Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) is regarded as a promising method for resection of submucosal tumors (SMTs); however, little is known about a comprehensive comparison of STER and thoracoscopic enucleation (TE). The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of STER and TE for large symptomatic SMTs in the esophagus and esophagogastric junction, as well as to analyze the factors that affect the feasibility and safety of STER. We enrolled 166 patients with large symptomatic SMTs in the esophagus and esophagogastric junction from September 2011 to March 2016 in this retrospective study. The clinicopathologic features and treatment results were collected and analyzed. En bloc resection was achieved in 84.6% of the patients in the STER group and 86.7% of the patients in the TE group (p = 0.708). Notably, the procedure time and hospital stay in the STER group were considerably shorter than those in the TE group. Tumor transverse diameter is a significant risk factor for piecemeal resection, adverse events, and technical difficulties. No recurrence or metastasis was found during a mean follow-up period of more than 2 years. Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection is effective and safe for large SMTs in the esophagus and esophagogastric junction. This procedure has the advantage of being more minimally invasive with a shorter procedure time and hospital stay compared with TE. Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection for tumors with a transverse diameter ≥3.5 cm and an irregular shape is associated with relatively high risk for piecemeal resection, adverse events, and technical difficulties.

Identification and validation of a prognostic 9-Genes expression signature for gastric cancer Identification and validation of a prognostic 9-Genes expression signature for gastric cancer

Background: Pioglitazone is considered a potential therapy for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). However, different effects of pioglitazone on NAFLD have been demonstrated in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Herein, a meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials was carried out to indirectly compare pioglitazone in NAFLD patients with vs. without type 2 diabetes.Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pioglitazone vs. placebo involving NAFLD patients with or without type 2 diabetes/prediabetes collected from databases were enrolled into this analysis. Methodological quality was employed to evaluate the domains recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. The analysis covered the changes in histology (fibrosis, hepatocellular ballooning, inflammation, steatosis), liver enzymes, blood lipids, fasting blood glucose (FBS), homeostasis model assessment-IR (HOMA-IR), weight and body mass index (BMI) before and after treatment, and adverse events.Results: The review covered seven articles, with 614 patients in total, of which three were non-diabetic RCTs. No difference was found in patients with vs. without type 2 diabetes in histology, liver enzymes, blood lipids, HOMA-IR, weight, BMI, and FBS. Moreover, no significant difference was revealed in adverse effects between NAFLD patients with diabetes and without DM, except the incidence of edema that was found to be higher in the pioglitazone group than in the placebo group in NAFLD patients with diabetes.Conclusions: Pioglitazone could exert a certain effect on alleviating NAFLD, which was consistent between non-diabetic NAFLD patients and diabetic NAFLD patients in improving histopathology, liver enzymes, and HOMA-IR and reducing blood lipids. Furthermore, there were no adverse effects, except the incidence of edema which is higher in the pioglitazone group in NAFLD patients with diabetes. However, large sample sizes and well-designed RCTs are required to further confirm these conclusions.