Mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma (MALT lymphoma) accounts for approximately 5% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and the gastrointestinal (GI) tract is the most common site of involvement. The stomach and small intestine are the most common sites of involvement in the GI tract. Colonic MALT lymphoma is a rare condition that comprises only 2.5% of MALT lymphomas and less than 0.5% of all colon cancers. They usually present as colon mass or polyps. In this case report, we present a case of colonic MALT lymphoma diagnosed on random colon biopsies which is very rare.
BACKGROUND:
Endoscopic therapy using radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a recommended treatment for Barrett’s esophagus with high grade dysplasia (BE-HGD) without a visible lesion which is managed by resection. However, currently there is no consensus on the management of BE with low grade dysplasia (BE-LGD) – RFA vs endoscopic surveillance. Hence, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of these comparative studies to compare the risk of progression to HGD or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) among patients with BE-LGD treated with RFA vs endoscopic surveillance.
METHODS:
The primary outcome was to compare the risk of progression to HGD or EAC among patients with BE-LGD treated with RFA vs endoscopic surveillance.
RESULTS:
Four comparative studies reporting a total of 543 patients with BE-LGD were included in the meta-analysis (234 in RFA and 309 in endoscopic surveillance). The progression of BE-LGD to either HGD or EAC was significantly lower in patients treated with RFA compared to endoscopic surveillance (OR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.04-0.65, p=0.01). The progression to HGD alone was significantly lower in patients treated with RFA vs endoscopic surveillance (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.08-0.61, p=0.003). The progression to EAC alone was numerically lower in RFA compared to endoscopic surveillance without statistical significance (OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.17-1.16, p=0.09). Moderate heterogeneity was noted in the analysis.
CONCLUSIONS:
Based on our meta-analysis, there was a significant reduction in the risk of progression to HGD or EAC among patients with BE-LGD treated with RFA compared with those undergoing endoscopic surveillance. Endoscopic eradication therapy with RFA should be the preferred management approach for BE-LGD
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic therapy with ERCP is considered the first line treatment in the management of post-cholecystectomy bile leak (PCBL). Currently there is no consensus on the most effective endoscopic intervention for PCBL. Hence, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of the two interventional groups (biliary sphincterotomy [BS] alone vs biliary stent ± BS) in management of PCBL.
METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings (from inception through January 2021). The primary outcome was to compare the pooled rate of clinical success between the 2 groups. The secondary outcome was to estimate the pooled rate of adverse events.
RESULTS: The pooled rate of clinical success with BS alone (5 studies, 299 patients) was 88% (95% CI: 84%- 92%, I2: 0%) and for biliary stent ± BS (5 studies, 864 patients) was 97% (CI: 93%-100%, I2: 79%). The rate of clinical success in biliary stent ± BS group was significantly higher than BS alone group (OR: 3.91 95% CI: 2.29-6.69, p<0.001, I2: 13%). The rate of adverse events was numerically lower in biliary stent ± BS group compared to BS alone (3 studies; OR: 0.65 95% CI: 0.41-1.03, p=0.07) without statistical significance. Low heterogeneity was noted in the analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Biliary stent ± BS is more effective in endoscopic management of PCBL compared to BS alone. This may be related to inter-endoscopist variation in completeness of sphincterotomy and post sphincterotomy edema, which can influence the preferential trans-papillary flow of bile.
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.