ObjectiveTo investigate the status of undernutrition, nutritional risk as well as nutritional support in patients with gastrointestinal tumor. MethodsIn this prospective cohort study, patients with gastrointestinal tumor were recruited from Septemper 2009 to June 2011. Patients were screened by using Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS2002) at admission. Data of the nutritional risk, application of nutritional support, complications, and tumor staging were collected. ResultsNine hundred and sixty-one patients with gastrointestinal tumor were recruited, the overall prevalence of nutritional risk was 38.9% (374/961) at admission, 49.2% （176/358） in gastric tumor and 32.8% （198/603） in colorectal tumor, respectively. The highest prevalence was found in stage Ⅳ gastric tumor 〔87.3% (48/55)〕 and colorectal tumor 〔58.8% (50/85)〕 while the lowest prevalence was found in stage ⅡA gastric tumor 〔16.1% (5/31)〕 and stageⅠcolorectal tumor 〔9.8% (6/61)〕. 62.3% (152/244) of gastric tumor patients with nutritional risk while 48.6% (144/296) without nutritional risk received nutritional support. 37.7% (92/244) of colorectal tumor patients with nutritional risk while 51.4% (152/296) without nutritional risk received nutritional support. The ratio of parental nutrition and enteral nutrition was 1.251. The rate of complications in the gastrointestinal tumor patients with nutritional risk was higher than that in the patients without nutritional risk 〔32.4% (121/374) versus 20.4% (120/587), P=0.000 0〕. For the gastrointestinal tumor patients with nutritional risk, the complication rate of the patients with nutritional support was significantly lower than that of the patients without nutritional support 〔27.5% (67/244) versus 40.8% (53/130), P=0.008 6〕. For the gas trointestinal tumor patients without nutritional risk, the complication rate of gastric tumor patients with nutritional support was significantly lower than that of the patients without nutritional support (P=0.039 6), while the complication rate was not significantly different in the colorectal tumor patients with nutritional support or not (P=0.464 7). ConclusionsPatient with gastrointestinal tumor has a high nutritional risk which is related to tumor staging. Patients with nutritional risk have more complications, and nutritional support is beneficial to the patients with nutritional risk by a lower complication rate.
Objective To explore the clinical comprehensive therapy of Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Methods From January 2000 to December 2010，71 cases of Peutz-Jeghers syndrome underwent endoscopic polyp resection firstly，and those with unresectable lesions or with severe complications underwent rescue laparotomy. After endoscopic or surgical treatment，the patients took Celecoxib capsules voluntarily for 6 to 9 months under informed consents. All cases were followed up from 6 months to 8 years. Results Twenty-nine patients had familial history of Peutz-Jeghers syndrome among the 71 patients （41 males and 30 females）. Sixty-two cases underwent 94 surgeries and intussusception was the most common cause of laparotomy. Sixty-five patients underwent 169 double-balloon endoscopy （DBE） therapies，and a total of 1 714 polyps were resected by DBE polypectomy. The largest major axis of small-bowel polyp was 8 cm. No severe complications occurred after DBE polypectomy except for 3 cases of intestinal perforation. Eight patients took Celecoxib capsule，3 of them were treated more than 6 months，and DBE examination showed the gastrointestinal polyps reduced in number and size. Conclusion The comprehensive treatment （including of endoscopic therapy，operation，and drug intervention） is a safe and effective clinical model to treat Peutz-Jeghers syndrome．
Objective To evaluate the role of apparent diffusion coefficients (ADC) in assesment of response to chemotherapy in patients with gastrointestinal liver metastasis. MethodsTen patients with liver metastasis （8 from colorectal cancer， 1 from gastric cancer， 1 from esophageal cancer） at Peking University People’s Hospital from April 2006 to April 2007 were included. All of them received chemotherapy （FOLFOX6： 4 cases， XELOX： 3 cases, and FOLFIRI： 1 case in 8 cases of colorectal liver metastases; ECF: 1 case of gastric liver metastases; DCF: 1 case of esophageal liver metastasis）. ADC were calculated after MR duffusionweight imaging exmination (GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS HD EXCITE 1.5 T) 1 month pre-and post-chemotherapy, respectively. Tumour response to chemotherapy was assessed by RECIST criteria. ResultsTumors with low pretreatment ADC (lt;9.04×10－4 mm2/s) responded better to chemotherapy than that with high ADC (gt;9.04×10－4 mm2/s); pretreatment ADC of cases (6/10) were remarkable lower than those of cases (4/10)， P＝0.033. Increased ADC after onemonth chemotherapy in patients with liver metastasis predicted a better response. ConclusionsLow pretreatment ADC is predictive of better response to chemotherapy. An increased ADC after treatment predicts a better response to chemotherapy.