Hepatitis B Virus and Hepatitis D Virus Recurrence in Patients Undergoing Liver Transplantation for Hepatitis B Virus and Hepatitis B Virus Plus Hepatitis D Virus.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we retrospectively analyzed the recurrence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis D virus (HDV) infection after liver transplantation for HBV and HBV+HDV co-infection. METHODS: Data from patients infected with HBV and HBV+HDV who underwent liver transplantation between March 2003 and June 2013 at the Liver Transplantation Institute of Inonu University were analyzed retrospectively. A total of 255 patients were included in the study. Group 1 (n = 127) comprised patients who underwent liver transplantation because of HBV, and group 2 (n = 128) comprised patients who underwent liver transplantation because of HBV+HDV. A positive HDV antibody serologic test result was taken to indicate liver disease caused by HBV+HDV. RESULTS: Thirteen of 255 were positive for the HBs Ag (5.1%). Nine (7.1%) and 4 (3.1%) patients were positive for the HBs Ag in groups 1 and 2, respectively (7.1%); the difference was not significant (P = .150). No HDV recurrence was detected in either group. The average time to HBs Ag seroconversion in 13 patients was 7.8 months after surgery (6.34 months in group 1 and 11.1 months in group 2). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, recurrence rate of HBV after liver transplantation is not statistically different than the recurrence rate of HBV+HDV co-infection. A low recurrence rate was achieved by the prophylaxis protocol in use at our center. There is no standard protocol for prevention of HBV and HDV recurrence; therefore, we need new studies.

HBeAg-positive hepatitis delta: virological patterns and clinical long-term outcome.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The presence of the hepatitis B virus (HBV)-eAg in patients with hepatitis B is associated with higher HBV replication and with an increased risk to develop liver-related clinical endpoints defined as liver related death, liver transplantation, development of hepatocellular carcinoma and hepatic decompensation. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of HBeAg in patients co-infected with the hepatitis D virus (HDV). METHODS: We studied virological markers of HBV and HDV infection and as well as biochemical and clinical features of liver disease in a cohort of 534 anti-HDV-positive patients. In addition, we compared the clinical long-term outcome of HBeAg-positive HDV-infected patients with HBeAg-negative control patients matched for age, gender and baseline-MELD score. RESULTS: HBeAg-positive hepatitis delta was detected in 71 of 534 patients (13.3%). HBeAg positivity was associated with a higher biochemical disease activity and higher HBsAg levels in HDV co-infected patients. Sixty one per cent of the HBeAg-positive HDV-infected patients presented with HBV DNA levels below 2000 IU/ml, at least once during follow-up. Both HBeAg-positive and -negative patients showed a similar severe clinical long-term course with about half of the patients developing a liver-related clinical complication after a median follow-up period of 51 months (range: 9-193 months). CONCLUSIONS: HBV DNA levels are low in both HBeAg-negative and HBeAg-positive patients suggesting suppressive effects of HDV on HBV irrespective of the phase of HBV infection. The clinical long-term outcome of HBeAg-positive patients is not different to HBeAg-negative patients infected with the HDV.

Re: totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective randomized controlled study.

The study is unique in terms of defining the safety of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). Furthermore, the authors state that the tubeless group has an advantage of less pain. However, we interpreted the results of pain-related comparisons different than that the authors had. In our opinion, the results gained show that there is no difference in terms of pain in both groups. The authors state that they have inserted a double J catheter to patients that were included in the tubeless group in addition to the nephrostomy as a conventional procedure. However, routine Double-J placement in addition to nephrostomy is not a common procedure. Additionally, the large-bore nephrostomy tube preferred is certain to cause pain, as stated in the previous studies. It has been shown that small-bore tubes cause less pain. It may have been more appropriate to compare the groups in such a manner. Even though we have stated our comments with respect to pain issues, it is evident that the study is unique in terms of defining the safety of a totally tubeless procedure.

Semirigid ureteroscopy: the effect of previous ipsilateral intraureteral manipulations on stone clearance.

We investigated whether previous intraureteral manipulations had an effect on the stone-free rates (SFR) after semi-rigid ureteroscopy (URS) with pneumatic lithotripsy. A retrospective review of all patients who were treated for ureteral stones at two different institutions from June 2003 through January 2010 was performed. Data of 161 URS procedures were analyzed. Stone size, location (distal, mid and proximal) and number (single and multiple), patient demographics and previous intraureteral manipulations were recorded. Patients were grouped as having undergone a previous ipsilateral intraureteral manipulation (Group 1) or not (Group 2). Stone location and number, stone clearance and ancillary procedures were compared. There were no significant differences between Group 1 versus Group 2 for age (p > 0.05), gender (p > 0.05), stone site (p > 0.05) and stone size (p > 0.05). Stones with multiple locations were more frequent in Group 1 (18.5%); however, the difference did not reach statistical significance between the two groups. Similarly, the frequency of multiple stones was also higher in Group 1 (29.6%). Stone site, diameter and gender were comparable in both groups. Stone-free rate of all patients was 84.6% after the first intervention. This rate increased to 98.1% after secondary procedures. Univariate analysis revealed that SFR after URS were low in patients who underwent previous intraureteral manipulations (Group 1:55.6% vs. Group 2:89.1%). SFR after the first intervention were related with stone size, location and number. Additionally, multiple logistic regression analysis indicated a relationship between previous intraureteral manipulations and initial stone clearance rates. Spontaneous passage of stone fragments after URS was associated with stone burden, location, number and previous intraureteral manipulations. Further multiple logistic regression analysis showed that only previous intraureteral manipulations were associated with the expulsion of the stones left for passage.

Optimal timing of adjuvant treatment in patients with early breast cancer.

It is well established that adjuvant treatment reduces mortality after early breast cancer. However, the optimal timing of adjuvant treatment is not well described. To determine the optimal timing of adjuvant treatment, 402 breast cancer patients who received adjuvant treatment at Ankara Oncology Research and Training Hospital between January 1995 and August 2002 were evaluated retrospectively. Three hundred and fifty-seven (88.8%) patients received adjuvant chemotherapy, 204 (50.7%) of these patients received only adjuvant chemotherapy and 153 (38%) patients received tamoxifen following chemotherapy. Remaining 45 (11.2%) patients received only adjuvant tamoxifen. The median time to start adjuvant treatment after surgery was day 21 (range, days 4 to days 258), and the median follow-up was 50 months (range, 6-105 months). The patients were divided into 5 groups according to starting time of chemotherapy (shorter than 14 days, between days 15-29, between days 30-44, between days 45.-59 and more than 59 days). Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were not shown significantly different between for 5 groups (P>0.05). Secondly, patients were divided into two groups as starting adjuvant treatment equal to or shorter than 44 days and longer than 44 days (n=344, 85.6% and vs. n=58, 14.4%, respectively). OS was significantly better in patients who started to receive adjuvant treatment within 44 days after surgery compared to patients who received adjuvant treatment after 44 days (92 vs. 83.3%, P=0.03) for 5 years, but DFS was not significantly different between two groups (83.4 vs. 82.2%, P>0.05). According to our study, adjuvant treatment of breast cancer should be initiated earlier after surgery.