OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to establish a standard liver volume formula and explore the correlation between hepatic lobe variations in patients with virus-induced cirrhosis and the severity of disease by measuring the volume of the whole liver, the left lateral segment, and the caudate lobe using 16-MDCT. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The volume and per-body surface area (BSA) volume of the whole liver, the left lateral segment, and the caudate lobe were calculated in 113 patients with normal livers and 101 patients with virus-induced cirrhosis who underwent volume CT. The proportion of the left lateral segment volume and the proportion of the caudate lobe volume to the total liver volume, the volume index, and the volume change ratio were also calculated, and these data were grouped by Child-Pugh classification and compared. The standard liver volume formula was constructed from body weight and body height or from BSA. RESULTS. There was a positive correlation between liver volume (LV) and body height, body weight (BW) [LV (cm³) = 12.90 × BW (kg) + 437.91], and BSA [LV (cm³) = 882.08 × BSA (m²) - 308.12]. The total mean ± standard error (SE) liver volume of the control group was 1,222.76 ± 216.96 cm³. The mean volumes of the whole liver and of the left lateral segment were 798.01 ± 203.64 and 213.04 ± 74.84 cm³, respectively, for Child-Pugh class C patients, which was significantly smaller than those values for Child-Pugh class A and B patients (p < 0.05). The mean volume of the caudate lobe was 36.83 ± 22.11 cm³ for Child-Pugh class A patients, which is significantly larger than those values for Child-Pugh class B and C patients (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION. CT-measured liver volume and standard liver volume formulas were helpful in evaluating liver volume variations. Enlargement of the left lateral segment was absolute in Child-Pugh class A and B patients, but was relative in Child-Pugh class C patients; enlargement of the caudate lobe was absolute in Child-Pugh class A patients, but was relative in Child-Pugh class B and C patients.

Background/Aims: To compare effectiveness between total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) for proximal gastric cancer. Methodology: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library and Chinese CNKI databases were searched to select eligible studies comparing TG to PG for proximal gastric cancer. Outcomes measures included overall survival, recurrence, mortality and morbidity rates, as well as nutritional states. Meta-analyses were performed by RevMan 5.0. Results: One randomized controlled trial and 7 retrospective studies involving 1077 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference of 5-year overall survival rate (OR=0.89, p=0.53). Ho W ever, TG achieved a lower recurrence rate (Peto OR=0.53, p=0.004). PG experienced higher morbidity risk (OR=0.11, p<0.00001), concerning higher risks of reflux esophagitis (OR=0.04, p<0.00001) and anastomotic stenosis (OR=0.14, p<0.00001) in a short period. TG performed longer operation time (p=0.002) and more blood loss (p<0.00001). Operative mortality and nutritional states were comparable without significant differences. Conclusions: Based on current retrospective evidences, TG and PG had similar overall survival outcome for proximal gastric cancer, but TG showed lower recurrence rate. PG with gastroesophagostomy had higher incidence of reflux esophagitis and anastomotic stenosis. TG can be recommendation for proximal gastric cancer, although more high-quality trials are still expected.

A hospital-based cross-sectional study in SIGES project was conducted during 2016.5–2017.5 in West China Hospital. It was aimed to observe the prevalence of atrophic gastritis (AG) in southwest China, and assess the diagnostic strength of serum gastrin-17 (G-17) in predicting AG in Chinese population. Asymptomatic healthy controls from health check-up, cancer-free patients with unspecific upper gastrointestinal symptoms, and histologically proven gastric cancer patients were eligible, if serum pepsinogen-I (PG-I), PG-II, and G-17 were detected. AG status was classified by the accredited cutoffs of PG-I (<70 ug/L) and PG-I/II ratio (<3). Totally, healthy controls (n = 9,425), symptomatic patients (n = 671) and gastric cancer patients (n = 305) were simultaneously observed, in which the prevalence of AG in southwest China were estimated as 15.9/1,000, 28.3/1,000, and 55.7/1,000 persons, respectively. The age-specific prevalence of AG in healthy controls showed a significantly uphill trend (p for trend 30 pmol/L, aOR = 314.41, 95% CI 166.10–595.12). Throughout the progression of stomach diseases, the diagnostic strength of serum G-17 for AG showed a downhill trend across more advanced situations. In despite of that, serum G-17 displayed a good performance in predicting AG in the entire cross-sectional population (AUC = 0.92, 95% CI 0.89–0.94; SEN = 85.5%; SPE = 93.2%; LR+ = 12.55; LR− = 0.11). Population in southwest China had intermediate prevalence of AG, while the prevalence was increased over age or disease progression. High level of serum G-17 might be a reliable non-invasive measurement to predict AG in southwest Chinese population.

INTRODUCTION: Besides Helicobacter pylori and Epstein-Barr virus, other viruses might play potential roles in gastric carcinogenesis. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the prevalence of the viruses between gastric cancer (GC) and any controls. METHODS: Comprehensive literature was searched up to January 25, 2019, and search was updated on April 6, 2020. The studies that compared the prevalence of viruses other than Epstein-Barr virus between GC and healthy or nonmalignant controls were eligible. Stata 12.0 software was used for heterogeneity tests and meta-analyses. Meanwhile, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias evaluation were performed where applicable. The power (1–β) was estimated by the PASS 11 software for each individual study. RESULTS: A total of 41 eligible studies were included, concerning 11 kinds of viruses. Prevalence were significantly higher in GC for hepatitis B virus (odds ratio [OR] = 1.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11–1.75), human cytomegalovirus (OR = 2.25, 95% CI 1.14–4.43), human papillomavirus (HPV) (OR = 1.63, 95% CI 1.05–2.54), and John Cunningham virus (OR = 2.52, 95% CI 1.26–5.04). In subgroup analyses, HPV-16 infection was significantly associated with GC (OR = 2.42, 95% CI 1.00–5.83). DISCUSSION: This study demonstrated that hepatitis B virus, human cytomegalovirus, HPV, and John Cunningham virus were more prevalent in GC. However, the causal relationship between their infection and risk of GC remains inconclusive, and further investigations are required.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of splenectomy on long-term survival, postoperative morbidity and mortality of patients with gastric cancer by performing a meta-analysis. METHODS: A search of electronic databases to identify randomized controlled trials in The Cochrane Library trials register, Medline, CBMdisc (Chinese Biomedical Database) and J-STAGE, etc was performed. Data was extracted from the studies by 2 independent reviewers. Outcome measures were survival, postoperative morbidity and mortality and operation-related events. The meta-analyses were performed by RevMan 4.3. RESULTS: Three studies comprising 466 patients were available for analysis, with 231 patients treated by gastrectomy plus splenectomy. Splenectomy could not increase the 5-year overall survival rate [RR = 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97-1.41]. The postoperative morbidity (RR = 1.76, 95% CI 0.82-3.80) or mortality (RR = 1.58, 95% CI 0.45-5.50) did not suggest any significant differences between the 2 groups. No significant differences were noted in terms of number of harvested lymph nodes, operation time, length of hospital stay and reoperation rate. Subgroup analyses showed splenectomy did not increase the survival rate for proximal and whole gastric cancer. No obvious differences were observed between the 2 groups when stratified by stage. Sensitivity analyses indicated no significant differences regarding the survival rates (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Splenectomy did not show a beneficial effect on survival rates compared to splenic preservation. Routinely performing splenectomy should not be recommended.