Increase in serum ALT within the normal range is initially associated with lower mortality, but has no effect after 17 U/l. The elderly show a significantly larger decrease in mortality with an increase in ALT than younger individuals. The mechanisms underlying this relationship need further exploration.

Background: Platinum-based therapy (PBT) can be limited by gastrointestinal adverse events, particularly PBT-related colitis and diarrhea (PCD). We studied clinical features, treatments, and outcomes of PCD. Methods: This was a retrospective study of cancer patients who received PBT and colonoscopic evaluation for PCD symptoms from 2009 to 2018. Results: Of 36,595 patients who received PBT, 86 (0.2%) met inclusion criteria. Median time from PBT initiation to PCD was 66 days. Regarding PBT type, 47% of the patients received carboplatin, 31% cisplatin, and 22% oxaliplatin. Median duration of PCD symptoms was 20 days. Colonoscopy revealed mucosal ulceration in 34% of the patients and nonulcerative inflammation in 33%. Half of the cohort needed hospitalization for PCD (49%). The majority received treatment for PCD (59%): immunosuppressive therapy in 21%, antibiotics in 27%, antimotility agents in 22%, and intravenous fluids in 51%. Eight patients (9%) were admitted to the intensive care unit for PCD management. Six patients (7%) experienced colonic perforation that required surgical intervention; two of them had gastrointestinal tumors. Physicians restarted PBT in 37 (43%) patients; 8 (22%) of them had PCD recurrence that was managed expectantly. Colonic perforation occurred more frequently with use of oxaliplatin and cisplatin than carboplatin (P=0.05). The median duration of PCD symptoms was longer in patients receiving carboplatin or cisplatin than in those receiving oxaliplatin (P=0.182). Conclusions: PCD is rare, but in a small subset of patients, it can lead to serious complications. Treatment of PCD is mainly supportive, but immunosuppressive therapy may be required.

No abstract

Background and Aim:The diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding secondary to malignancy can be challenging. Endoscopy is the gold standard to diagnose and treat gastrointestinal bleeding but clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with malignancy-related bleeding are not well understood. This study aims to look at clinical characteristics, endoscopic findings, safety and clinical outcomes of endoscopic interventions for GI malignancy-related bleeding. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed outcomes of patients with confirmed GI malignancies who underwent endoscopy for GI bleeding at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 2010 and 2019. Cox hazard analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with survival. Results: A total of 313 patients were included, with median age of 59 years; 74.8% were male. The stomach (30.0%) was the most common tumor location. Active bleeding was evident endoscopically in 47.3% of patients. Most patients (77.3%) did not receive endoscopic treatment. Of the patients who received endoscopic treatment, 57.7% had hemostasis. No endoscopy-related adverse events were recorded. Endoscopic treatment was associated with hemostasis (P < 0.001), but not decreased recurrent bleeding or mortality. Absence of active bleeding on endoscopy, stable hemodynamic status at presentation, lower cancer stage, and surgical intervention were associated with improved survival. Conclusions: This study indicates that endoscopy is a safe diagnostic tool in this patient population; while endoscopic treatments may help achieve hemostasis, it may not decrease the risk of recurrent bleeding or improve survival.