes and to develop a nomogram to predict survival and recurrence of COAD. Methods: To identify potential prognostic genes in COAD, microarray datasets were downloaded from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were obtained from GEO2R. Venn diagram was drawn to select those genes that were overexpressed in all datasets, and survival analyses were performed to determine the prognostic values of the selected genes. New nomograms were developed based on the genes that were significantly associated with prognosis. Clinicopathological data were obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Finally, the new nomograms were compared head-to-head comparison with the TNM nomogram.Results: From GSE21510, GSE110223, GSE113513 and GSE110224, a total of 834, 218, 236 and 613 overexpressed DEGs were screened out, respectively. The Venn diagram revealed that 12 genes appeared in all four profiles. After survival analyses, only INHBA expression was associated with both overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Multivariate analyses revealed that age, pathological N and pathological M were significant independent risk factors for OS. Age, pathological N, pathological M and INHBA were significant independent risk factors for DFS. Two prediction models predicted the probability of 3-year survival and 5-year survival for OS and DFS, respectively. The concordance indexes were 0.785 for 3-year overall survival, 0.759 for 5-year overall survival, 0.789 for 3-year disease-free survival and 0.757 for 5-year disease-free survival. The head-to-head comparison according to timedependent ROC curves indicated that the new models had higher predictive accuracy. Decision curve analyses (DCA) indicated that the clinical value of the new models were higher than TNM models for predicting disease-free survival.Conclusion: The combination of INHBA expression with a clinical nomogram improves prognostic power in colon adenocarcinoma, especially for predicting recurrence.

No abstract

Background Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a leading causes of cancer mortality worldwide. Currently, laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) is extensively applied to treat benign and low-grade diseases related to the pancreas. The viability and safety of LPR for PDAC needs to be understood better. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) are the two main surgical approaches for PDAC. We performed separate propensity score matching (PSM) analyses to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of LPR for PDAC by comparing LDP with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) as well as LPD with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). Methods We assessed the data of patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy (DP) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for PDAC between January 2004 and February 2020 at our hospital. A one-to-one PSM was applied to prevent selection bias by accounting for factors such as age, sex, body mass index, and tumour size. The DP group included 86 LDP patients and 86 ODP patients, whereas the PD group included 101 LPD patients and 101 OPD patients. Baseline characteristics, intraoperative effects, postoperative recovery, and survival outcomes were compared. Results Compared to ODP, LDP was associated with shorter operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. Of the 101 patients who underwent LPD, 10 patients (9.9%) required conversion to laparotomy. The short-term surgical advantage of LPD is not as apparent as that of LDP due to conversions. Compared with OPD, LPD was associated with longer operative time, lesser blood loss, and similar overall morbidity. For oncological and survival outcomes, there were no significant differences in tumour size, R0 resection rate, and tumour stage in both the DP and PD subgroups. However, laparoscopic procedures appear to have an advantage over open surgery in terms of retrieved lymph nodes (DP subgroup: 14.4 ± 5.2 vs. 11.7 ± 5.1, p = 0.03; PD subgroup 21.9 ± 6.6 vs. 18.9 ± 5.4, p = 0.07). These two groups did not show a significant difference in the pattern of recurrence and overall survival rate. Conclusions Laparoscopic DP and PD are feasible and oncologically safe procedures for PDAC, with similar postoperative outcomes and long-term survival among patients who underwent open surgery.