Antineoplastic chemotherapy and immunosuppression in liver transplant recipients: Squaring the circle?

BACKGROUND: Malignancies are a major cause of late death after liver transplantation (LT). In LT recipients presenting a malignancy, antineoplastic chemotherapy is central part of the therapeutic arsenal, but management of both immunosuppressive and antineoplastic chemotherapy can be very challenging. The aim of the present retrospective study was to describe a recent single center cohort of LT recipients treated with antineoplastic cytotoxic chemotherapy. METHODS: All LT recipients who received antineoplastic chemotherapy in our center between 2005 and 2021 were included. RESULTS: The study population included 72 antineoplastic chemotherapy courses in 69 patients. There was a majority of men (81.9%); median age at LT was 54.9 (range 1-68) and was 63.0 (18-79) at the diagnosis of malignancy. Lung carcinomas (23.6%), head and neck carcinomas (20.8%), lymphomas (16.7%), and recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (8.3%) were the most frequent malignancies. Neoadjuvant (30.6%), adjuvant (12.5%) or palliative (54.2%) chemotherapy was performed. Immunosuppressive regimen was modified from a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-based to an everolimus-based regimen (63.5% of CNI discontinuation). Median survival after diagnosis of malignancy was 22.5 months and 5-year survival was 30.1%. Chemotherapy regimen was considered optimal in 81.9% of the cases. Multivariate analysis disclosed that non-PTLD N+ stage malignancy (HR = 5.52 95%CI [1.40;21.69], p = .014), non-PTLD M+ stage malignancy (HR = 10.55 95%CI [3.20;34.73], p = .0001), and suboptimal chemotherapy (HR = 2.73 95%CI [1.34;5.56], p = .005) were significantly associated with poorer prognosis. No rejection episode occurred during chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The present study is the first one focused on antineoplastic chemotherapy in LT recipients. Our results suggest that immunosuppressive drugs and antineoplastic chemotherapy can be managed satisfactorily in most cases but this needs confirmation from larger cohorts.

Reducing pain by using venous blood gas instead of arterial blood gas (VEINART): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Venous sampling for blood gas analysis has been suggested as an alternative to arterial sampling in order to reduce pain. The main objective was to compare pain induced by venous and arterial sampling and to assess whether the type of sampling would affect clinical management or not. METHODS: We performed an open-label randomised multicentre prospective study in four French EDs during a 4-week period. Non-hypoxaemic adults, whose medical management required blood gas analysis, were randomly allocated using a computer-generated randomisation list stratified by centres with an allocation ratio of 1:1 using random blocks to one of the two arms: venous or arterial sampling. The primary outcome was the maximal pain during sampling, using the visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes pertained to ease of sampling as rated by the nurse drawing the blood, and physician satisfaction regarding usefulness of biochemical data. RESULTS: 113 patients were included: 55 in the arterial and 58 in the venous sampling group. The mean maximal pain was 40.5 mm±24.9 mm and 22.6 mm±20.2 mm in the arterial group and the venous group, respectively, accounting for a mean difference of 17.9 mm (95% CI 9.6 to 26.3) (p<0.0001). Ease of blood sampling was greater in the venous group as compared with the arterial group (p=0.02). The usefulness of the results, evaluated by the prescriber, did not significantly differ (p=0.25). CONCLUSIONS: Venous blood gas is less painful for patients than ABG in non-hypoxaemic patients. Venous blood gas should replace ABG in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03784664.