Microwave Ablation as Bridging to Liver Transplant for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis

PurposeTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of microwave (MW) ablation as first-line locoregional therapy (LRT) for bridging patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) to liver transplant.Materials and MethodsThis retrospective study evaluated 88 patients who received percutaneous MW ablation for 141 tumors as first-line LRT for HCC and who were listed for liver transplantation at a single medical center between 2011 and 2019. The overall survival (OS) rate statuses after liver transplant, waitlist retention, and disease progression were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier techniques.ResultsAmong the 88 patients (72 men and 16 women; mean age, 60 years; Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, 11.2) who were listed for transplant, the median waitlist time was 9.4 months (interquartile range, 5.5–18.9). Seventy-one (80.7%) patients received transplant after a median waitlist time of 8.5 months. Seventeen (19.3%) patients were removed from the waitlist; of these, 4 (4.5%) were removed because of tumors outside of the Milan criteria (HCC-specific dropout). No difference in tumor size or alpha-fetoprotein was observed in the transplanted versus nontransplanted patients at the time of ablation (2.1 vs 2.1 cm and 34.4 vs 34.7 ng/mL for transplanted vs nontransplanted, respectively; P > .05). Five (5.1%) of the 88 patients experienced adverse events after ablation; however, they all recovered. There were no cases of tract seeding. The local tumor progression (LTP) rate was 7.2%. The OS status after liver transplant at 5 years was 76.7%, and the disease-specific survival after LTP was 89.6%, with a median follow-up of 61 months for all patients.ConclusionsMW ablation appears to be safe and effective for bridging patients with HCC to liver transplant without waitlist removal from seeding, adverse events, or LTP.     

Barrett’s esophagus: Review of natural history and comparative efficacy of endoscopic and surgical therapies

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Progression to cancer typically occurs in a stepwise fashion through worsening dysplasia and ultimately, invasive neoplasia. Established EAC with deep involvement of the esophageal wall and/or metastatic disease is invariably associated with poor long-term survival rates. This guides the rationale of surveillance of Barrett’s in an attempt to treat lesions at an earlier, and potentially curative stage. The last two decades have seen a paradigm shift in management of Barrett’s with rapid expansion in the role of endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) for management of dysplastic and early neoplastic BE, and there have been substantial changes to international consensus guidelines for management of early BE based on evolving evidence. This review aims to assist the physician in the therapeutic decision-making process with patients by comprehensive review and summary of literature surrounding natural history of Barrett’s by histological stage, and the effectiveness of interventions in attenuating the risk posed by its natural history. Key findings were as follows. Non-dysplastic Barrett’s is associated with extremely low risk of progression, and interventions cannot be justified. The annual risk of cancer progression in low grade dysplasia is between 1%-3%; EET can be offered though evidence for its benefit remains confined to highly select settings. High-grade dysplasia progresses to cancer in 5%-10% per year; EET is similarly effective to and less morbid than surgery and should be routinely performed for this indication. Risk of nodal metastases in intramucosal cancer is 2%-4%, which is comparable to operative mortality rate, so EET is usually preferred. Submucosal cancer is associated with nodal metastases in 14%-41% hence surgery remains standard of care, except for select situations.     

The impact of additional margin coagulation with radiofrequency in liver resections with subcentimetric margin: can we improve the oncological results? A propensity score matching study

BackgroundWhereas the usefulness of radiofrequency (RF) energy as haemostatic method in liver surgery has become well established in the last decades, its intentional application on resection margins with the aim of reducing local recurrence is still debatable. Our goal was to compare the impact of an additional application of RF energy on the top of the resection surface, namely additional margin coagulation (AMC), on local recurrence (LR) when subjected to a subcentimeter margin.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 185 patients out of a whole cohort of 283 patients who underwent radical hepatic resection with subcentimetric margin. After propensity score adjustment, patients were classified into two balanced groups according to whether RF was applied or not.ResultsNo significant differences were observed within groups in baseline characteristics after PSM adjustment. The LR rate was significantly higher in the Control than AMC Group: 12 patients (14.5%) vs. 4 patients (4.8%) (p = 0.039). The estimated 1, 3, and 5-year LR-free survival rates of patients in the Control and AMC Group were: 93.5%, 86.0%, 81.0% and 98.8%, 97.2%, 91.9%, respectively (p = 0.049). Univariate Cox analyses indicated that the use of the RF applicator was significantly associated with lower LR (HR = 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.093–0.906, p = 0.033). The Control Group showed smaller coagulation widths than the AMC group (p < 0.001).ConclusionsAn additional application of RF on the top of the resection surface is associated with less local hepatic recurrence than the use of conventional techniques.     

Is amiodarone still a reasonable therapeutic option for rhythm control in atrial fibrillation?

Amiodarone is the most potent antiarrhythmic drug available and is commonly prescribed to treat and prevent not only life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias but also atrial fibrillation (AF). The latest European Society of Cardiology AF guidelines state that amiodarone is recommended for long-term rhythm control in all AF patients but that other antiarrhythmic drugs should be considered first whenever possible, due to its extracardiac toxicity. In patients without significant or with only minimal structural heart disease, amiodarone is not listed as a possibility in their therapeutic scheme. Still, amiodarone is widely and liberally used, and is the most prescribed antiarrhythmic drug for patients with AF despite its high toxicity profile. Non-cardiovascular death was more frequent with amiodarone treatment than with a rate control strategy in AFFIRM, while meta-analyses suggest an association between amiodarone use in patients without structural heart disease and increased non-cardiovascular mortality. Severe or even fatal outcomes due to amiodarone may occur years after treatment initiation and are often not acknowledged by the prescribing physician, who may no longer be following the patient. The lack of widely accepted diagnostic criteria and symptom definitions may lead to underestimation of the incidence of severe side effects and of its toxicity. Unlike the underestimated risk of toxicity with amiodarone, severe complications associated with catheter ablation are usually directly ascribed to the treatment even by non-medical personnel, possibly resulting in overestimation of risks. This brief review will address the issue of amiodarone overuse and the frequent underestimation of its toxicity, while suggesting scenarios in which its use is entirely reasonable, and compare it with catheter ablation.