保肝精在肝硬化腹水治疗中增效作用的观察

笔者对单用西药利尿剂及支持疗法效果不佳的肝硬化水患者２８例，加用中药强肝无糖颗粒与食疗剂保肝精治疗，取得良好效果，显效率７１．４％，总有效率９２．９％，同时，以单加用强肝无糖颗粒剂治疗１５例为对照组，其显效率３３．３％，总有效率７３．３％。

Long-term follow-up after complete ablation of Barrett's esophagus with argon plasma coagulation

AIM: To report the long-term outcome of patients after complete ablation of non-neoplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE) with respect to BE relapse and development of intraepithelial neoplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: In 70 patients with historically proven non neoplastic BE, complete BE ablation was achieved by argon plasma coagulation (APC) and high-dose proton pump inhibitor therapy (120 mg omeprazole daily). Sixty-six patients (94.4%) underwent further surveillance endoscopy. At each surveillance endoscopy four-quadrant biopsies were taken from the neo-squamous epithelium at 2 cm intervals depending on the pre-treatment length of BE mucosa beginning at the neo-Z-line, and from any endoscopically suspicious lesion. RESULTS: The median follow-up of 66 patients was 51 mo (range 9-85 mo) giving a total of 280.5 patient years. A mean of 6 biopsies were taken during surveillance endoscopies. In 13 patients (19.7%) tongues or islands suspicious for BE were found during endoscopy. In 8 of these patients (12.1%) non-neoplastic BE relapse was confirmed histologically giving a histological relapse rate of 3% per year. In none of the patients, intraepithelial neoplasia nor an esophageal adenocarcinoma was detected. Logistic regression analysis identified endoscopic detection of islands or tongues as the only positive predictor of BE relapse (P= 0.0004). CONCLUSION: The long-term relapse rate of non neoplastic BE following complete ablation with high-power APC is low (3% per year).

Multidisciplinary management of gastric and gastroesophageal cancers

Carcinomas of the stomach and gastroesophageal junction are among the five top leading cancer types worldwide. In spite of radical surgical R0 resections being the basis of cure of gastric cancer, surgery alone provides long-term survival in only 30% of patients with advanced International Union Against Cancer （UICC） stages in Western countries because of the high risk of recurrence and metachronous metastases. However, recent large phase-Ⅲ studies improved the diagnostic and therapeutic options in gastric cancers, indicating a more multidisciplinary management of the disease. Multimodal strategies combining different neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant protocols have clearly improved the gastric cancer prognosis when combined with surgery with curative intention. In particular, the perioperative （neoadjuvant, adjuvant） chemotherapy is now a well-established new standard of care for advanced tumors. Adjuvant therapy alone should be carefully discussed after surgical resection, mainly in individual patients with large lymph node positive tumors when neoadjuvant therapy could not be done. The palliative treatment options have also been remarkably improved with new chemotherapeutic agents and will further be enhanced with targeted therapies such as different monoclonal antibodies. This article reviews the most relevant literature on the multidisciplinary management of gastric and gastroesophageal cancer, and discusses future strategies toimprove Iocoregional failures.

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs c-IMRT in esophageal cancer:A treatment planning comparison

AIM： To compare the volumetric-modulated arc ther- apy （VMAT） plans with conventional sliding window intensity-modulated radiotherapy （c-IMRT） plans in esophageal cancer （EC）. METHODS： Twenty patients with EC were selected, including 5 cases located in the cervical, the upper, the middle and the lower thorax, respectively. Five plans were generated with the eclipse planning sys- tem： three using c-IMRT with 5 fields （5F）, 7 fields （7F） and 9 fields （gF）, and two using VMAT with a single arc （1A） and double arcs （2A）. The treatment plans were designed to deliver a dose of 60 Gy to the plan-ning target volume （PTV） with the same constrains in a 2.0 Gy daily fraction, 5 d a week. Plans were normal- ized to 95% of the PTV that received 100% of the pre- scribed dose. We examined the dose-volume histogram parameters of PTV and the organs at risk （OAR） such as lungs, spinal cord and heart. Monitor units （MU） and normal tissue complication probability （NTCP） of OAR were also reported. RESULTS： Both c-IMRT and VMAT plans resulted in abundant dose coverage of PTV for EC of different Io- cations. The dose conformity to PTV was improved as the number of field in c-IMRT or rotating arc in VMAT was increased. The doses to PTV and OAR in VMAT plans were not statistically different in comparison with c-IMRT plans, with the following exceptions： in cervical and upper thoracic EC, the conformity index （CI） was higher in VMAT （1A 0.78 and 2A 0.8） than in c-IMRT （5F 0.62, 7F 0.66 and 9F 0.73） and homogeneity was slightly better in c-IMRT （7F 1.09 and 9F 1.07） than in VMAT （1A 1,1 and 2A 1.09）, Lung V30 was lower in VMAT （1A 12.52 and 2A 12.29） than in c-IMRT （7F 14.35 and 9F 14.81）. The humeral head doses were significantly increased in VMAT as against c-IMRT. In the middle and lower thoracic EC, CI in VMAT （1A 0.76 and 2A 0.74） was higher than in c-IMRT （5F 0.63 Gy and 7F 0.67 Gy）, and homogeneity was almost similar between VMAT and c-IMRT. V20 （2A 21.49 Gy vs 7F 24.59 Gy and 9F 24.16 Gy） and V30 （2A 9.73 Gy vs 5F 12.61 Gy, 7F 11.5 Gy and 9F 11.37 Gy） of lungs in VMAT were lower than in c-IMRT, but low doses to lungs （V5 and Vl0） were increased. V30 （1A 48.12 Gy vs 5F 59.2 Gy, 7F 58.59 Gy and 9F 57.2 Gy）, V40 and V50 of heart in VMAT was lower than in c-IMRT. MUs in VMAT plans were significantly reduced in comparison with c-IMRT, maximum doses to the spinal cord and mean doses of lungs were similar between the two techniques. NTCP of spinal cord was 0 for all cases. NTCP of lungs and heart in VMAT were lower than in c-IMRT. The advantage of VMAT plan was enhanced by doubling the arc. CONCLUSION： Compared with c-IMRT, VMAT, especial- ly the 2A, slightly improves the OAR dose sparing, such as lungs and heart, and reduces NTCP and MU with a better PTV coverage.

Characteristics of non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease refractory to proton pump inhibitor therapy

AIM:To investigate whether potent acid inhibition is effective in non-erosive reflux disease (NERD) refractory to standard rabeprazole (RPZ) treatment. METHODS:We treated 10 Japanese patients with NERD resistant to standard dosages of RPZ:10 mg or 20 mg od,20 mg bid,or 10 mg qid for 14 d. All patients completed a frequency scale for symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease questionnaire frequency scale for the symptoms of GERD (FSSG); and underwent 24 h pH monitoring on day 14. RESULTS:With increased dosages and frequency of administration of RPZ,median intragastric pH significantly increased,and FSSG scores significantly decreased. With RPZ 10 mg qid,potent acid inhibition was attained throughout 24 h. However,five subjects were refractory to RPZ 10 mg qid,although the median intragastric pH in these subjects (6.6,range:6.2-7.1) was similar to that in the remaining five responsive subjects (6.5,range:5.3-7.3). With baseline RPZ 10 mg od,FSSG scores in responsive patients improved by > 30%,whereas there was no significant decrease in the resistant group. CONCLUSION:NERD patients whose FSSG score fails to decrease by > 30% after treatment with RPZ 10 mg od for 14 d are refractory to higher dosage.

Head-to-head comparison of H_2-receptor antagonists and proton pump inhibitors in the treatment of erosive esophagitis: A meta-analysis

AIM: To systematically evaluate the efficacy of H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and proton pump inhibitors in healing erosive esophagitis (EE).METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases to include randomized controlled head-to-head comparative trials evaluating the efficacy of H2RAs or proton pump inhibitors in healing EE. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated under a random-effects model.RESULTS: RRs of cumulative healing rates for each comparison at 8 wk were: high dose vs standard dose H2RAs,1.17 (95%CI, 1.02-1.33); standard dose proton pump inhibitors vsstandard dose H2RAs, 1.59 (95%CI, 1.44-1.75);standard dose other proton pump inhibitors vs standard dose omeprazole, 1.06 (95%CI, 0.98-1.06). Proton pump inhibitors produced consistently greater healing rates than H2RAs of all doses across all grades of esophagitis, including patients refractory to H2RAs. Healing rates achieved with standard dose omeprazole were similar to those with other proton pump inhibitors in all grades of esophagitis.CONCLUSION: H2RAS are less effective for treating patients with erosive esophagitis, especially in those with severe forms of esophagitis. Standard dose proton pump inhibitors are significantly more effective than H2RAs in healing esophagitis of all grades. Proton pump inhibitors given at the recommended dose are equally effective for healing esophagitis.

A case of oesophageal ulcer developed after taking homeopathic pill in a young woman

Oesophageal ulcers occur mainly as a result of gastrooesophageal reflux disease （GERD）. However, pillinduced oesophageal ulcers are a fairly common event. The lesion is mainly due to entrapment of the pill and/ or its chemical composition thereof. This case report describes an oesophageal mucosa ulcer occurred in a healthy 35-year old woman who had no previous history of oesophageal disorders and received homeopathic medication. The present case reveals that pill entrapment can occur even in the oesophagus of healthy young individuals and that oesophageal mucosal ulcer can be triggered by substances generally thought devoid of any potentially mucosal aggressive effect.

Overlap of reflux and eosinophilic esophagitis in two patients requiring different therapies:A review of the literature

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EE) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) have overlapping clinical, manometric, endoscopic and histopathologic features. The diagnosis of EE is nowadays based upon the presence of 15 or more eosinophils per high power field (eo/HPF) in esophageal biopsies. We report the cases of two young males suffering from dysphagia and recurrent food impaction with reflux esophagitis and more than 20 eo/HPF in upper-mid esophagus biopsies, both of which became asymptomatic on proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. The first patient also achieved a histologic response, while EE remained in the other patient after effective PPI treatment, as shown by 24-h esophageal pH monitoring. Topical steroid therapy combined with PPI led to complete remission in this latter patient. GERD and EE may be undistinguishable, even by histology, so diagnosis of EE should only be established after a careful correlation of clinical, endoscopic and pathologic data obtained under vigorous acid suppression. These diagnostic difficulties are maximal when both diseases overlap. Limited data are available about this topic, and the interaction between EE and GERD is a matter of debate. In this setting, upper-mid esophagus step biopsies and esophageal pH monitoring of patients on PPI therapy are pivotal to evaluate the role of each disease. A PPI trial is mandatory in patients with a histopathologic diagnosis of EE; in those unresponsive to PPI treatment, EE should be suggested. However, a clinical response to PPI may not rule out quiescent EE, as shown in this report.