Sorafenib in elderly patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a case series.

OBJECTIVE: The management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in elderly patients is significantly more complicated than in younger patients because of medical comorbidities, advanced status at diagnosis, reduced liver function and altered drug pharmacokinetics. Our objective was a revision of the charts of unselected elderly patients with HCC being treated with a reduced starting dose of sorafenib. METHODS: Activity, adverse events and quality of life were evaluated during the treatment. Sixty patients (47 males and 13 females) aged more than 70 years old (range 70-90, median 76 years) were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: One complete and one partial response were achieved in the series (overall response rate 3.3%). Stable disease accounted for 76.6% (46 out of 60 patients). The disease control rate (complete plus partial response plus stable disease) was 80%. Median time to progression (TTP) was 7.0 months (95% CI, 5.2-8.7 months) and median survival was 10.0 months (95% CI, 5.0-14.9 months). Thrombosis correlated to TTP. Full doses of sora-fenib were reached in 11 out of 60 patients (18.3%). The evaluation of quality of life did not show any significant change during the study. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib at a reduced dose can be safely used in elderly HCC patients with maintenance of activity and increased tolerability.

The development of autoverification rules applied to urinalysis performed on the AutionMAX-SediMAX platform.

BACKGROUND: Fully automated urine analyzers integrated with expert software can help to select samples that need review in routine clinical laboratory. This study aimed to define review rules to be set in the expert software Director for routine urinalysis on the AutionMAX-SediMAX platform. METHODS: A set of 1002 urinalysis data randomly extracted from the daily routine was used. The blind on-screen assessment was used as a reference. The data set was used to optimize the standard rules preset in the software to establish review criteria useful to intercept automated microscopy misidentification and particles suggestive of clinically significant profile. The review rate was calculated. The rules-set was also evaluated for the selection of clinically significant samples. RESULTS: The review rules established were cross-checked between AutionMAX and SediMAX parameters, element reporting by SediMAX and strip results. For the complete rules-set the review rate was 47.6% and the efficiency for clinically significant sample selection was 58%. Finally, on the basis of the review rules an algorithm for routine practice was created. CONCLUSIONS: Review rules applied to the algorithm for routine practice enhance workflow efficiency and optimize sample screening. Revision is not necessary for samples not flagged by the rules.