SummaryBackgroundOesophageal adenocarcinoma is the sixth most common cause of cancer death worldwide and Barrett's oesophagus is the biggest risk factor. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of high-dose esomeprazole proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) and aspirin for improving outcomes in patients with Barrett's oesophagus.MethodsThe Aspirin and Esomeprazole Chemoprevention in Barrett's metaplasia Trial had a 2 × 2 factorial design and was done at 84 centres in the UK and one in Canada. Patients with Barrett's oesophagus of 1 cm or more were randomised 1:1:1:1 using a computer-generated schedule held in a central trials unit to receive high-dose (40 mg twice-daily) or low-dose (20 mg once-daily) PPI, with or without aspirin (300 mg per day in the UK, 325 mg per day in Canada) for at least 8 years, in an unblinded manner. Reporting pathologists were masked to treatment allocation. The primary composite endpoint was time to all-cause mortality, oesophageal adenocarcinoma, or high-grade dysplasia, which was analysed with accelerated failure time modelling adjusted for minimisation factors (age, Barrett's oesophagus length, intestinal metaplasia) in all patients in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2004-003836-77.FindingsBetween March 10, 2005, and March 1, 2009, 2557 patients were recruited. 705 patients were assigned to low-dose PPI and no aspirin, 704 to high-dose PPI and no aspirin, 571 to low-dose PPI and aspirin, and 577 to high-dose PPI and aspirin. Median follow-up and treatment duration was 8·9 years (IQR 8·2–9·8), and we collected 20 095 follow-up years and 99·9% of planned data. 313 primary events occurred. High-dose PPI (139 events in 1270 patients) was superior to low-dose PPI (174 events in 1265 patients; time ratio [TR] 1·27, 95% CI 1·01–1·58, p=0·038). Aspirin (127 events in 1138 patients) was not significantly better than no aspirin (154 events in 1142 patients; TR 1·24, 0·98–1·57, p=0·068). If patients using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were censored at the time of first use, aspirin was significantly better than no aspirin (TR 1·29, 1·01–1·66, p=0·043; n=2236). Combining high-dose PPI with aspirin had the strongest effect compared with low-dose PPI without aspirin (TR 1·59, 1·14–2·23, p=0·0068). The numbers needed to treat were 34 for PPI and 43 for aspirin. Only 28 (1%) participants reported study-treatment-related serious adverse events.InterpretationHigh-dose PPI and aspirin chemoprevention therapy, especially in combination, significantly and safely improved outcomes in patients with Barrett's oesophagus.FundingCancer Research UK, AstraZeneca, Wellcome Trust, and Health Technology Assessment.
Linear FGF receptor -binding heptapeptides were identified by phage display using sequential rounds of biopanning against cells with displacement of phage by FGF2. The consensus motif MXXP was iterated after four to five rounds and the peptide MQLPLAT was studied in depth. Phage bearing MQLPLAT showed high levels of binding to FGF receptor positive cells, with over 90% of phage bound being eluted competitively by adding free FGF2. MQLPLAT phage showed only limited binding to Cos7 cells deficient in receptors for FGF. MQLPLAT phage bound to SKOV3 cells with a K d of 2.51Â10 À 10 M. Although binding could be blocked by preincubation with free FGF2, heparin could not displace the phage. Use of MQLPLAT to target polyelectrolyte gene delivery vectors in vitro in the presence of serum achieved up to 40 -fold greater transgene transduction than nontargeted vectors. MQLPLAT phage were administered into gastric carcinomas via the tumor -feeding artery immediately following resection from patients. The phage showed up to 9 -fold more accumulation in the tumor than in adjacent regions of normal tissue, whereas control phage showed less than 2 -fold. These peptides should provide useful ligands for specific delivery of gene therapy vectors to clinically relevant targets.
Background: The aim of the study was to determine the value of performing peritoneal lavage cytology during laparoscopy in the management of oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma.Methods: Laparoscopy combined with peritoneal cytology was performed in patients with potentially resectable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Macroscopic peritoneal findings at laparoscopy and the presence of free peritoneal tumour cells were recorded. All patients were followed to death or the census point. Patients with overt peritoneal disease or positive cytology were offered palliative chemotherapy, subject to performance status.Results: Forty-eight (18·8 per cent) of 255 patients had overt peritoneal metastases at staging laparoscopy. Fifteen (7·2 per cent) of the remaining 207 patients had positive cytology; these patients had a median (95 per cent confidence interval) survival of 13 (3·1 to 22·9) months, versus 9 (7·4 to 10·6) months for those with overt peritoneal metastases (P = 0·517). Of patients receiving chemotherapy, those without overt metastases had a slight survival advantage over patients with metastases (median 15 (10·8 to 19·2) versus 9 (7·4 to 10·7) months; P = 0·045). Conclusion:Positive peritoneal cytology in the absence of overt peritoneal metastases is not uncommon in oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. It is a marker of poor prognosis even in the absence of overt peritoneal metastases.
Background: Patients with malignant tumours of the upper gastrointestinal tract tumours exhibit important alarm symptoms such as dysphagia that warrant clinical investigations. An endoscopic examination of the upper gastrointestinal tract will be required in most cases. This study evaluates the diagnostic potential of index endoscopy in a random population of patients with dysphagia.
Specialist management of RAAS leads to fewer local recurrences and improved disease-specific survival. Early referral and management within specialist units is recommended.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.