Is de novo hepatocellular carcinoma after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt increased?

BACKGROUND: Portal hypertension is a major complication of liver cirrhosis. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt is effective in treatment of portal hypertension. However, decreased parenchymal portal venous flow after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt insertion favours ischaemic liver injury which has been discussed to induce hepatocarcinogenesis causing hepatocellular cancer. AIM: This study aimed to explore the association between transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement and the development of hepatocellular cancer. METHODS: A total of 1338 consecutive liver cirrhosis patients were included in this retrospective study between January 2004-December 2015. Data were analysed with regard to development of hepatocellular cancer during follow-up. Binary logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses were conducted for the assessment of risk factors for hepatocellular cancer development. In a second step, to rule out confounders of group heterogeneity, case-control matching was performed based on gender, age, model of end-stage liver disease score and underlying cause of cirrhosis (non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, alcoholic liver disease and viral hepatitis). RESULTS: Besides established risk factors such as older age, male gender and underlying viral hepatitis, statistical analysis revealed the absence of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt insertion as a risk factor for hepatocellular cancer development. Furthermore, matched-pair analysis of 432 patients showed a significant difference (p = 0.003) in the emergence of hepatocellular cancer regarding transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt placement versus the non-transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt cohort. CONCLUSION: In patients with end-stage liver disease, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt insertion is significantly associated with reduced rates of hepatocellular cancer development.

Novel score for prediction of malignant bile duct obstruction based on biochemical and clinical markers.

BACKGROUND: Early differentiation of malignant from benign bile duct obstruction is of utmost importance. AIM: To identify biochemical and clinical predictors for malignancy in patients with bile duct obstruction, and establish a predictive model by combining pre-treatment patient characteristics. A web-based application was developed for easy assessment of malignant bile duct probability (www.pmal-score.org). METHODS: One thousand hundred and thirty-five patients [median age 66 (52-75) years, 53% male] with bile duct obstruction of various aetiologies were retrospectively evaluated at our tertiary referral centre. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified factors as independently significant for malignant bile duct obstruction. A predictive risk score was established using ROC analysis and applied to an external validation cohort of 101 patients. RESULTS: Three hundred and ninety-four patients had malignant bile duct obstruction proven by surgery, while in 741 patients benign obstruction was observed. Multivariate analysis identified various clinical factors to be predictive for malignancy. On the basis of eight predictors, a risk score for malignancy was developed [X = 0.025 * [age] + 1.239 * [1 if weight loss, otherwise 0] - 0.235 * [1 if pain, otherwise 0] + 0.649 * [1 if diabetes, otherwise 0] + 0.896 * [1 if jaundice, otherwise 0] + 0.109 * [bilirubin] + 0.0007 * [γ-GT] + 0.0003 * [AP] - 4.374]: A significant correlation between the predicted malignancy and the actual malignancy was found by ROC (AUC: 0.862; 95% CI 0.838-0.886, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This predictive risk score estimates the risk of malignancy in patients with bile duct obstruction, and it seems to be very accurate. A better prediction enables both earlier diagnosis of malignant obstructive disease and improved management of patients with bile duct obstruction, which may result in reduced morbidity and mortality.

Colon capsule endoscopy versus standard colonoscopy in assessing disease activity of ulcerative colitis: a prospective trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of our study was to compare colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) with standard colonoscopy (SC) in the assessment of mucosal disease activity and localization of inflammatory colonic mucosa in patients with known ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: Thirteen symptomatic patients (8 males, 5 females, mean age 38.5 ± 12.0 years) with known UC (mean duration of colitis: 9.7 ± 8.1 years) and indication for endoscopy due to suspected disease activity were included. All patients underwent CCE (first generation capsule, Given Imaging Ltd., Yokneam, Israel) on day 1 followed by SC on day 2 in a single center non-randomized, non-placebo-controlled diagnostic study (NCT00837304). SC and CCE were video recorded, and analysis was independently performed by 6 experienced endoscopists. The modified Rachmilewitz score was calculated, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analysis. Difference in recognition of disease activity by the endoscopists was assessed by application of the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Assessment of disease activity revealed a significantly higher Rachmilewitz score of 7.3 ± 2.9 in the SC group compared to 4.8 ± 3.4 in the CCE group. Significantly, more detection of vessel vulnerability, granulated mucosa and mucosal damage was seen by SC. Disease extension was underestimated by CCE compared to SC. Disease activity assessment by means of SC or CCE did not differ statistically between the investigators (p = 0.26 and p = 0.1, respectively). After CCE, the capsule egestion rate was 77 %. The overall acceptance of both procedures was similar. CONCLUSION: Considering the significantly different assessment of disease activity and significantly more appropriate assignment of the horizontal spread of inflammation by SC versus CCE, we recommend the preferential use of SC in the assessment of inflammation in UC patients.