| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Andersson, B., et al.
(författare)
-
Surgical outcomes of gallbladder cancer: the OMEGA retrospective, multicentre, international cohort study
- 2023
-
Ingår i: EClinicalMedicine. - 2589-5370. ; 59
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is rare but aggressive. The extent of surgical intervention for different GBC stages is non-uniform, ranging from cholecystectomy alone to extended resections including major hepatectomy, resection of adjacent organs and routine extrahepatic bile duct resection (EBDR). Robust evidence here is lacking, however, and survival benefit poorly defined. This study assesses factors associated with recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS) and morbidity and mortality following GBC surgery in high income countries (HIC) and low and middle income countries (LMIC). Methods: The multicentre, retrospective Operative Management of Gallbladder Cancer (OMEGA) cohort study included all patients who underwent GBC resection across 133 centres between 1st January 2010 and 31st December 2020. Regression analyses assessed factors associated with OS, RFS and morbidity. Findings: On multivariable analysis of all 3676 patients, wedge resection and segment IVb/V resection failed to improve RFS (HR 1.04 [0.84–1.29], p = 0.711 and HR 1.18 [0.95–1.46], p = 0.13 respectively) or OS (HR 0.96 [0.79–1.17], p = 0.67 and HR 1.48 [1.16–1.88], p = 0.49 respectively), while major hepatectomy was associated with worse RFS (HR 1.33 [1.02–1.74], p = 0.037) and OS (HR 1.26 [1.03–1.53], p = 0.022). Furthermore, EBDR (OR 2.86 [2.3–3.52], p < 0.0010), resection of additional organs (OR 2.22 [1.62–3.02], p < 0.0010) and major hepatectomy (OR 3.81 [2.55–5.73], p < 0.0010) were all associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Compared to LMIC, patients in HIC were associated with poorer RFS (HR 1.18 [1.02–1.37], p = 0.031) but not OS (HR 1.05 [0.91–1.22], p = 0.48). Adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatments were infrequently used. Interpretation: In this large, multicentre analysis of GBC surgical outcomes, liver resection was not conclusively associated with improved survival, and extended resections were associated with greater morbidity and mortality without oncological benefit. Aggressive upfront resections do not benefit higher stage GBC, and international collaborations are needed to develop evidence-based neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment strategies to minimise surgical morbidity and prioritise prognostic benefit. Funding:Cambridge Hepatopancreatobiliary Department Research Fund. © 2023 The Author(s)
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Mega, JL, et al.
(författare)
-
Rivaroxaban versus placebo in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ATLAS ACS-TIMI 46: a randomised, double-blind, phase II trial
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Lancet. - 0140-6736. ; 374:9683, s. 29-38
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Rivaroxaban is an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor that has been effective in prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery. However, its use after acute coronary syndromes has not been investigated. In this setting, we assessed the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban and aimed to select the most favourable dose and dosing regimen. METHODS: In this double-blind, dose-escalation, phase II study, undertaken at 297 sites in 27 countries, 3491 patients stabilised after an acute coronary syndrome were stratified on the basis of investigator decision to use aspirin only (stratum 1, n=761) or aspirin plus a thienopyridine (stratum 2, n=2730). Participants were randomised within each strata and dose tier with a block randomisation method at 1:1:1 to receive either placebo or rivaroxaban (at doses 5-20 mg) given once daily or the same total daily dose given twice daily. The primary safety endpoint was clinically significant bleeding (TIMI major, TIMI minor, or requiring medical attention); the primary efficacy endpoint was death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or severe recurrent ischaemia requiring revascularisation during 6 months. Safety analyses included all participants who received at least one dose of study drug; efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00402597. FINDINGS: Three patients in stratum 1 and 26 in stratum 2 never received the study drug. The risk of clinically significant bleeding with rivaroxaban versus placebo increased in a dose-dependent manner (hazard ratios [HRs] 2.21 [95% CI 1.25-3.91] for 5 mg, 3.35 [2.31-4.87] for 10 mg, 3.60 [2.32-5.58] for 15 mg, and 5.06 [3.45-7.42] for 20 mg doses; p<0.0001). Rates of the primary efficacy endpoint were 5.6% (126/2331) for rivaroxaban versus 7.0% (79/1160) for placebo (HR 0.79 [0.60-1.05], p=0.10). Rivaroxaban reduced the main secondary efficacy endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke compared with placebo (87/2331 [3.9%] vs 62/1160 [5.5%]; HR 0.69, [95% CI 0.50-0.96], p=0.0270). The most common adverse event in both groups was chest pain (248/2309 [10.7%] vs 118/1153 [10.2%]). INTERPRETATION: The use of an oral factor Xa inhibitor in patients stabilised after an acute coronary syndrome increases bleeding in a dose-dependent manner and might reduce major ischaemic outcomes. On the basis of these observations, a phase III study of low-dose rivaroxaban as adjunctive therapy in these patients is underway.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
