| 1. |
- Labori, Knut Jørgen, et al.
(author)
-
Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus upfront surgery for resectable pancreatic head cancer (NORPACT-1) : a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial
- 2024
-
In: The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology. - : Elsevier. - 2468-1253. ; 9:3, s. 205-217
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: In patients undergoing resection for pancreatic cancer, adjuvant modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) improves overall survival compared with alternative chemotherapy regimens. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX with the standard strategy of upfront surgery in patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.Methods: NORPACT-1 was a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial done in 12 hospitals in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, and had a resectable tumour of the pancreatic head radiologically strongly suspected to be pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Participants were randomly assigned (3:2 before October, 2018, and 1:1 after) to the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group or upfront surgery group. Patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group received four neoadjuvant cycles of FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus then 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h on day 1 of each 14-day cycle), followed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients in the upfront surgery group underwent surgery and then received adjuvant chemotherapy. Initially, adjuvant chemotherapy was gemcitabine plus capecitabine (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 over 30 min on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle and capecitabine 830 mg/m2 twice daily for 3 weeks with 1 week of rest in each 28-day cycle; four cycles in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group, six cycles in the upfront surgery group). A protocol amendment was subsequently made to permit use of adjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 150 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h on day 1 of each 14-day cycle; eight cycles in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group, 12 cycles in the upfront surgery group). Randomisation was performed with a computerised algorithm that stratified for each participating centre and used a concealed block size of two to six. Patients, investigators, and study team members were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival at 18 months. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol populations. Safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one cycle of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02919787, and EudraCT, 2015-001635-21, and is ongoing.Findings: Between Feb 8, 2017, and April 21, 2021, 77 patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX and 63 to undergo upfront surgery. All patients were included in the ITT analysis. For the per-protocol analysis, 17 (22%) patients were excluded from the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group (ten did not receive neoadjuvant therapy, four did not have pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and three received another neoadjuvant regimen), and eight (13%) were excluded from the upfront surgery group (seven did not have pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and one did not undergo surgical exploration). 61 (79%) of 77 patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group received neoadjuvant therapy. The proportion of patients alive at 18 months by ITT was 60% (95% CI 49–71) in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group versus 73% (62–84) in the upfront surgery group (p=0·032), and median overall survival by ITT was 25·1 months (95% CI 17·2–34·9) versus 38·5 months (27·6–not reached; hazard ratio [HR] 1·52 [95% CI 1·00–2·33], log-rank p=0·050). The proportion of patients alive at 18 months in per-protocol analysis was 57% (95% CI 46–67) in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group versus 70% (55–83) in the upfront surgery group (p=0·14), and median overall survival in per-protocol population was 23·0 months (95% CI 16·2–34·9) versus 34·4 months (19·4–not reached; HR 1·46 [95% CI 0·99–2·17], log-rank p=0·058). In the safety population, 42 (58%) of 73 patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 19 (40%) of 47 patients in the upfront surgery group had at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event. 63 (82%) of 77 patients in the neoadjuvant group and 56 (89%) of 63 patients in the upfront surgery group had resection (p=0·24). One sudden death of unknown cause and one COVID-19-related death occurred after the first cycle of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX. Adjuvant chemotherapy was initiated in 51 (86%) of 59 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 44 (90%) of 49 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the upfront surgery group (p=0·56). Adjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX was given to 13 (25%) patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and 19 (43%) patients in the upfront surgery group. During adjuvant chemotherapy, neutropenia (11 [22%] patients in the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX group and five [11%] in the upfront surgery group) was the most common grade 3 or worse adverse event.Interpretation: This phase 2 trial did not show a survival benefit from neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma compared with upfront surgery. Implementation of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX was challenging. Future trials on treatment sequencing in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma should be biomarker driven.
|
|
| 2. |
- Vinker, Shlomo, et al.
(author)
-
WONCA Europe position statement on the redefinition of fatty liver disease
- 2022
-
In: The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology. - 2468-1253. ; 7:12, s. 1076-1077
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Family doctors and general practitioners (GPs) are the frontline in the management of fatty liver disease. With its high prevalence and strong association with other conditions commonly treated in primary care, the voice of family doctors and GPs has an important role in informing the discussion on the redefinition of fatty liver disease. Primary care uptake of any proposed name will be hampered if there is not enough involvement of this important group in the process.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Aziz, Imran, et al.
(author)
-
Epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and associations for symptom-based Rome IV functional dyspepsia in adults in the USA, Canada, and the UK: a cross-sectional population-based study
- 2018
-
In: Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology. - : Elsevier BV. - 2468-1253. ; 3:4, s. 252-262
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background The population prevalence, clinical characteristics, and associations for Rome IV functional dyspepsia are not known. Following the publication of the Rome IV criteria for functional gastrointestinal disorders, we aimed to assess the prevalence, characteristics, and associations for symptom-based Rome IV functional dyspepsia in adults across the USA, Canada, and the UK. Methods We sent an internet-based cross-sectional health survey to adults in the general population of three English-speaking countries: the USA, Canada, and the UK. We used quota-based sampling to generate demographically balanced and population-representative samples. Individuals were invited to complete an online questionnaire on general health, without mention that the purpose of this survey was to examine gastrointestinal symptoms. We excluded participants who failed two attention-test questions or were excessively inconsistent on the three gastrointestinal questions that were presented twice in the survey for this particular purpose. The survey enquired about demographics, health-care visits, medications, somatisation, quality of life, and symptom-based criteria for Rome IV functional dyspepsia as well as for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and functional heartburn. We made subsequent comparisons between participants with Rome IV functional dyspepsia and controls without dyspepsia. The primary objective was to identify participants who fulfilled symptom-based criteria for Rome IV functional dyspepsia and categorise them into postprandial distress syndrome, epigastric pain syndrome, or overlapping subtypes. Findings 6300 general population adults completed the health survey; 2100 each from the USA, Canada, and the UK. 369 responses were deemed inconsistent, leaving data for 5931 adults. Rome IV functional dyspepsia was significantly more prevalent in the USA (232 [12%] of 1949) than in Canada (167 [8%] of 1988) and the UK (152 [8%] of 1994; p< 0 . 0001). The subtype distribution was 61% postprandial distress syndrome, 18% epigastric pain syndrome, and 21% overlapping variant with both syndromes; this pattern was similar across the countries. Participants with functional dyspepsia had significantly greater health impairment and health-care usage than those without dyspepsia. Participants with the overlapping variant showed greater somatisation and poorer quality-of-life scores than did individuals with either postprandial distress syndrome or epigastric pain syndrome alone. In multivariate analysis, independent factors associated with all functional dyspepsia subtypes included worsening quality of life and the presence of symptoms compatible with functional heartburn and IBS, with functional heartburn and IBS having the strongest association with overlapping postprandial distress syndrome and epigastric pain syndrome. Notably, somatisation showed a positive association with postprandial distress syndrome and the overlapping variant, and use of antidepressants showed a negative association with postprandial distress syndrome. Interpretation Approximately 10% of the adult population fulfils symptom-based criteria for Rome IV functional dyspepsia and incurs considerable associated health impairment. The functional dyspepsia subtypes show differing associations, suggesting differences in pathophysiological processes or influences.
|
|
| 7. |
- Aziz, I., et al.
(author)
-
The overlap between irritable bowel syndrome and organic gastrointestinal diseases
- 2021
-
In: The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology. - 2468-1253. ; 6:2, s. 139-148
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common functional bowel disorder characterised by symptoms of recurrent abdominal pain associated with a change in bowel habit. This condition is one of the most frequent reasons to seek a gastroenterology consultation in primary and secondary care. The diagnosis of IBS is made by identifying characteristic symptoms, as defined by the Rome criteria, and excluding organic gastrointestinal diseases that might otherwise explain these symptoms. Organic conditions that can be mistaken for IBS include coeliac disease, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), colorectal cancer, and, in those with diarrhoea-predominant symptoms, chronic gastrointestinal infections, microscopic colitis, and primary bile acid diarrhoea. The concept of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth being associated with IBS is shrouded with controversy and uncertainty, mainly because of invalid tests due to poor sensitivity and specificity, potentially leading to incorrect assumptions. There is insufficient evidence to link IBS-type symptoms with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency or with symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease, since both are hampered by conflicting data. Finally, there is growing appreciation that IBS can present in patients with known but stable organic gastrointestinal diseases, such as quiescent IBD or coeliac disease. Recognising functional gut symptoms in these individuals is paramount so that potentially harmful escalations in immunosuppressive therapy can be avoided and attention can be focused on addressing disorders of gut–brain interaction. This Review endeavours to aid clinicians who practise adult gastroenterology in recognising the potential overlap between IBS and organic gastrointestinal diseases and highlights areas in need of further research and clarity. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd
|
|
| 8. |
- Balsiger, L. M., et al.
(author)
-
Understanding and managing patients with overlapping disorders of gut-brain interaction
- 2023
-
In: Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology. - : Elsevier BV. - 2468-1253. ; 8:4, s. 383-390
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) are frequently encountered in clinical practice, and recommendations for diagnosis and management are well established. In a large subset of patients, more than one DGBI diagnosis is present. This group of patients with more than one DGBI diagnosis have higher symptom severity and impact than patients with only one DGBI diagnosis, and the management approach is not well established for those with overlapping diagnoses. This Review aims to guide clinicians to understand, recognise, and manage overlapping DGBI by identifying causes and pitfalls of overlap conditions, and presenting potential practical approaches to diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. Several clinical factors can contribute to finding overlapping DGBI, including the anatomical basis of the Rome diagnostic criteria, the potential confusion of symptom descriptors, and patients' biases towards higher symptom intensity ratings. Overlapping DGBI could also be caused by mechanistic factors such as pathophysiological mechanisms involving multiple gastrointestinal segments, and the effect of disorders in one segment on sensorimotor function in remote gastrointestinal parts, through neural or hormonal signalling. Key initial steps in the management of overlapping DGBI are detailed history taking, which can be facilitated using pictograms; carefully assessing the relative timing and cohesion of different symptoms; and recognising associated psychosocial dysfunction. Unnecessary technical investigations and complex combination treatment schedules should be avoided. Based on the identification of the dominant symptom pattern and putative underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, a single treatment modality should preferably be initiated, considering the efficacy spectrum of different therapies. Follow-up of the patient's condition allows the therapeutic approach to be adjusted as needed, while avoiding unnecessary additional technical investigations.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Blach, S., et al.
(author)
-
Global change in hepatitis C virus prevalence and cascade of care between 2015 and 2020: a modelling study
- 2022
-
In: Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology. - : Elsevier BV. - 2468-1253. ; 7:5, s. 396-415
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Since the release of the first global hepatitis elimination targets in 2016, and until the COVID-19 pandemic started in early 2020, many countries and territories were making progress toward hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination. This study aims to evaluate HCV burden in 2020, and forecast HCV burden by 2030 given current trends. Methods This analysis includes a literature review, Delphi process, and mathematical modelling to estimate HCV prevalence (viraemic infection, defined as HCV RNA-positive cases) and the cascade of care among people of all ages (age =0 years from birth) for the period between Jan 1, 2015, and Dec 31, 2030. Epidemiological data were collected from published sources and grey literature (including government reports and personal communications) and were validated among country and territory experts. A Markov model was used to forecast disease burden and cascade of care from 1950 to 2050 for countries and territories with data. Model outcomes were extracted from 2015 to 2030 to calculate population-weighted regional averages, which were used for countries or territories without data. Regional and global estimates of HCV prevalence, cascade of care, and disease burden were calculated based on 235 countries and territories. Findings Models were built for 110 countries or territories: 83 were approved by local experts and 27 were based on published data alone. Using data from these models, plus population-weighted regional averages for countries and territories without models (n=125), we estimated a global prevalence of viraemic HCV infection of 0.7% (95% UI 0.7-0.9), corresponding to 56.8 million (95% UI 55.2-67.8) infections, on Jan 1, 2020. This number represents a decrease of 6.8 million viraemic infections from a 2015 (beginning of year) prevalence estimate of 63.6 million (61.8-75.8) infections (0.9% [0.8-1.0] prevalence). By the end of 2020, an estimated 12.9 million (12.5-15.4) people were living with a diagnosed viraemic infection. In 2020, an estimated 641 000 (623 000-765 000) patients initiated treatment. Interpretation At the beginning of 2020, there were an estimated 56.8 million viraemic HCV infections globally. Although this number represents a decrease from 2015, our forecasts suggest we are not currently on track to achieve global elimination targets by 2030. As countries recover from COVID-19, these findings can help refocus efforts aimed at HCV elimination. Copyright (C) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
