The relatively low incidence of duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) and the unique anatomy make the surgical management and outcomes of this kind of tumor still under debate. Thus, this study aimed to explore the optimal surgical strategy and prognosis of duodenal GISTs. A total of 300 cases of duodenal GISTs were obtained from our center (37 cases) and from case reports or series (263 cases) extracted from MEDLINE. Clinicopathological features, type of resections and survivals of duodenal GISTs were analyzed. The most common location of duodenal GISTs was descending portion (137/266, 51.5%). The median tumor size was 4 cm (0.1–28). Most patients (66.3%) received limited resection (LR). Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) was mainly performed for GISTs with larger tumor size or arose from descending portion (both P < 0.05). For both the entire cohort and tumors located in the descending portion, PD was not an independent risk factor for disease-free survival (DFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) (both P > 0.05). Duodenal GISTs were significantly different from gastric GISTs with respect to tumor size, mitotic index and NIH risk category (all P < 0.05). The DFS and DSS of duodenal GISTs was significantly worse than that of gastric GISTs (both P < 0.05). LR was a more prevalent surgical procedure and PD was mainly performed for tumors with larger diameter or located in descending portion. Type of resection was not an independent risk factor for the prognosis of duodenal GISTs. Prognosis of duodenal GISTs was significantly worse than that of gastric GISTs.

Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is one of leading malignant cancers of gastrointestinal tract worldwide. Until now, the involved mechanisms during the development of ESCC are largely unknown. This study aims to explore the driven-genes and biological pathways in ESCC. mRNA expression datasets of GSE29001, GSE20347, GSE100942, and GSE38129, containing 63 pairs of ESCC and non-tumor tissues data, were integrated and deeply analyzed. The bioinformatics approaches include identification of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) and hub genes, gene ontology (GO) terms analysis and biological pathway enrichment analysis, construction and analysis of protein–protein interaction (PPI) network, and miRNA–gene network construction. Subsequently, GEPIA2 database and qPCR assay were utilized to validate the expression of hub genes. DGIdb database was performed to search the candidate drugs for ESCC. Finally, 120 upregulated and 26 downregulated DEGs were identified. The functional enrichment of DEGs in ESCC were mainly correlated with cell cycle, DNA replication, deleted in colorectal cancer (DCC) mediated attractive signaling pathway, and Netrin-1 signaling pathway. The PPI network was constructed using STRING software with 146 nodes and 2392 edges. The most significant three modules in PPI were filtered and analyzed. Totally ten genes were selected and considered as the hub genes and nuclear division cycle 80 (NDC80) was closely related to the survival of ESCC patients. DGIdb database predicted 33 small molecules as the possible drugs for treating ESCC. In summary, the data may provide new insights into ESCC pathogenesis and treatments. The candidate drugs may improve the efficiency of personalized therapy in future.

Background: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the predictive and prognostic ability of the log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) staging system and compare it with pathological N (pN) classification and the ratio-based lymph node system (rN) for the overall survival (OS) of gastric cancer (GC). Methods: Through a systematic review till March 7, 2022, we identified population-based studies that reported the prognostic effects of LODDS in patients with GC. We compare the predictive effectiveness of the LODDS staging system with that of the rN and pN classification systems for the OS of GC. Results: Twelve studies comprising 20,312 patients were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The results showed that LODDS1, LODDS2, LODDS3, and LODDS4 in GC patients were correlated with poor OS compared with LODDS0 (LODDS1 vs. LODDS0: HR = 1.62, 95% CI (1.42, 1.85); LODDS2 vs. LODDS0: HR = 2.47, 95% CI (2.02, 3.03); LODDS3 vs. LODDS0: HR = 3.15, 95% CI (2.50, 3.97); LODDS4 vs. LODDS0: HR = 4.55, 95% CI (3.29, 6.29)). Additionally, significant differences in survival were observed among patients with different LODDS classifications (all P-values were < 0.001) with the same rN and pN classifications. Meanwhile, for patients with different pN or rN classifications with the same LODDS classification, prognosis was highly similar. Conclusion: The findings show that LODDS is correlated with the prognosis of GC patients and is superior to the pN and rN classifications for prognostic assessment.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most prevalent cancer in the world, which remains one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths. Accurate prognosis prediction of CRC is pivotal to reduce the mortality and disease burden. Lymph node (LN) metastasis is one of the most commonly used criteria to predict prognosis in CRC patients. However, inaccurate surgical dissection and pathological evaluation may lead to inaccurate nodal staging, affecting the effectiveness of pathological N (pN) classification in survival prediction among patients with CRC. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to estimate the prognostic value of the log odds of positive lymph nodes (LODDS) in patients with CRC. Methods: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for relevant studies from inception to July 3, 2021. Statistical analyses were performed on Stata statistical software Version 16.0 software. To statistically assess the prognostic effects of LODDS, we extracted the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) from the included studies. Results: Ten eligible articles published in English involving 3523 cases were analyzed in this study. The results showed that LODDS1 and LODDS2 in CRC patients was correlated with poor OS compared with LODDS0 (LODDS1 vs. LODDS0: HR = 1.77, 95% CI (1.38, 2.28); LODDS2 vs. LODDS0: HR = 3.49, 95% CI (2.88, 4.23)). Meanwhile, LODDS1 and LODDS2 in CRC patients was correlated with poor DFS compared with LODDS0 (LODDS1 vs. LODDS0: HR = 1.82, 95% CI (1.23, 2.68); LODDS2 vs. LODDS0: HR =3.30, 95% CI (1.74, 6.27)). Conclusions: The results demonstrated that the LODDS stage was associated with prognosis of CRC patients and could accurately predict the prognosis of patients with CRC.

Background: Esophageal carcinoma (EC) is the seventh-most prevalent tumor in the world, which is still one of the primary causes of tumor-related death. Identifying noteworthy biomarkers for EC is particularly significant in guiding effective treatment. Recently, circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in peripheral blood (PB) were intensively discussed as prognostic markers in patients with EC. However, an ongoing controversy still exists regarding the prognostic significance of CTCs determined by the CellSearch system in EC sufferers. This meta-analysis was designed to approach this topic. Methods: We systematically conducted searches using PubMed, Medline, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library for relevant studies, which were published through February 20, 2020. Using the random-effects model, our study was performed in Review Manager software, with odds ratios (ORs), risk ratios (RRs), hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the effect values. Results: Totally 7 articles were finally included in this study. For clinicopathological characteristics, the pooled results on TNM stage indicated that the III/IV group had higher rate of CTCs compared with the I/II group (OR=1.36, 95% CI: 0.68-2.71, I²=0%). Incidence of CTCs was higher in patients with T3/T4 stage (OR=2.92, 95% CI: 1.31-6.51, I²=0%) and distant metastasis group (OR=5.18, 95% CI: 2.38-11.25, I²=0%) compared to patients with T1/T2 stage or non-metastatic group. The pooled analysis revealed that CTC positivity detected in EC patients was correlated with poor overall survival (OS) (HR=2.83, 95% CI:1.99-4.03, I²=0%) and relapse-free survival (RFS) (HR=4.71, 95% CI:2.73-8.13, I²=0%). When pooling the estimated RR, a poor therapeutic response to chemoradiotherapy was discovered in patients with CTC positivity (RR=1.99, 95% CI:1.73-2.29, I²=60%). Conclusions: In summary, our meta-analysis demonstrated that CTCs positivity determined by the CellSearch system are correlated with the prognosis of EC patients and might indicate a poor therapeutic response to chemotherapy in EC patients.