T4N0 colon cancer had significantly worse oncologic outcomes than T1-2N1 cancer regardless of adjuvant chemotherapy. The survival paradox may result from the biologic aggressiveness of T4N0 colon carcinomas.
Our results indicate that the incidence of postoperative complications and long-term recurrence after inguinal hernia repair in LC patients does not differ from that in non-LC patients. Elective repair of symptomatic inguinal hernia in patients with cirrhosis should be advocated.
The management of colorectal cancer in patients with liver cirrhosis requires a thorough understanding of both diseases. This study evaluated the effect of liver cirrhosis on oncologic and surgical outcomes and prognostic factors in colorectal cancer patients. Fifty-five consecutive colorectal cancer patients with liver cirrhosis underwent colorectal resection (LC group). Using a prospectively maintained database, these patients were matched 1:4 using propensity scoring with R programming language, package "MatchIt" and "optmatch" by sex, age, cancer location, and tumor stage with 220 patients without liver cirrhosis (non-LC group), resulting in 275 patients. The 5-year overall survival (OS) was significantly worse in the LC group than in the non-LC group (46.7% vs. 76.2% respectively, P < 0.001); however, the 5-year proportion of recurrence free (PRF) rates were similar (73.1% vs. 84.5% respectively, P = 0.094). On multivariate analysis of the LC group, tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage ≥III disease, venous invasion, and a model for end-stage liver disease plus serum sodium (MELD-Na) score >10 were prognostic factors for OS. However, the OS was not different between the LC group with MELD-Na score ≤10 and the non-LC group (5-year OS rate, TNM stage ≤II, 85.7 vs 89.5%, p = 0.356; TNM stage ≥III, 41.1 vs 66.2%, p = 0.061). Colorectal cancer patients with liver cirrhosis have poorer OS compared to those without liver cirrhosis; however, the PRF rates are similar. It might be due to the mortality from the liver, and surgical treatment should be actively considered for patients with MELD-Na score <10.
PurposeManagement strategy in acute appendicitis patients initially presenting with abscess or mass is surrounded with controversy. This study was performed to identify the outcomes of management for this condition.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed prospectively registered 76 patients (male:female = 39:37; mean age, 50.8 years) with appendicitis presenting with abscess or mass over a 9-year period at the Seoul National University Hospital. Patients were divided into three groups (emergency operation group, delayed operation group, and follow-up group), and clinical characteristics and outcomes of treatment were investigated.ResultsTwenty-eight patients (36.8%) underwent an emergency operation. Of the remaining 48 patients, 20 (41.7%) were initially treated with conservative management through the use of antibiotics only; the other 28 (58.3%) with and additional ultrasound-guided percutaneous drainage of the abscess. Twenty-six (54.2%) patients underwent planned operations after conservative management, and 22 (45.8%) were followed without surgery (median duration, 37.8 month), of which 3 (13%) underwent an appendectomy due to recurrent appendicitis (mean of 56.7 days after initial attack). There were no statistical differences in types of operation performed (appendectomy or ileocecectomy), postoperative complications, and postoperative hospital stay among the patients who underwent emergency operations, delayed operations and operations for recurrence during follow-up.ConclusionAlthough the recurrence rate was relatively low after conservative management for appendicitis patients presenting with abscess or mass, there was no difference in surgical outcome between the emergent, elective, or recurrent groups. Our results indicate that proper management of appendicitis with abscess or mass can be selected according to surgeon's preference.
ObjectivesTo investigate the efficacy of health coaching and a web‐based program on survivor physical activity (PA), weight, and distress management among stomach, colon, lung and breast cancer patients.MethodsThis randomised, controlled, 1‐year trial conducted in five hospitals recruited cancer survivors within 2 months of completing primary cancer treatment who had not met ≥1 of these behavioural goals: (i) conducting moderate PA for at least 150 minutes/week or strenuous exercise for over 75 minutes per week or, in the case of lung cancer patients, low or moderate intensity exercise for over 12.5 MET per week, (ii) maintaining normal weight, and (iii) attaining a score >72 in the Post Traumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI). Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: the control group, a web‐only group, or a health coaching + web group. The primary endpoint was based on a composite of PA, weight, and PTGI score at 12 months.ResultsPatients in the health coaching + web group (difference = 6.6%, P = .010) and the web‐only group (difference = 5.9%, P = .031) had greater overall improvements across the three‐outcome composite than the control group. The health coaching + web group had greater overall improvement in PTGI (difference = 12.6%; P < .001) than the control group, but not in PA and weight.ConclusionThe web‐based program, with or without health coaching, may improve health behaviours including PA, weight, and distress management among cancer survivors within 2 months of completing primary cancer treatment. The web‐based program with health coaching was mainly effective for reducing psychological distress.
Chronic constipation patients with features of CPO caused by narrowed transitional zone in the left colon had favorable outcomes after total colectomy.
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.