Long-term failure after endovascular aneurysm sealing in a real-life, single-center experience with the Nellix endograft.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) is an innovative alternative to conventional endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). EVAS relies on sac anchoring without proximal fixation to achieve sealing and should have allowed for the treatment of a broader range of anatomic features compared with standard EVAR. Despite the encouraging early reports, the mid- and long-term follow-up data have shown increased rates of failure. To address the issue, the manufacturer introduced revised instructions for use (IFU) in 2016. The present study reports the outcomes of this system after a median follow-up of 45 months. METHODS: Data for all patients electively treated with EVAS at our institution were retrospectively collected. The patients were retrospectively reclassified according to the 2016 revised IFU of the device. All patients in the present series had undergone EVAS for the treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). The primary end point was therapeutic failure: graft migration >5 mm, sac expansion >5 mm, type IA endoleak (Is2 and Is3 using the Van den Ham classification), type Ib endoleak, and secondary rupture. The overall mortality, aortic-related mortality, and reintervention rates were also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients had undergone elective treatment by EVAS from 2013 to 2018 for infrarenal AAAs. The median follow-up was 3.75 years. Therapeutic failure was observed in 31 of the 101 patients (30.7%), with no significant difference between the in-IFU and off-IFU 2016 subgroups. Failure occurred at a median interval of 34 months from the index procedure. Of the 101 patients, 6.9% had presented with secondary rupture. Freedom from aneurysm-related mortality was 96.9% at 1 and 2 years and 89.9% at 5 years. Freedom from reintervention decreased over time: 94.7% at 1 year, 77% at 4 years, and 52.1% at 6 years. Of the 101 patients, 14 (13.9%) had undergone emergent or elective graft explantation. CONCLUSIONS: EVAS performed worse than conventional endografts for several critical end points, regardless of any preoperative anatomic parameters. The incidence of therapeutic failures tended to increase over time, especially 4 years after the index procedure.

Whole body MRI with qualitative and quantitative analysis of DWI for assessment of bone marrow involvement in lymphoma.

AIM: Our study aimed to investigate the role of qualitative and quantitative whole body MRI with DWI for assessment of bone marrow involvement (BMI) in newly diagnosed lymphoma using FDG PET-CT and bone marrow biopsy (BMB) as reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 56 patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma (21 Hodgkin's lymphoma and 35 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) who underwent random unilateral BMB, FDG PET-CT and Wb-MRI-DWI for initial staging. In a patient-based analysis, results of Wb-MRI-DWI were compared with FDG PET-CT and BMB. For quantitative analysis, mean ADC values of posterior iliac crest were correlated with BMI and bone marrow cellularity. RESULTS: WB-MR-DWI obtained excellent concordance with FDG PET-CT both in HL (k = 1.000; 95% CI 1.000-1.000) and in DLBCL (k = 1.000; 95% CI 1.000-1.000). In other NHL, WB-MRI-DWI obtained a good correlation with BMB (k = 0.611; 95% CI 0.295-0.927) while FDG PET-CT had poor concordance (k = 0.067; 95% CI 0.372-0.505). WB-MR-DWI has no false negative errors but 4 false positive results consisting in focal lesions consensually reported by FDG PET-CT and resolved after therapy. No significant correlation between ADC mean value and BMI was found (p = 0.0586). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that Wb-MRI-DWI is a valid technique for BMI assessment in lymphoma patients, thanks to its excellent concordance with FDG PET-CT and good concordance with BMB (superior than FDG PET-CT). If further investigations will confirm our results on larger patient groups, it could become a useful tool in the clinical workup.