Explore the vast range of titles available.

Esophageal cancer is the seventh most common type of cancer in the world, the sixth leading cause of cancer-related death and its incidence is expected to rise 140% in the world in a period of 10 years until 2025. The overall incidence is higher in males, while data about prognosis and survival are not well established yet. The goal of this study was to carry out a comprehensive analysis of differences between sexes and other covariates in patients diagnosed with primary esophageal cancer. Data from 2005 to 2020 were obtained from the University Hospitals (UH) Seidman Cancer Center and from 2005 to 2018 from SEER. Patients were categorized according to histological subtype and divided according to sex. Pearson Chi-square test was used to compare variables of interest by sex and the influence of sex on survival was assessed by Kaplan Meier, log rank tests and Cox proportional hazards regression models. A total of 1205 patients were used for analysis. Sex differences in all types were found for age at diagnosis, histology, smoking status and prescriptions of NSAIDs and in SCC for age at diagnosis and alcoholism. Survival analysis didn’t showed differences between males and females on univariable and multivariable models. Males have a higher incidence of Esophageal Cancer and its two main subtypes but none of the comprehensive set of variables analyzed showed to be strongly or unique correlated with this sex difference in incidence nor are they associated with a sex difference in survival.

In this trial involving patients at increased risk for pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), rectal indomethacin reduced the incidence of this condition, as compared with placebo (9% vs. 17%). Acute pancreatitis is the most common major complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), 1 accounting for substantial morbidity, occasional death, and estimated health care expenditures of approximately $150 million annually in the United States. 2 , 3 Given the magnitude of this problem, more than 35 pharmacologic agents have been studied for the prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis, and many prospective clinical trials addressing chemoprevention have been conducted. To date, however, no medication has proved to be consistently effective in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis on the basis of data from high-quality clinical trials, and no pharmacologic prophylaxis for post-ERCP pancreatitis is in widespread clinical use. . . .

The benefit of indomethacin suppositories for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients was established in a landmark trial published in 2012. The aims of this study were to measure the adoption of indomethacin prophylaxis in widespread clinical practice, evaluate concurrent trends in pancreatic duct (PD) stent utilization, and estimate the impact of these changes on PEP in a high-risk population. Data were extracted from a commercial database (Explorys, IBM Watson Health, Somers, NY) that aggregates electronic health records from 26 US healthcare systems from 2009 to 2018. Using Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms, we identified a cohort of patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and were at high risk for PEP based on narrow criteria. PEP was defined as an emergency department or hospital admission 1-5 days after ERCP with an associated diagnosis of pancreatitis. Twenty six thousand eight hundred twenty ERCPs were performed on this high-risk cohort from 2009 to 2018. The overall PEP rate during the study period was 8.6%. There was no decrease in PEP rates from 2012 to 2018. Beginning in 2012, indomethacin usage increased linearly (P < 0.001), but remained below 50% in 2018. As indomethacin increased, utilization of PD stents declined abruptly from 2013 to 2014 (40.7%-8.5%) and trended to a nadir of 3.0%. Despite its low cost, widespread availability, and level I evidence of benefit in reducing the risk of PEP in high-risk patients, the adoption of rectal indomethacin during ERCP has been slow and the medication continues to be under-utilized. In parallel, the PD stent usage has declined dramatically. The lack of change in PEP rates during the study period could be attributable to the persistent low usage of rectal indomethacin or the decline in PD stent use. Further educational efforts and quality assurance measures are warranted to ensure that rectal indomethacin and PD stent placement are more appropriately used in clinical practice.