Primary Hepatic Neuroendocrine Tumor Mimicking Ruptured Hepatocellular Carcinoma with AFP Elevation: A Case Report and Literature Review.

Liver cancer is a common malignant disease in China, while the primary hepatic neuroendocrine tumor (PHNET) is extremely rare presented with various manifestations. We herein describe an interesting PHNET case, which was clinically diagnosed as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) based on strong clinical evidence and the national guideline, but confirmed to be PHNET by pathology. A42-year-old Chinese male was admitted for persistent upper abdominal pain, and CT scan revealed a huge liver tumor in the left lobe. The tumor presented attributes of tumor rupture, portal vein tumor thrombus, elevated serum AFP level, background hepatitis B virus infection history, and radiological features mimicking typical HCC. After left semi-hepatectomy was performed for curative treatment of the primary "HCC", the pathology demonstrated the correct diagnosis be poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC). The immunohistochemistry assays showed positive neuroendocrine markers of CgA and Syn and negative HCC markers of Hep Par 1 and GPC3, ruling out concurrent HCC. This case and literature review suggest that in spite of rare incidence, PHNET should be considered as a possible diagnosis when lacking a confirmative pathology result, even when sufficient evidence of typical presentation exist to establish the clinical diagnosis of HCC.

Combination of transarterial chemoembolization and sorafenib improves outcomes of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of combination therapy of transarterial chemoembolization and sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma are controversial in some studies. This meta-analysis aims to compare efficacy and safety, as well as regional disparities, between transarterial chemoembolization plus sorafenib and transarterial chemotherapy alone for hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: We systematically searched multiple databases to select eligible studies. Studies comparing transarterial chemoembolization plus sorafenib and transarterial chemoembolization alone for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma were included. RESULTS: Thirteen studies including five randomized clinical trials with 2538 patients (1121 in combination therapy group and 1417 in monotherapy group) were selected. The combination therapy significantly improved time to progression (hazard ratio 0.66; 95% confidence interval 0.48-0.89; P = 0.006) and overall survival (hazard ratio 0.57; 95% confidence interval 0.45-0.72; P < 0.001) in Asian region but not in non-Asian countries (overall survival: hazard ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.73-1.20; time to progression: hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.73-1.60). Additionally, disease control rate also favored combination therapy (hazard ratio 1.30; 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.69; P = 0.05), which simultaneously caused higher incidences of adverse events, including hand-foot skin reaction (relative ratio 7.03; 95% confidence interval 4.77-10.37), hematological events (relative ratio 3.14; 95% confidence interval 0.99-10.01), diarrhea (relative ratio 2.75; 95% confidence interval 1.74-4.35), hypertension (relative ratio 2.58; 95% confidence interval 1.33-4.99), rash (relative ratio 2.87; 95% confidence interval 1.86-4.43) and alopecia (relative ratio 4.88; 95% confidence interval 1.67-14.13). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of transarterial chemoembolizaiton and sorafenib significantly improves outcomes of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma compared with transarterial chemoembolization monotherapy, especially in Asian region.

Water exchange versus air insufflation for colonoscopy: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To compare water exchange (WE) method with conventional air insufflation (AI) method for colonoscopy, evaluating the technical quality, screening efficacy, and patients' acceptance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing WE colonoscopy with AI colonoscopy. The pooled data of procedure-associated and patient-related outcomes were assessed, using the weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous variables and relative risk (RR) with 95% CI for dichotomous variables, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies involving 7056 patients were included. The cecum intubation rate was similar between WE and AI methods (RR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.99-1.02,P = 0.37); however, a significantly longer cecum intubation time was shown in WE group (WMD = 1.56, 95% CI = 0.75-2.37,P = 0.002). Compared with AI, WE was associated with a higher risk of adenoma detection rate (ADR) (RR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.18-1.38,P < 0.00001) and polyp detection rate (PDR) (RR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.21-1.39,P < 0.00001). Patients in WE group experienced significantly less maximum pain score (WMD = -1.99, 95% CI = -2.68 to -1.30,P < 0.00001) and less requested on-demand sedation (RR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.44-0.77,P = 0.0002). Likewise, they also experienced less abdominal compression (RR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.51-0.74,P < 0.00001) and reposition (RR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.63-0.86,P = 0.0001). Moreover, patients' willingness to repeat colonoscopy was significantly greater for WE (RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.07-1.21,P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis confirmed that WE method could significantly increase ADR/PDR and improve patients' acceptance of colonoscopy, while reducing the degree of pain and minimize the need for on-demand sedation and adjunct maneuvers, despite requiring more cecal intubation time.

Thiazolidinediones and risk of colorectal cancer in patients with diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis.

Background/Aims: A growing body of evidence has suggested that thiazolidinediones (TZDs) potentially reduce the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of TZDs on CRC risk in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). Patients and Methods: A systematic search of electronic databases was performed for studies evaluating the exposure to TZDs and reporting CRC risk in diabetic patients. Pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using fixed or random effects models. Results: A total of 10 observational studies reporting more than 18,972 CRC cases in 2,470,768 DM patients were included. Meta-analysis showed a 9% reduction in CRC risk associated with TZDs use in all studies [relative risk (RR) =0.91, 95% CI = 0.84-0.99, P = 0.03] and cohort studies (RR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.80-0.99, P = 0.04), respectively. However, such effect was not shown in case-control studies. In subgroup analyses, lower CRC risk was found in Asian population (RR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.29-0.53, P = 0.00), and a trend toward lower CRC risk was observed in US population (RR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.88-1.01, P = 0.08). CRC risk was significantly modified with non-pioglitazone TZD use (RR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.82-0.95, P = 0.00), but not with pioglitazone use (RR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.89-1.01, P = 0.11). No significant difference was observed with cancer site (colon or rectum). There was considerable inherent heterogeneity across studies, partly explained by study location. Conclusions: This meta-analysis supports a protective association between TZDs use and CRC risk in patients with DM. Future well-designed prospective studies with larger cohorts would be needed to understand this association better.

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation vs endoscopic sphincterotomy for retrieval of common bile duct stones: a meta-analysis.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) in retrieval of common bile duct stones (≥ 10 mm). METHODS: PubMed, Web of Knowledge, EBSCO, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched for eligible studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared EPLBD with EST were identified. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers using the same criteria. Any disagreement was discussed with a third reviewer until a final consensus was reached. Pooled outcomes of complete bile duct stone clearance, stone clearance in one session, requirement for mechanical lithotripsy, and overall complication rate were determined using relative risk and 95%CI. The separate post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography complications were pooled and determined with the Peto odds ratio and 95%CI because of the small number of events. Heterogeneity was evaluated with the chi-squared test with P ≤ 0.1 and I(2) with a cutoff of ≥ 50%. A fixed effects model was used primarily. A random effects model was applied when significant heterogeneity was detected. Sensitivity analysis was applied to explore the potential bias. RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials with 621 participants were included. EPLBD compared with EST had similar outcomes with regard to complete stone removal rate (93.7% vs 92.5%, P = 0.54) and complete duct clearance in one session (82.2% vs 77.7%, P = 0.17). Mechanical lithotripsy was performed less in EPLBD in the retrieval of whole stones (15.5% vs 25.2%, P = 0.003), as well as in the stratified subgroup of stones larger than 15 mm (24.2% vs 40%, P = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of overall adverse events (7.9% vs 10.7%, P = 0.25), post-ERCP pancreatitis (4.0% vs 5.0%, P = 0.54), hemorrhage (1.7% vs 2.8%, P = 0.32), perforation (0.3% vs 0.9%, P = 0.35) or acute cholangitis (1.3% vs 1.3%, P = 0.92). CONCLUSION: EPLBD could be advocated as an alternative to EST in the retrieval of large common bile duct stones.