UNASSIGNED: Myosteatosis is a well-established predictor of poor prognosis in many types of cancer, and a decreased Creatinine/Cystatin C ratio (CCR) is a known indicator of unfavorable outcomes in patients with metabolic disorders and cancer. Despite this knowledge, the significance of concurrent CCR and myosteatosis in predicting the prognosis of patients with cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) who undergo radical surgery remains uncertain.
UNASSIGNED: Data from 757 patients with cholangiocarcinoma who underwent the first radical resection in the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University from January 2017 to March 2022 were collected. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 149 patients were finally included in the retrospective study cohort. Various clinicopathological, serological, and radiological data were collected at admission. Myosteatosis was evaluated using sliceOmatic software on computed tomography (CT) images. The study used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to determine the critical value of CCR, which predicts overall survival (OS) based on the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were employed to identify the risk factors associated with OS and RFS confidently.
UNASSIGNED: The group identified as the myosteatosis cohort consisted of 79 patients with an average age of 64.3 ± 7.8 years. The ROC curve analysis revealed an optimal critical CCR value of 10.834. A low CCR ≤ 10.834 and myosteatosis were found to be associated with poor OS and RFS outcomes (P = 0.022; P = 0.017; P = 0.038; P = 0.030 respectively). Moreover, patients with myosteatosis and a CCR ≤ 10.834 had the worst OS and RFS outcomes (P = 0.035; P = 0.027).
UNASSIGNED: After radical excision in CCA patients, the presence of myosteatosis and CCR had a negative correlation with prognosis. A more accurate prediction of OS and RFS was possible by combining CCR and myosteatosis, compared to CCR alone.

Age significantly affects the prognosis of patients with rectal cancer after radical excision (RE), and local excision (LE) is an alternative surgical procedure to RE. To compare the survival prognosis in different age groups of LE versus RE for rectal cancer. Patients diagnosed with rectal adenocarcinoma treated by LE or RE from 2010 to 2017 were obtained from the SEER database. The primary outcomes are 5-year OS and CSS. A total of 11,170 patients were eventually included, and there were 490 patients in LE and RE groups, respectively, after 1:1 propensity score matching. The 5-year OS and CSS after LE were significantly better in < 50 years and 50-66 years groups than in > 66 years group (5-year OS: 95.70% vs 88.40% vs 67.00%, P < 0.001; 5-year CSS: 95.70% vs 96.30% vs 82.60%, P < 0.001). No statistical significance was found for the differences in 5-year OS and CSS between LE and RE in < 50, 50-66, and > 66 years group (P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed age > 66 years, poorly differentiated or undifferentiated (Grade III/IV), and tumor size 3 to 5 cm was independent risk factors for 5-year OS after LE; age > 66 years, perineural invasion, and tumor size 3 to 5 cm were the 5-year CSS independent risk factors for after LE. We found that the survival prognosis of younger rectal cancer patients treated with LE was significantly better than older (> 66 years) patients, and the survival prognosis of rectal cancer patients in the three age groups was similar between LE and RE.

BACKGROUND: A watch-and-wait (WW) strategy or surgery for low to intermediate rectal cancer that has reached clinical complete remission (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCRT) or total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) has been widely used in the clinic, but both treatment strategies are controversial.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the oncologic outcomes of a watch-and-wait strategy or a surgical approach to treat rectal cancer in complete remission and to report the evidence-based clinical advantages of the two treatment strategies.
METHODS: Seven national and international databases were searched for clinical trials comparing the watch-and-wait strategy with surgical treatment for oncological outcomes in patients with rectal cancer in clinical complete remission.
RESULTS: In terms of oncological outcomes, there was no significant difference between the watch-and-wait strategy and surgical treatment in terms of overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.92, 95% CI (0.52, 1.64), P = 0.777), and subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in 5-year disease-free survival (5-year DFS) between WW and both local excision (LE) and radical surgery (RS) (HR = 1.76, 95% CI (0.97, 3.19), P = 0.279; HR = 1.98, 95% CI (0.95, 4.13), P = 0.164), in distant metastasis rate (RR = 1.12, 95% CI (0.73, 1.72), P = 0.593), mortality rate (RR = 1.62, 95% CI (0.93, 2.84), P = 0.09), and organ preservation rate (RR = 1.05, 95% CI (0.94, 1.17), P = 0.394) which were not statistically significant and on the outcome indicators of local recurrence rate (RR = 2.09, 95% CI (1.44, 3.03), P < 0.001) and stoma rate (RR = 0.35, 95% CI (0.20, 0.61), P < 0.001). There were significant differences between the WW group and the surgical treatment group.
CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in OS, 5-year DFS, distant metastasis, and mortality between the WW strategy group and the surgical treatment group. The WW strategy did not increase the risk of local recurrence compared with local resection but may be at greater risk of local recurrence compared with radical surgery, and the WW group was significantly better than the surgical group in terms of stoma rate; the WW strategy was evidently superior in preserving organ integrity compared to radical excision. Consequently, for patients who exhibit a profound inclination towards organ preservation and the evasion of stoma formation in the scenario of clinically complete remission of rectal cancer, the WW strategy can be contemplated as a pragmatic alternative to surgical interventions. It is, however, paramount to emphasize that the deployment of such a strategy should be meticulously undertaken within the ambit of a multidisciplinary team\'s management and within specialized centers dedicated to rectal cancer management.

UNASSIGNED: To date, several studies have compared the surgical and oncological outcomes of local excision (LE) and radical excision (RE) for rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), but some have limited numbers of small series. This protocol outlines the planned scope and methods for a systematic review and meta-analysis that will compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of LE and RE in patients with rectal GISTs.
UNASSIGNED: This protocol is presented in accordance with the PRISMA-P guideline. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Wanfang database will be systematically searched. Furthermore, reference lists of all included articles will be screened manually to add other eligible studies. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRS) in this study. The primary outcomes evaluated will be R0 resection rate and disease-free survival, while the secondary outcomes will contain overall survival, length of stay, tumor rupture rate and complications. Two reviewers will independently screen and select studies, extract data from the included studies, and assess the risk of bias of the included studies. Preplanned subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses are detailed within this protocol. The strength of the body of evidence will be assessed using GRADE.
UNASSIGNED: This review and meta-analysis will provide a comprehensive evaluation of the current evidence concerning the application of LE and RE in patients with rectal GISTs. The findings from this review will serve as a foundation for future research and emphasize the implications for clinical practice.
UNASSIGNED: PROSPERO (CRD42017078338), https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=387409, PROSPERO CRD42017078338.

BACKGROUND: Lymphoma hygroma (LH) that is the most common type of lymphangioma, but it rarely occurs in the forearm. It may show localized invasive behavior, but is benign.
METHODS: A 42-year-old woman presented to our hospital with a growing strip-like mass in the right forearm that had been detected 3 years earlier. Ultrasound examination showed a subcutaneous strip of low back vocal cords on the right forearm. Further magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed irregular strip-like dilated lymphatic vessels characteristic of LH with low T1 signal intensity and high T2 signal intensity. After radical surgical resection, hematoxylin-eosin (H & E) and immunohistochemical (IHC) staining of cystic LH endothelial cells labeled with monoclonal antibody D2-40 showed a dilated lymphangioma with no evidence of malignancy. After 7 months of follow-up, no tumor recurrence was seen and the effect was satisfactory.
UNASSIGNED: A combination of previous trauma history, signs and symptoms, and imaging evaluation are necessary to provide clues to LH, but the final diagnosis is likely to be made by pathologic evaluation of the resected specimen. Although there are many treatment modalities, all also have different outcomes. The absence of complete resection resulting in a tumor remnant is the foremost cause of LH recurrence, so we believe that the preferred approach against LH remains complete surgical resection.
CONCLUSIONS: LH is benign and generally asymptomatic lesions with mild bio-behavior. As there are occasional confusing presentations, similar cystic lesions should still be considered with caution for the disease. Although MRI provides superior advantages for its diagnosis, the confirmation of diagnosis still requires histological examination. Radical lesion resection is a very safe and effective option for the treatment of LH.

BACKGROUND: The choice of surgical strategy for patients with rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) remains controversial. This study aims to address whether the surgical procedure [local excision (LE) vs. radical excision (RE)] influences the survival outcomes.
METHODS: The information of the patients recruited in this study was obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. A survival curve was used to evaluate the differences in cancer-specific survival (CSS).
RESULTS: No significant difference was detected in the CSS between the LE and RE groups. Also, no significant differences were observed in the CSS between the two groups with respect to different T classification, N classification, tumor differentiation, tumor size, regional LN surgery, age, gender, race, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. The T classification and age were independent prognostic factors in rectal GIST patients.
CONCLUSIONS: LE and RE have similar survival time after surgery, and LE could be considered as an effective surgical approach for rectal GIST.

BACKGROUND: Rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is a rare digestive disease that originates in mesenchymal tissues and has malignant tendencies. At present, no standard treatment has been developed, and surgical approaches and the resection scope for rectal GISTs are controversial.
METHODS: The clinical, surgical, pathological and prognosis data of patients with primary rectal GIST in our center from January 2008 to January 2019 were retrospectively collected. The patients were divided into the radical excision (RE) and local resection (LR) groups.
RESULTS: A total of 537 GIST cases were collected, and 64 patients with primary rectal GIST were included in this study, including 25 cases in the RE group and 39 cases in the LR group. Tumor size (p = 0.013), distance from the anus (p = 0.038), National Institutes of Health (NIH) criteria (p = 0.001), preoperative adjuvant therapy (p = 0.016), postoperative adjuvant therapy (p = 0.028), blood loss (p = 0.048), operative time (p = 0.020) and the duration of hospitalization (p = 0.021) were statistically different between these 2 groups. The mean overall follow-up time was 46 months (range, 1-122 months). Disease recurrence was observed in 12 patients. No statistical differences were observed in 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) (93.3% vs 92.6%, p = 0.952) or overall survival (OS) (90.0% vs 91.6%, p = 0.832) between the RE group and the LR group.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that LR has a similar prognosis to that of RE with respect to DFS and OS. For appropriate cases, LR has the advantages of a short operative time, less bleeding, and a quick recovery. Especially when combined with neoadjuvant therapy, LR can also achieve better perioperative efficacy. Therefore, LR is an effective method for resection of rectal GISTs and warrants clinical endorsement.