This pilot study was designed to evaluate the clinical value of assaying tumor supplied group of factor/tumor specific growth factor (TSGF) in solitary pulmonary nodule (SPN).
The study was conducted from March 2007 to September 2010 and included 33 patients with SPN and 28 healthy volunteers. TSGF was assayed in preoperative serum, intraoperative pleural lavage fluid (IPLF), and postoperative serum.
At operation, 20 patients were diagnosed with malignancy and 13 patients were diagnosed with nonmalignancy and placed in group A and group B, respectively. In group A, pathologic staging demonstrated 8 patients (group A1) with stage T1N0M0, 7 patients (group A2) with stage T1N1M0 and 53 patients (group A) with stage T1N2M0 disease. In group B, 8 patients were diagnosed with tuberculoma (group B1) and 5 patients were diagnosed with inflammatory pseudotumor (group B2). Before operation, levels of TSGF in peripheral blood were significantly higher in group A compared with group B and the control group (98.8 ± 29.9 vs. 62.1 ± 24.9 and 50.1 ± 17.9, Student-Newman-Keuls test; P < .05). The percentage of patients with positive serum TSGF results was significantly higher in group A than in group B or the control group (90.0% vs. 30.8% and 17.9%, χ(2) test; P < .05). With respect to the diagnostic value of serum TSGF in malignant SPN, we found sensitivity to be 90%, specificity to be 69.2%, positive forecast rate to be 74.5%, negative forecast rate to be 87.4%, and accurate diagnosed rate to be 79.5%. The TSGF level in IPLF in group A was significantly higher than that in group B (132.2 ± 51.9 vs. 84.6 ± 12.6, Student t test, P < .05). Additionally, TSGF in group A2 and group A3 was significantly higher compared with group A1 (162.2 ± 52.3 and 176.4 ± 17.8 vs. 100.2 ± 35.8, Student-Newman-Keuls test; P < .05). Postoperative serum TSGF in the patients diagnosed with lung cancer decreased significantly after operation. TSGF returned to a normal threshold level (71 U/mL) in the sixth month postoperatively. In addition, there was no appreciable change in the patients in group B.
Serum TSGF is conducive to discriminating between benign and malignant features of SPN. Additionally, investigation of IPLF TSGF can potentially offer a new approach to predict the existence of lymph node metastases.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Purpose:
To investigate the risk factors for anastomotic leakage (AL) after anterior resection for rectal cancer with a double stapling technique.
Patients and methods:
Between January 2004 and December 2011, 753 consecutive patients in Jiangsu Cancer Hospital and Research Institute diagnosed with rectal cancer and undergoing anterior resection with a double stapling technique were recruited. All patients experienced a total mesorectal excision (TME) operation. Additionally, decrease of postoperative tumor supplied group of factors (TSGF), which have not been reported before, was proposed as a new indicator for AL. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to determine risk factors for AL.
AL was detected in 57 (7.6%) of 753 patients with rectal cancer. The diagnosis of anastomotic leakage was confirmed between the 6th and 12th postoperative day (POD; mean 8th POD). After univariate analysis and multivariate analysis, age (p<0.001), gender (p=0.002), level of anastomosis (p <0.001), preoperative body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.001) and reduction of TSGF in 5th POD was less than 10 μ/ml (p <0.001) were selected as 5 independent risk factors for AL. It was also indicated that a temporary defunctioning transverse ileostomy (p = 0.04) would decrease the occurrence of AL.
AL after anterior resection for rectal carcinoma is related to elderly status, low level site of the tumor (below the peritoneal reflection), being male, preoperative BMI and the decrease of TSGF in 5th POD is less than 10 m/ml. Preventive ileostomy is advisable after TME for low rectal tumors to prevent AL.
Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP 07/2013; 14(7):4447-53. DOI:10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.7.4447 · 2.51 Impact Factor
Note: This list is based on the publications in our database and might not be exhaustive.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.