Improving pain control during transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma performed under local anesthesia with multimodal analgesia.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of a reinforced analgesic protocol (RAP) on pain control in patients undergoing conventional trans-arterial chemoembolization (cTACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-one consecutive patients (57 men, 24 women) with a mean age of 69 ± 10 (standard deviation) years (age range: 49-92 years) underwent 103 cTACEs. Standard antalgic protocol (50 mg hydroxyzine, 10 mg oxycodone, 8 mg ondansetron, and lidocaine for local anesthesia) was prospectively compared to a RAP (standard + 40 mg 2-h infusion nefopam and 50 mg tramadol). The individual pain risk was stratified based on age, the presence of cirrhosis and alcoholic liver disease, and patients were assigned to a low-risk group (standard protocol) or high-risk group (RAP). The primary endpoint was severe periprocedural abdominal pain (SAP), defined as a visual analog scale score ≥30/100. A predefined intermediate analysis was performed to monitor the benefit-risk of the RAP. Based on the intermediate analysis, all patients were treated with the RAP. RESULTS: The intermediate analysis performed after 52 cTACE showed that 2/17 (12%) high-risk patients (i.e., those receiving the RAP) experienced SAP compared to 15/35 (43%) low-risk patients (odds ratio [OR] = 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.02-0.98; P = 0.03). Analysis of all procedures showed that 12/67 (18%) patients in cTACE receiving the RAP experienced SAP compared to 15/36 (42%) patients who did not receive it (OR = 3.27; 95% CI: 1.32-8.14; P = 0.01). There were no statistical differences in adverse events, particularly for nausea, between groups. CONCLUSION: Reinforcing the analgesic protocol by combining non-opioid and opioid molecules reduces perioperative pain in patients undergoing cTACE for HCC.

Health-related quality of life in locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated by either radioembolisation or sorafenib (SARAH trial).

BACKGROUND: The aim of this ancillary study of the SARAH trial is to compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with locally advanced or inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with transarterial radioembolisation (TARE) or sorafenib. METHODS: This study included randomised patients who received either TARE or at least one dose of sorafenib with no major deviation in the protocol and who had at least one QoL follow-up assessment in addition to the baseline evaluation. QoL was assessed from the date of randomisation using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire, until disease progression or other reasons for stopping study participation. Data were analysed using linear mixed and time-dependent models. RESULTS: A total of 285 patients were included (122 and 163, in the TARE and sorafenib groups, respectively). Questionnaire completion rates were similar (77.5% versus 80.4%, in the TARE and sorafenib groups, respectively, p = 0.25). Longitudinal HRQoL analysis showed a significant treatment and time effects for fatigue and global health status, and significant treatment, time and treatment by time interaction effects for appetite loss, diarrhoea and social functioning. The median time to deterioration for the global health status was 3.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.7-4.3) versus 2.6 months (95% CI 2.0-3.0) in the TARE and sorafenib groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL was preserved longer with TARE than with sorafenib in locally advanced HCC. These data could be used to optimise management of patients with advanced or inoperable HCC.

Study of Thoracic CT in COVID-19: The STOIC Project.

Background There are conflicting data regarding the diagnostic performance of chest CT for COVID-19 pneumonia. Disease extent at CT has been reported to influence prognosis. Purpose To create a large publicly available data set and assess the diagnostic and prognostic value of CT in COVID-19 pneumonia. Materials and Methods This multicenter, observational, retrospective cohort study involved 20 French university hospitals. Eligible patients presented at the emergency departments of the hospitals involved between March 1 and April 30th, 2020, and underwent both thoracic CT and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for suspected COVID-19 pneumonia. CT images were read blinded to initial reports, RT-PCR, demographic characteristics, clinical symptoms, and outcome. Readers classified CT scans as either positive or negative for COVID-19 based on criteria published by the French Society of Radiology. Multivariable logistic regression was used to develop a model predicting severe outcome (intubation or death) at 1-month follow-up in patients positive for both RT-PCR and CT, using clinical and radiologic features. Results Among 10 930 patients screened for eligibility, 10 735 (median age, 65 years; interquartile range, 51-77 years; 6147 men) were included and 6448 (60%) had a positive RT-PCR result. With RT-PCR as reference, the sensitivity and specificity of CT were 80.2% (95% CI: 79.3, 81.2) and 79.7% (95% CI: 78.5, 80.9), respectively, with strong agreement between junior and senior radiologists (Gwet AC1 coefficient, 0.79). Of all the variables analyzed, the extent of pneumonia at CT (odds ratio, 3.25; 95% CI: 2.71, 3.89) was the best predictor of severe outcome at 1 month. A score based solely on clinical variables predicted a severe outcome with an area under the curve of 0.64 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.66), improving to 0.69 (95% CI: 0.6, 0.71) when it also included the extent of pneumonia and coronary calcium score at CT. Conclusion Using predefined criteria, CT reading is not influenced by reader's experience and helps predict the outcome at 1 month. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04355507 Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Rubin in this issue.