Appendiceal tumors are rare and are most commonly diagnosed incidentally during surgical removal of the appendix for acute appendicitis. Appendiceal adenocarcinomas are the most common appendiceal cancers, and their metastasis to the breast is extremely uncommon. We report a case of mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma presenting with breast metastasis. To the best of our knowledge, there has been only one case published in the literature about appendiceal cancer with metastasis to the breast. Interestingly, our patient\'s initial presentation was palpable breast masses rather than gastrointestinal symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Neoplasms derived from remnant appendix are rarely described, with most cases arising from the appendiceal \"stump\". Here, we present two surgical cases of appendiceal neoplasms derived from appendiceal \"tip\" remnants.
METHODS: The first patient was a 71-year-old man who had undergone laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis 12 years prior. During appendectomy, the appendiceal root was ligated, but the appendix was not completely removed due to severe inflammation. At the most recent presentation, computed tomography (CT) was performed to examine choledocholithiasis, which incidentally revealed a cystic lesion of approximately 90 mm adjacent to the cecum. A retrospective review revealed that the cystic lesion had increased in size over time, and laparoscopic ileocecal resection was performed. Pathology revealed no continuity from the appendiceal orifice to the cyst, and a diagnosis of low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm (LAMN) was made from the appendiceal tip remnant. The patient was discharged without complications. The second patient was a 65-year-old man who had undergone surgery for peritonitis due to severe appendicitis 21 years prior. During this operation, the appendix could not be clearly identified due to severe inflammation; consequently, cecal resection was performed. He was referred to our department with a chief complaint of general fatigue and loss of appetite and a cystic lesion of approximately 85 mm close to the cecum that had increased over time. CT showed irregular wall thickening, and malignancy could not be ruled out; therefore, laparoscopic ileocecal resection with D3 lymph node dissection was performed. The pathological diagnosis revealed mucinous adenocarcinoma (TXN0M0) arising from the remnant appendiceal tip. The patient is undergoing follow-up without postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy, with no evidence of pseudomyxoma peritonei or cancer recurrence for 32 months postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS: If appendicitis-associated inflammation is sufficiently severe that accurate identification of the appendix is difficult, it may remain on the apical side of the appendix, even if the root of the appendix is ligated and removed. If the appendectomy is terminated incompletely, it is necessary to check for the presence of a residual appendix postoperatively and provide appropriate follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Appendiceal cancer (AC) excessive mucin production is a barrier to heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) drug delivery. Bromelain is a pineapple stem extract with mucolytic properties. We explored bromelain treatment effects against mucinous AC in a patient-derived tumor organoid (PTO) model and an AC cell line.
METHODS: PTOs were fabricated from tumor specimens obtained from patients with AC undergoing cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC. PTOs underwent HIPEC treatment with bromelain, cisplatin, and mitomycin C (MMC) at 37 °C and 42 °C with and without bromelain pretreatment.
RESULTS: From October 2020 to May 2023, 16 specimens were collected from 13 patients with low-grade (12/16, 75%) and high-grade AC (4/16, 25%). The mucin-depleting effects of bromelain were most significant in combination with N-acetylcysteine (NAC) compared with bromelain (47% versus 10%, p = 0.0009) or NAC alone (47% versus 12.8%, p = 0.0027). Bromelain demonstrated > 31% organoid viability reduction at 60 min (p < 0.001) and > 66% in 48 h (p < 0.0001). Pretreatment with bromelain increased cytotoxicity of both cisplatin and MMC HIPEC conditions by 31.6% (p = 0.0001) and 35.5% (p = 0.0001), respectively. Ki67, CK20, and MUC2 expression decreased after bromelain treatment; while increased caspase 3/7 activity and decreased Bcl-2 (p = 0.009) and Bcl-xL (p = 0.01) suggest induction of apoptosis pathways. Furthermore, autophagy proteins LC3A/B I (p < 0.03) and II (p < 0.031) were increased; while ATG7 (p < 0.01), ATG 12 (p < 0.04), and Becline 1(p < 0.03), expression decreased in bromelain-treated PTOs.
CONCLUSIONS: Bromelain demonstrates cytotoxicity and mucolytic activity against appendiceal cancer organoids. As a pretreatment agent, it potentiates the cytotoxicity of multiple HIPEC regimens, potentially mediated through programmed cell death and autophagy.

Cancer of the appendix is an uncommon malignancy that is rarely diagnosed on colonoscopy. We present a case of incidentally discovered goblet cell adenocarcinoma of the appendix and the subsequent management. The patient initially presented with progressive epigastric pain in the setting of a family history of gastric cancer and personal history of colon polyps, for which surveillance was due. Bidirectional endoscopy was performed, from which biopsied tissue of an abnormal-appearing appendiceal orifice confirmed goblet cell adenocarcinoma. This case highlights the importance of identification of the appendiceal orifice in all colonoscopies and tissue sampling in cases of atypical-appearing anatomy.

BACKGROUND: We present a case of post-inguinal hernia repair delayed mesh infection that was initially misdiagnosed as appendiceal cancer.
METHODS: The patient was an 82-year-old man who underwent right inguinal hernia repair with a plug mesh 7 years before he presented with a lump in the right inguinal region. No skin infection signs were evident; blood tests revealed no inflammation or abnormal tumor markers. Abdominal contrast-enhanced computed tomography revealed a tumorous lesion in the right lower abdomen, raising the suspicion of appendiceal cancer with lymph node and lung metastases. Lower gastrointestinal endoscopy revealed extrinsic cecal wall compression. During laparoscopic ileocecal resection with lymph node dissection, a pus-filled abscess exposed the mesh in the inguinal region; hence, a diagnosis of a mesh infection was made. There were no macroscopic cancer signs in the appendix or cecum. Partial cecal resection involving the infected mesh was performed. Pathological tests did not reveal cancer, confirming the delayed mesh infection diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: This case presents the diagnostic challenges posed by post-inguinal hernia repair delayed mesh infections, emphasizing the lack of typical clinical and imaging indications and the potential for misdiagnosis as appendiceal cancer. It also highlights the importance of early recognition and appropriate management of these infections.
CONCLUSIONS: This case emphasizes the complexity of diagnosing post-inguinal hernia repair delayed mesh infections. These infections may mimic other conditions such as appendiceal cancer, stressing the need for vigilance and careful evaluation. Early recognition and proper management are essential to avoid unnecessary extensive surgeries.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma experience peritoneal recurrence despite complete cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). Prior work has demonstrated that repeat CRS/HIPEC can prolong survival in select patients. We sought to validate these findings using outcomes from a high-volume center.
METHODS: Patients with mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma who underwent CRS/HIPEC at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 2004 and 2021 were stratified by whether they underwent CRS/HIPEC for recurrent disease or as part of initial treatment. Only patients who underwent complete CRS/HIPEC were included. Initial and recurrent groups were compared.
RESULTS: Of 437 CRS/HIPECs performed for mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinoma, 50 (11.4%) were for recurrent disease. Patients who underwent CRS/HIPEC for recurrent disease were more often treated with an oxaliplatin or cisplatin perfusion (35%/44% recurrent vs. 4%/1% initial, p < 0.001), had a longer operative time (median 629 min recurrent vs. 511 min initial, p = 0.002), and had a lower median length of stay (10 days repeat vs. 13 days initial, p < 0.001). Thirty-day complication and 90-day mortality rates did not differ between groups. Both cohorts enjoyed comparable recurrence free survival (p = 0.82). Compared with patients with recurrence treated with systemic chemotherapy alone, this select cohort of patients undergoing repeat CRS/HIPEC enjoyed better overall survival (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: In appropriately selected patients with recurrent appendiceal mucinous adenocarcinoma, CRS/HIPEC can provide survival benefit equivalent to primary CRS/HIPEC and that may be superior to that conferred by systemic therapy alone in select patients. These patients should receive care at a high-volume center in the context of a multidisciplinary team.

Appendiceal cancer is a rare, orphan disease with no therapies currently approved by the FDA for its treatment. Given the limited data regarding drug efficacy, these tumors have historically been treated with chemotherapy designed for colon cancer. However, an overwhelming body of molecular data has demonstrated that appendiceal adenocarcinoma is a distinct entity with key molecular differences from colon cancer, notably rare APC mutation. Recognizing that APC loss-of-function is thought to contribute to taxane resistance and that taxanes are effective in the treatment of other gastrointestinal tumors, including gastric, esophageal, and small bowel adenocarcinoma, we completed a single-center retrospective study to assess efficacy. In a cohort of 13 patients with metastatic appendiceal adenocarcinoma, treated with taxane chemotherapy the median overall survival was 8.8 months. Of 10 evaluable patients, we observed 3 responses, 4 patients with stable disease, and 3 with progression (30% response rate, 70% disease control rate). The results of this study showing activity of taxane-based chemotherapy in appendiceal adenocarcinoma support further clinical investigation of taxane therapy in this orphan disease.

暂无摘要。

Appendiceal cancer treatment may include cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC). We investigated whether patient race/ethnicity influences outcomes and overall survival for patients with appendiceal cancer who undergo CRS/HIPEC. We queried the National Cancer Database for adult patients with appendiceal cancer treated with CRS/HIPEC from 2006 to 2018. Patients were stratified by race/ethnicity: non-Hispanic White (NHW), non-Hispanic Black (NHB), Hispanic, and Other. Sociodemographics and outcomes were compared using descriptive statistics. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Log-rank tests assessed differences in overall survival (OS). Cox Multivariate Regression evaluated factors associated with OS. In total, 2532 patients were identified: 2098 (82.9%) NHW, 186 (7.3%) NHB, 127 (5.0%) Hispanic, and 121 (4.8%) Other patients. The sociodemographics were statistically different across groups. The perioperative and postoperative outcomes were similar. OS was significantly different by race/ethnicity (p = 0.0029). NHB patients compared to Hispanic patients had the shortest median OS (106.7 vs. 145.9 months, p = 0.0093). Race/ethnicity was independently associated with OS: NHB (HR: 2.117 [1.306, 3.431], p = 0.0023) and NHW (HR: 1.549 [1.007, 2.383], p = 0.0463) patients compared to Hispanic patients had worse survival rates. Racial/ethnic disparities exist for patients with appendiceal cancer undergoing CRS/HIPEC. Despite having similar tumor and treatment characteristics, OS is associated with patient race/ethnicity.

Appendiceal cancers (AC) are a rare and heterogeneous group of malignancies. Historically, appendiceal neoplasms have been grouped with colorectal cancers (CRC), and treatment strategies have been modeled after CRC management guidelines due to their structural similarities and anatomical proximity. However, the two have marked differences in biological behavior and treatment response, and evidence suggests significant discrepancies in their respective genetic profiles. In addition, while the WHO classification for appendiceal cancers is currently based on traditional histopathological criteria, studies have demonstrated that histomorphology does not correlate with survival or treatment response in AC. Due to their rarity, appendiceal cancers have not been studied as extensively as other gastrointestinal cancers. However, their incidence has been increasing steadily over the past decade, making it crucial to identify new and more effective strategies for detection and treatment. Recent efforts to map and understand the molecular landscape of appendiceal cancers have unearthed a wealth of information that has made it evident that appendiceal cancers possess a unique molecular profile, distinct from other gastrointestinal cancers. This review focuses on the epigenetic landscape of epithelial appendiceal cancers and aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge of epigenetic changes across different appendiceal cancer subtypes, highlighting the challenges as well as the promise of employing epigenetics in the quest for the detection of biomarkers, therapeutic targets, surveillance markers, and predictors of treatment response and survival in epithelial appendiceal neoplasms.