- Browse by Author
Browsing by Author "Anderson, Matthew L."
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Distinct molecular pathways in ovarian endometrioid adenocarcinoma with concurrent endometriosis(Wiley, 2018) Zhang, Chi; Wang, Xiyin; Anaya, Yanett; Parodi, Luca; Cheng, Lijun; Anderson, Matthew L.; Hawkins, Shannon M.; Medicine, School of MedicineWomen with endometriosis, a benign growth of endometrial tissue outside the uterine cavity, are at increased risk of specific histotypes of epithelial ovarian cancer, such as ovarian endometrioid adenocarcinoma (OEA). Women with OEA who have endometriosis at time of surgical staging demonstrate improved clinical prognosis compared to women with OEA without evidence of endometriosis. However, the molecular contributions of the endometriotic tumor microenvironment to these ovarian cancers remain poorly understood. As a starting point, we used a platform for genome‐wide transcriptomic profiling to compare specimens of OEA from women with and without concurrent endometriosis and benign reproductive tract tissues, including proliferative endometrium and typical and atypical endometrioma samples (n = 20). Principle component analysis revealed distinct clustering between benign and malignant samples as well as malignant samples with and without concurrent endometriosis. Examination of gene signatures revealed that OEA with concurrent endometriosis contained a unique molecular signature compared to OEA without concurrent endometriosis, distinguished by 682 unique genes differentially expressed (fold change < or >1.5, p < 0.01). Bioinformatic analysis of these differentially expressed gene products using ingenuity pathway analysis revealed activation of NFkB signaling, an inflammatory signaling pathway constitutively active in endometriosis. DAVID functional annotation clustering further revealed enrichment in RAS signaling as both cytoskeleton organization and GTPase regulator activity relied heavily on RAS protein signal transduction. Gene set enrichment analysis highlighted immune and inflammatory nodes involved in OEA with concurrent endometriosis. These observations provide novel resources for understanding molecular subtleties potentially involved in OEA within the context of the endometriotic tumor microenvironment.Item Feasibility and safety of planned early discharge following laparotomy in gynecologic oncology with enhanced recovery protocol including opioid-sparing anesthesia(Frontiers Media, 2023-11-03) Kuznicki, Michelle L.; Yasukawa, Maya; Mallen, Adrianne R.; Lam, Clarissa; Eggers, Erica; Regis, Jefferson; Wells, Ali; Todd, Sarah L.; Robertson, Sharon E.; Tanner, Jean-Paul; Anderson, Matthew L.; Rutherford, Thomas J.; Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of MedicineObjective: This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and safety of planned postoperative day 1 discharge (PPOD1) among patients who undergo laparotomy (XL) in the department of gynecology oncology utilizing a modified enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol including opioid-sparing anesthesia (OSA) and defined discharge criteria. Methods: Patients undergoing XL and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) were enrolled in this prospective, observational cohort study after the departmental implementation of a modified ERAS protocol. The primary outcome was quality of life (QoL) using SF36, PROMIS GI, and ICIQ-FLUTS at baseline and 2- and 6-week postoperative visits. Statistical significance was assessed using the two-tailed Student's t-test and non-parametric Mann-Whitney two-sample test. Results: Of the 141 subjects, no significant demographic differences were observed between the XL group and the MIS group. The majority of subjects, 84.7% (61), in the XL group had gynecologic malignancy [vs. MIS group; 21 (29.2%), p < 0.001]. All patients tolerated OSA. The XL group required higher intraoperative opioids [7.1 ± 9.2 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) vs. 3.9 ± 6.9 MME, p = 0.02] and longer surgical time (114.2 ± 41 min vs. 96.8 ± 32.1 min, p = 0.006). No significant difference was noted in the opioid requirements at the immediate postoperative phase and the rest of the postoperative day (POD) 0 or POD 1. In the XL group, 69 patients (73.6%) were successfully discharged home on POD1. There was no increase in the PROMIS score at 2 and 6 weeks compared to the preoperative phase. The readmission rates within 30 days after surgery (XL 4.2% vs. MIS 1.4%, p = 0.62), rates of surgical site infection (XL 0% vs. MIS 2.8%, p = 0.24), and mean number of post-discharge phone calls (0 vs. 0, p = 0.41) were comparable between the two groups. Although QoL scores were significantly lower than baseline in four of the nine QoL domains at 2 weeks post-laparotomy, all except physical health recovered by the 6-week time point. Conclusions: PPOD1 is a safe and feasible strategy for XL performed in the gynecologic oncology department. PPOD1 did not increase opioid requirements, readmission rates compared to MIS, and patient-reported constipation and nausea/vomiting compared to the preoperative phase.