A real-world study of tyrosine kinase inhibitors plus anti-PD-1 immunotherapy with or without chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma patients with main portal vein invasion.

BACKGROUND: Although systemic therapies are recommended for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with main portal vein (MPV) invasion and preserved liver function, the outcome is limited. In the real-world, chemoembolization is a commonly used local treatment for advanced HCC. PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the additional chemoembolization treatment yields survival benefits compared to systemic therapy for HCC patients with MPV invasion and preserved liver function (Child-Pugh score ≤ B7) in a real-world study from multiple centers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 2020 and December 2022, 91 consecutive HCC patients with MPV invasion who received either systemic medical therapy (i.e., tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) plus anti-PD-1 immunotherapy, S group, n = 43) or in combination with chemoembolization treatment (S-T group, n = 48) from five centers were enrolled in the study. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), and the secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and treatment response. Adverse events (AEs) related to treatment were also recorded. Survival curves were constructed with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The mean number of chemoembolization sessions per patient was 2.1 (range 1-3). The median OS was 10.0 months and 8.0 months in the S-T group and S group, respectively (P = 0.254). The median PFS between the two groups was similar (4.0 months vs. 4.0 months, P = 0.404). The disease control rate between the S-T and S groups were comparable (60.4% vs. 62.8%, P = 0.816). Although no chemoembolization-related deaths occurred, 13 grade 3-4 AEs occurred in the S-T group. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the real-world study demonstrated that additional chemoembolization treatment did not yield survival benefits compared to TKIs plus anti-PD-1 immunotherapy for the overall patients with advanced HCC and MPV invasion.

Comparison of total percutaneous in situ microneedle puncture and chimney technique for left subclavian artery fenestration in thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of totally percutaneous in situ microneedle puncture for left subclavian artery (LSA) fenestration (ISMF) and chimney technique in type B aortic dissection (TBAD) during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on patients who underwent either chimney-TEVAR (n = 89) or ISMF-TEVAR (n = 113) from October 2018 to April 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcomes were mortality and major complications at 30 days and during follow-up. RESULTS: The technical success rate was 84.3% in the chimney group and 93.8% in the ISMF group (p = 0.027). The incidence of immediate endoleakage was significantly higher in the chimney than ISMF group (15.7% vs 6.2%, respectively; p = 0.027). The 1- and 3-year survival rates in the chimney and ISMF groups were 98.9% ± 1.1% vs 98.1% ± 0.9% and 86.5% ± 6.3% vs 92.6% ± 4.1%, respectively (log-rank p = 0.715). The 3-year rate of cumulative freedom from branch occlusion in the chimney and ISMF group was 95.4% ± 2.3% vs 100%, respectively (log-rank p = 0.023). CONCLUSION: Both ISMF-TEVAR and chimney-TEVAR achieved satisfactory short- and mid-term outcomes for the preservation of the LSA in patients with TBAD. ISMF-TEVAR appears to offer better clinical outcomes with higher patency and lower reintervention rates. However, ISMF-TEVAR had longer operation times with higher procedure expenses. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: When LSA revascularization is required during TEVAR, in situ, fenestration, and chimney techniques are all safe and effective methods; in situ, fenestration-TEVAR appears to offer better clinical outcomes, but takes longer and is more complicated. KEY POINTS: LSA revascularization during TEVAR reduces post-operative complication rates. Both in situ ISMF-TEVAR and chimney-TEVAR are safe and effective techniques for the preservation of the LSA during TEVAR. The chimney technique is associated with a higher incidence of endoleakage and branch occlusion, but ISMF-TEVAR is a more complicated and expensive technique.

Percutaneous In Situ Microneedle Puncture Fenestration via the Left Subclavian Artery for branched Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair.

This study explored the feasibility of a totally percutaneous approach to perform in situ microneedle puncture fenestration during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) via access from the left subclavian artery (LSA). In total, 23 patients with either thoracic aortic dissection or thoracic aortic aneurysm were treated with in situ LSA fenestration during TEVAR. The procedure was technically successful in all the patients. No serious complications occurred during a mean 9-month follow-up period. In situ microneedle puncture fenestration during TEVAR via the LSA is a feasible and effective method for LSA reconstruction.

The PPRD score stratifies patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and portal vein tumor thrombus treated with sorafenib plus transarterial chemoembolization.

OBJECTIVES: To identify clinical prognostic and predictive factors in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT) undergoing sorafenib plus transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and establish a prognostic score for these patients. METHODS: Between January 2012 and December 2017, 184 consecutive patients with HCC and PVTT were concurrently treated with sorafenib and TACE. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to explore the clinical factors independently correlated with overall survival (OS). A prognostic score was then developed to identify different prognoses in an initial cohort and validated in an external cohort (n = 72). RESULTS: In the multivariate analysis, performance status, extension of PVTT, initial radiological response, and sorafenib-related dermatologic toxicity were identified as predictors associated with OS. These factors were used to develop a prognostic score (PPRD score, range from 0 to 11). The median survival was found to decrease as the PPRD score increased, and patients were stratified into a favorable group (0 points), intermediate group (1-4 points), and dismal group (> 4 points). The median survival of patients in the three groups was 34.0 months, 20.0 months, and 7.0 months, respectively (p < 0.001). Additionally, the time to progression (TTP) (p < 0.001) was stratified along the same prognostic groups. The external validation cohort confirmed the prognostic scores. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed score system can accurately stratify the outcomes of patients with HCC and PVTT treated with sorafenib plus TACE to help identify which group of patients may benefit from treatment. KEY POINTS: • The survival benefits of patients with advanced HCC treated with sorafenib plus TACE remains controversial. • The independent factors associated with survival were identified to develop a prognostic score, called the PPRD score (standing for performance status, PVTT grade, radiological response, and sorafenib-related dermatologic toxicity); the median survival decreases as the score increases. • The scoring system can accurately stratify the survival benefits of patients with HCC and PVTT treated with combination therapy and help to identify which group of patients may benefit from the treatment. Graphical abstract.

Percutaneous Treatment of Benign Biliary Anastomotic Strictures: Retrievable Covered Self-Expandable Metal Stent with Fixation String Versus Large-Bore Catheters.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare the safety and efficacy of a covered self-expandable metal stent (CSEMS) with a transhepatic fixation string and a large-bore catheter for benign biliary anastomotic stricture after hepatobiliary surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From March 2012 to June 2017, 49 patients with benign biliary anastomotic strictures, untreatable with endoscopy, were included. Twenty-three patients (catheter group) were treated with a large-bore catheter (with progressive catheter upsizing to 16-18 Fr), whereas 26 patients (stent group) were treated by CSEMS (10-mm stent) placement. Technical success, clinical success, primary patency, recurrent strictures, complication rate, and catheter or stent indwelling time were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Technical success and clinical success were achieved in all patients. In the stent group, stent retrieval was successful in all patients. The overall complication rate was 24.5% (catheter group vs. stent group, 30.4% vs. 19.2%; P = .363). Stent migration occurred in 1 patient during follow-up (1/26, 3.8%). The mean indwelling time was 10.3 ± 3.0 months (range, 8-16 months; median, 10 months) in the catheter group and 4.0 ± 1.2 months (range, 3-7 months; median, 4 months) in the stent group (P < .001). Recurrent strictures occurred in 10 (43.5%) patients in the catheter group and 4 (15.4%) patients in the stent group (P = .030). The 1- and 3-year primary patency rates were 82.6% and 69.3% in the catheter group and 92.3% and 84.4% in the stent group (P = .042). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous placement of a retrievable CSEMS showed superior intermediate-term outcomes over a large-bore catheter in patients with benign biliary anastomotic strictures.

Apatinib treatment may improve survival outcomes of patients with hepatitis B virus-related sorafenib-resistant hepatocellular carcinoma.

AIMS: This study aimed to (a) assess the effectiveness and safety of apatinib as a subsequent treatment for patients with sorafenib-resistant hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and (b) identify the clinical factors influencing their treatment outcomes. METHODS: The electronic medical records of consecutive patients with newly diagnosed advanced HCC treated with first-line sorafenib from 2015 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who were confirmed to have primary resistance to sorafenib were enrolled in this study. The outcomes of patients treated with apatinib were compared with those of patients who received supportive care. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 92 patients with sorafenib-resistant advanced HCC (84 men and 8 women; mean age, 51.9 years) were included. All patients had an etiology of hepatitis B. The median OS in the overall cohort was 5.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.9, 6.0]. Of 92 patients, 58 (63.0%) were treated with apatinib, and 34 (37.0%) received supportive care. Apatinib treatment was associated with longer survival times than supportive care for patients with sorafenib-resistant advanced HCC (median OS: 7.0 versus 4.0 months, p < 0.001). The results of the multivariate analysis demonstrated that liver tumor load [hazard ratio (HR): 3.653, 95% CI: 2.047, 5.965, p < 0.001] and extrahepatic spread (HR: 0.303, 95% CI: 0.231, 0.778, p = 0.003) were independent predictors of OS after apatinib treatment. CONCLUSION: This study showed that subsequent apatinib treatment may improve survival outcomes compared with supportive care for patients with sorafenib-resistant, advanced hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related HCC, especially for patients who have a lower liver tumor load and extrahepatic spread.

Embolization of high-output idiopathic renal arteriovenous fistula primarily using an atrial septal defect occluder via venous access: a case report.

BACKGROUND: The case report is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of embolization of a high-output idiopathic renal arteriovenous fistula (IRAVF) with an atrial septal defect occluder (ASDO) via venous access. CASE PRESENTATION: A 57-year-old male diagnosed with high-output IRAVF received embolization with an ASDO via renal venous access and compact occlusion with 3 vascular plugs and a detachable elastic coil. The IRAVF was successfully occluded. After a follow-up of 2 months, renal arterial computed tomography angiography (CTA) showed the precise location of the ASDO. No complications were observed after 2 years' follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Based on present results, embolization of a high-output IRAVF with an ASDO via venous access might be an efficient and safe method.