Hand-Foot Syndrome and Post-Progression Treatment Are the Good Predictors of Better Survival in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Sorafenib: A Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between treatment outcomes and hand-foot syndrome (HFS), and the relationship between survival rate and post-progression treatment after sorafenib therapy. METHODS: The study assessed 314 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with sorafenib at 5 general hospitals in Kagawa Prefecture, Japan. RESULTS: At the start of sorafenib therapy, 23.6% of the patients had HCC of a Child-Pugh class other than A. The initial sorafenib dose was 800 mg in 9.2% of the patients and 400 mg in 64.3%. Time to progression was 129 days (95% CI: 87.3-170.7) and the median overall survival (OS) was 392 days (95% CI: 316.0-468.0). The OS of the patients with Child-Pugh class A HCC was significantly better than that of the patients with Child-Pugh class B HCC (p < 0.0001). The survival curves for Child-Pugh class A-5 points and class A-6 points were significantly different, with that for class A-5 points being better (p < 0.0001). A significant difference was observed between the patients who exhibited HFS and those who did not, with the former exhibiting a better survival rate (p < 0.001). In addition, the survival rate of the patients who received post-progression treatment after sorafenib therapy was significantly better than that of the patients who did not (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In sorafenib therapy, patients with HFS and those who received post-progression treatment exhibited good OS.

[A case report of suspected Stauffer syndrome presenting with fever, extensive inflammation, and abnormal liver function tests].

A man was referred to our hospital because of malaise and abnormal liver function tests. He had had a kidney removed for early renal cell carcinoma. We performed ultrasonography, CT scan, and liver biopsy, all of which were normal. However, FDG-PET revealed abnormal, diffuse uptake in the bone. A bone biopsy showed abnormal clear cells resembling renal cell carcinoma. Because there was no other primary origin, this histopathological finding led to the diagnosis of bone metastasis of renal cell carcinoma, and the abnormal liver function test was thus inferred to be due to Stauffer syndrome.

The Efficacy of Sonazoid-enhanced Ultrasonography in Decision-making for Liver Abscess Treatment.

Objective The usefulness of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) for making decisions in the treatment of liver abscess is unknown. Methods We evaluated the internal blood flow in the arterial-predominant phase by CEUS using Sonazoid® in 21 patients. The stain area rate was evaluated in maximum parting plane of abscess in CEUS. Patients were divided into two groups: the vascular phase enhancement (VE) group, in which ≥50% of the abscess cavity was enhanced (12 patients), and the vascular phase non-enhancement (VNE) group, in which <50% of the abscess cavity was enhanced (9 patients). The rate of patients who were cured by conservative treatment alone was examined in both groups. The defect rate of all liver abscesses in the post-vascular phase was also evaluated. Results In the VE group, improvement by conservative treatment alone was obtained in 11 out of 12 patients (91.7%), while in the VNE group, improvement by conservative treatment alone was obtained in only 1 out of 9 patients (11.1%), a significant difference (p<0.001). In the VE group, one patient did not improve with conservative treatment alone because the abscess ruptured near the liver surface. In the VE group, the abscess size was smaller than in the VNE group. By examining the defect rate in the post-vascular phase, it was found that 16 out of 21 patients (76.2%) showed 71% or more defects. Conclusion The enhancement rate in the arterial-predominant phase of CEUS was considered useful for determining the treatment approach for liver abscess.

Efficacy of 1.2 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparations.

BACKGROUND: A low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution that combines ascorbic acid with PEG-based electrolyte solution (PEG-ASC) is gaining mainstream acceptance for bowel preparation due to reduced volume and improved taste. Although several reports showed that bowel preparation with PEG-ASC volume lower than 2.0 L with laxative agents could be an alternative to traditional preparation regimen, the cleansing protocols have not been fully investigated. AIM: To evaluate the cleansing efficacy of 1.2 L PEG-ASC solution comparing with 2.0 L PEG electrolyte (PEG-ELS) for bowel preparations. METHODS: A randomized, single-blinded, open-label, single-center, non-inferiority study was conducted. In total, 312 Japanese adult patients (aged > 18 years) who underwent colonoscopy were enrolled. Patients were randomly allocated to bowel lavage with either 1.2 L of PEG-ASC solution with at least 0.6 L of an additional clear fluid (1.2 L PEG-ASC group) or 2.0 L of PEG-ELS (PEG-ELS group). Then, 48 mg of sennoside was administered at bedtime on the day before colonoscopy, and the designated drug solution was administered at the hospital on the day of colonoscopy. Bowel cleansing was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). The volume of fluid intake and required time for bowel preparation were evaluated. Furthermore, compliance, patient tolerance, and overall acceptability were evaluated using a patient questionnaire, which was assessed using a visual analog scale. RESULTS: In total, 291 patients (1.2 L PEG-ASC group, 148; PEG-ELS group, 143) completed the study. There was no significant difference in successful cleansing, defined as a BBPS score ≥ 2 in each segment, between the two groups (1.2 L PEG-ASC group, 91.9%; PEG-ELS group, 90.2%; 95%CI: -0.03-0.09). The required time for bowel preparation was significantly shorter (164.95 min ± 68.95 min vs 202.16 min ± 68.69 min, P < 0.001) and the total fluid intake volume was significantly lower (2.23 L ± 0.55 L vs 2.47 L ± 0.56 L, P < 0.001) in the 1.2 L PEG-ASC group than in the PEG-ELS group. Palatability, acceptability of the volume of solution, and overall acceptability evaluated using a patient questionnaire, which was assessed by the visual analog scale, were significantly better in the 1.2 L PEG-ASC group than in the PEG-ELS group (7.70 cm ± 2.57 cm vs 5.80 cm ± 3.24 cm, P < 0.001). No severe adverse event was observed in each group. CONCLUSION: The 1.2 L PEG-ASC solution was non-inferior to the 2.0 L PEG-ELS solution in terms of cleansing efficacy and had better acceptability among Japanese patients.