IntroductionAlthough recurrence rate among cases of resected pancreatic cancer are as high as 85%, an optimal treatment for recurrent pancreatic cancer (RePC) has not been established. Previous evidence regarding RePC is scarce, and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are particularly lacking. The evidence mapping (EM) method has been introduced as a tool intended to complement the conventional systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) and is suitable for this issue. This review aims to investigate the optimal treatment options for RePC, using a newly developed automatic EM tool.
Method and analysisAll study types, including RCTs, non-randomised studies and other forms of observational studies will be included in the SR-EM. The Medline, Embase, Cochrane library and Scopus databases will be searched for reports of five treatment options for local and metastatic recurrences, including re-resection, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, best supportive care and other novel treatments, published from database inception to 30 April 2017. References from relevant studies will be searched manually. If meta-analysis is feasible, the primary outcome measure will be median overall survival. Two independent authors will select the studies and assess the risk of bias, and a third author will resolve discrepancies in consensus meeting. To visualise EM, we will use a novel web-based and open-access mapping programme, Plotting E-Map (PLOEM) (http://plotting-e-map.com). If eligible combinations of interventions for quantitative comparison are identified, we will conduct subgroup MAs using random-effect models and I2 statistics. Publication bias will be visualised using funnel plots.Ethics and disseminationThis study will not use primary data, and therefore formal ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and committee conferences.PROSPEROregistration number
CRD42016049178.
Background/AimsThe efficacy of standard triple therapy (STT) in treating Helicobacter pylori infection has decreased. Many investigators have attempted to increase the eradication rate. We investigated the outcomes of concomitant therapy (CT) and STT combined with probiotics (STP) as a first-line treatment for H. pylori infection.MethodsWe reviewed the medical records of 361 patients who received either STP (n=286) or CT (n=75). The STP group received STT combined with a probiotic preparation for 1 week. The CT group received STT and metronidazole for 1 week.ResultsThe intention-to-treat and per-protocol eradication rates were 83.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 79.0 to 87.7) and 87.1% (95% CI, 81.2 to 89.7) in the STP group and 86.7% (95% CI, 78.7 to 93.3) and 91.4% (95% CI, 83.6 to 97.1) in the CT group (p=0.512 and p=0.324), respectively. The frequency of adverse effects was higher in the CT group (28.2%) than in the STP group (12.8%) (p=0.002).ConclusionsSTP and CT are encouragingly efficacious as first-line treatments for H. pylori infection. Therefore, adding probiotics to STT may be a feasible option to avoid side effects.
Background/Aims: Desmoplasia is a prominent feature of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA). Stromal desmoplasia reflects the low cellularity that is characteristic of PDA, and it may play a role in PDA chemoresistance. In this retrospective study, we evaluated the relationship between tumor cellularity in resected PDA specimens and long-term patient outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data from 175 patients who underwent PDA resection between
Despite lower clinical success rates due to comorbid hepatobiliary malignancy, ERCP in patients with decompensated LC is technically feasible. Because postprocedural cholangitis and pancreatitis are more frequent in patients with decompensated LC, greater procedural precautions are needed in these patients.
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.