Angiography with cone-beam CT versus contrast-enhanced MRI for living donor transplant imaging: Is MRI enough?

The purpose of this study is to compare the subjective and objective quality and confidence between conventional angiography with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the preoperative evaluation of potential donors for living donor liver transplant. Seventeen patients undergoing preoperative donor evaluation for living donor liver transplantation that underwent angiography with CBCT and contrast-enhanced MRI for evaluation of hepatic vascular anatomy were included in the study. Four attending radiologists interpreted anonymized, randomized angiography with CBCT images and MRIs, rating the diagnostic quality and confidence of their interpretation (on a 3-point scale) for each element, as well as clinically relevant measurements. Overall, the readers rated the quality of angiography with CBCT to be higher than that of MRI (median [interquartile range] = 3 (2, 3) vs. 2 (1-3), p < 0.001) across all patients. Readers of angiography with CBCT had more confidence in their interpretations as an average of all elements evaluated than the MRI readers (3 (3) vs. 3 (2, 3), p < 0.001). When the same reader interpreted both MRI and CBCT, the right hepatic artery diameter (3.8 mm ± 0.72 mm vs. 4.5 mm ± 1.2 mm, p < 0.005) and proper hepatic artery diameter (4.43 mm ± 0.98 mm vs. 5.4 mm ± 1.05 mm, p < 0.003) were significantly different between MRI and CBCT. There was poor interrater reliability for determining segment IV arterial supply for both modalities (κ < 0.2). Angiography with CBCT provides higher subjective diagnostic quality and greater radiologist confidence than MRI. The difference in measurements between CBCT and MRI when the same reader reads both studies suggests CBCT adds additional information over MRI evaluation alone.

Using Individual Clinical Evaluations to Assess Residents' Clinical Judgment; Feasibility and Residents' Perception.

OBJECTIVE: In surgical training, most assessment tools focus on advanced clinical decision-making or operative skill. Available tools often require significant investment of resources and time. A high stakes oral examination is also required to become board-certified in surgery. We developed Individual Clinical Evaluation (ICE) to evaluate intern-level clinical decision-making in a time- and cost-efficient manner, and to introduce the face-to-face evaluation setting. DESIGN: Intern-level ICE consists of 3 clinical scenarios commonly encountered by surgical trainees. Each scenario was developed to be presented in a step-by-step manner to an intern by an attending physician or chief resident. The interns had 17 minutes to complete the face-to-face evaluation and 3 minutes to receive feedback on their performance. The feedback was transcribed and sent to the interns along with incorrect answers. Eighty percent correct was set as a minimum to pass each scenario and continue with the next one. Interns who failed were retested until they passed. Frequency of incorrect response was tracked by question/content area. After passing the 3 scenarios, interns completed a survey about their experience with ICE. SETTING: Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, an academic tertiary care facility located in Boston, Massachusetts. PARTICIPANTS: All first-year surgery residents in our institution (n = 17) were invited to complete a survey. RESULTS: All 2016-2017 surgical interns (17) completed the ICEs. A total of $171 (US) was spent conducting the ICEs, and an average of 17 minutes was used to complete each evaluation. In total, 5 different residents failed 1 scenario, with the most common mistake being: failing to stabilize respiration before starting management. After completing the 3 clinical scenarios, more than 90% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the evaluations were appropriately challenging for training level, and that the evaluations helped to identify personal strengths and weaknesses in skill and knowledge. The majority believed their knowledge improved as a result of the ICE and felt better prepared to manage these scenarios (88% and 76%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The ICE is an inexpensive and time efficient way to introduce interns to board type examinations and assess their preparedness for perioperative patient care issues. Common errors were identified which were able to inform educational efforts. ICEs were well accepted by residents. Next steps include extension of the ICE to PGY2 and PGY3 residents.

Primary Stent Placement for Hepatic Artery Stenosis After Liver Transplantation: Improving Primary Patency and Reintervention Rates.

Recent studies have reported high rates of reintervention after primary stenting for hepatic artery stenosis (HAS) due to the loss of primary patency. The aims of this study were to evaluate the outcomes of primary stenting after HAS in a large cohort with longterm follow-up. After institutional review board approval, all patients undergoing liver transplantation between 2003 and 2017 at a single institution were evaluated for occurrence of hepatic artery complications. HAS occurred in 37/454 (8%) of patients. HAS was defined as >50% stenosis on computed tomography or digital subtraction angiography. Hepatic arterial patency and graft survival were evaluated at annual intervals. Primary patency was defined as the time from revascularization to imaging evidence of new HAS or reaching a censored event (retransplantation, death, loss to follow-up, or end of study period). Primary stenting was attempted in 30 patients (17 female, 57%; median age, 51 years; range, 24-68 years). Surgical repair of HAS prior to stenting was attempted in 5/30 (17%) patients. Endovascular treatment was performed within 1 week of the primary anastomosis in 5/30 (17%) of patients. Technical success was accomplished in 97% (29/30) of patients. Primary patency was 90% at 1 year and remained unchanged throughout the remaining follow-up period (median, 41 months; interquartile range [IQR], 25-86 months). Reintervention was required in 3 patients to maintain stent patency. The median time period between primary stenting and retreatment was 5.9 months (IQR, 4.4-11.1 months). There were no major complications, and no patient developed hepatic arterial thrombosis or required listing for retransplantation or retransplantation during the follow-up period. In conclusion, primary stenting for HAS has excellent longterm primary patency and low reintervention rates.

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) for Intrahepatic and Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Unresectable intrahepatic and hilar cholangiocarcinomas carry a dismal prognosis. Systemic chemotherapy and conventional external beam radiation and brachytherapy have been used with limited success. We explored the use of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for these patients. METHODS: Patients with unresectable intrahepatic or hilar cholangiocarcinoma or those with positive margins were included in this study. Systemic therapy was used at the discretion of the medical oncologist. The Cyberknife(TM) stereotactic body radiotherapy system used to treat these patients. Patients were treated with three daily fractions. Clinical and radiological follow-up were performed every three months. RESULTS: 34 patients (16 male and 18 female) with 42 lesions were included in this study. There were 32 unresectable tumors and two patients with resected tumors with positive margins. The median SBRT dose was 30Gy in three fractions. The median follow-up was 38 months (range 8-71 months). The actuarial local control rate was 79%. The median overall survival was 17 months and the median progression free survival was ten months. There were four Grade III toxicities (12%), including duodenal ulceration, cholangitis and liver abscess. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT is an effective and reasonably safe local therapy option for unresectable intrahepatic or hilar cholangiocarcinoma.