PurposeTo assess safety and outcome of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) as compared to systemic chemotherapy and partial hepatectomy (PH) in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).MethodsMEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched. Randomized trials and comparative observational studies with multivariate analysis and/or matching were included. Guidelines from National Guideline Clearinghouse and Guidelines International Network were assessed using the AGREE II instrument.ResultsThe search revealed 3530 records; 328 were selected for full-text review; 48 were included: 8 systematic reviews, 2 randomized studies, 26 comparative observational studies, 2 guideline-articles and 10 case series; in addition 13 guidelines were evaluated. Literature to assess the effectiveness of ablation was limited. RFA + systemic chemotherapy was superior to chemotherapy alone. PH was superior to RFA alone but not to RFA + PH or to MWA. Compared to PH, RFA showed fewer complications, MWA did not. Outcomes were subject to residual confounding since ablation was only employed for unresectable disease.ConclusionThe results from the EORTC-CLOCC trial, the comparable survival for ablation + PH versus PH alone, the potential to induce long-term disease control and the low complication rate argue in favour of ablation over chemotherapy alone. Further randomized comparisons of ablation to current-day chemotherapy alone should therefore be considered unethical. Hence, the highest achievable level of evidence for unresectable CRLM seems reached. The apparent selection bias from previous studies and the superior safety profile mandate the setup of randomized controlled trials comparing ablation to surgery.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00270-018-1959-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectiveDiabetes during gestation is one of the most common pregnancy complications associated with adverse health effects for the mother and the child. Maternal diabetes has been proposed to negatively affect the cognitive abilities of the child, but experimental research assessing its impact is conflicting. The main aim of our study was to compare the cognitive function in children of diabetic and healthy pregnant women.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted through a literature search using different electronic databases from the index date to January 31, 2015. We included studies that assessed the cognitive abilities in children (up to 14 years) of diabetic and non-diabetic mothers using standardized and validated neuropsychological tests.ResultsOf 7,698 references reviewed, 12 studies involving 6,140 infants met our inclusion criteria and contributed to meta-analysis. A random effect model was used to compute the standardized mean differences and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Infants (1–2 years) of diabetic mothers had significantly lower scores of mental and psychomotor development compared to control infants. The effect size for mental development was -0.41 (95% CI -0.59, -0.24; p<0.0001) and for psychomotor development was -0.31 (95% CI -0.55, -0.07; p = 0.0125) with non-significant heterogeneity. Diabetes during pregnancy could be associated with decreased intelligence quotient scores in school-age children, although studies showed significant heterogeneity.ConclusionThe association between maternal diabetes and deleterious effects on mental/psychomotor development and overall intellectual function in the offspring must be taken with caution. Results are based on observational cohorts and a direct causal influence of intrauterine hyperglycemia remains uncertain. Therefore, more trials that include larger populations are warranted to elucidate whether gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has a negative impact on offspring central nervous system (CNS).

A slow-digesting, low-glycemic nutritional beverage may facilitate improved glucose control in obese pregnant women. To address potential benefit for clinical outcomes, a randomized controlled trial is warranted.