RESUMEN
PURPOSE: to assess the safety and efficacy of APERTO-Paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty versus standard angioplasty for the treatment of dysfunctional hemodialysis shunts and native arteriovenous fistulae. METHODS: consecutive patients with dysfunctional dialysis related to underlying efferent vein stenosis were included and randomized 1:1 to either APERTO-paclitaxel drug-coated balloon (study arm) or standard percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (control arm). Primary endpoint is time from treatment until dialysis access dysfunction according to standardized Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI)-guidelines and assessed by Kaplan-Meier survival curves and tested for significance with log-rank analysis. Secondary endpoints include device, technical, and clinical success of the index angioplasty procedure. RESULTS: The study included 103 patients (n=51 study-group) with a de novo (n=33) dysfunctional native arteriovenous fistula (n=79) in the forearm (n=60). The majority of included patients were male with a mean age of 69.8 years, presenting with a dysfunctioning autologous arteriovenous fistula in the forearm. Device-related complications did not occur in any of the included patients. Functional hemodialysis access without need for re-intervention at 1 year after index procedure was found in n=10 (19.6%) and n=5 (9.6%) of patients treated with, respectively, paclitaxel drug-coated balloon and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (p=0.612). A nonsignificant benefit of paclitaxel drug-coated balloon (n=5; 25%) over percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (n=1; 11%) was found (p=0.953) in de novo lesions in autologous fistulas. CONCLUSION: APERTO-paclitaxel drug-coated balloon is a safe balloon catheter to manage dysfunctional hemodialysis access; however, longer period of adequate hemodialysis circuit functioning after endovascular index stenosis treatment, using APERTO-paclitaxel drug-coated balloon versus percutaneous transluminal angioplasty could not be demonstrated. CLINICAL IMPACT: APERTO-paclitaxel drug-coated balloon catheter is a safe device to manage dysfunctional hemodialysis access. Compared to conventional angioplasty balloon, the APERTO drug-coated balloon will not result in longer period of adequate hemodialysis circuit functioning. A non-significant benefit of APERTO drug-coated balloon was found in de novo lesions in autologous fistulas.
RESUMEN
The guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer crudely state that the best local treatment should be selected from a 'toolbox' of techniques according to patient- and treatment-related factors. We created an interdisciplinary, consensus-based algorithm with specific resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). To pursue consensus, members of the multidisciplinary COLLISION and COLDFIRE trial expert panel employed the RAND appropriateness method (RAM). Statements regarding patient, disease, tumor and treatment characteristics were categorized as appropriate, equipoise or inappropriate. Patients with ECOG≤2, ASA≤3 and Charlson comorbidity index ≤8 should be considered fit for curative-intent local therapy. When easily resectable and/or ablatable (stage IVa), (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy is not indicated. When requiring major hepatectomy (stage IVb), neo-adjuvant systemic therapy is appropriate for early metachronous disease and to reduce procedural risk. To downstage patients (stage IVc), downsizing induction systemic therapy and/or future remnant augmentation is advised. Disease can only be deemed permanently unsuitable for local therapy if downstaging failed (stage IVd). Liver resection remains the gold standard. Thermal ablation is reserved for unresectable CRLM, deep-seated resectable CRLM and can be considered when patients are in poor health. Irreversible electroporation and stereotactic body radiotherapy can be considered for unresectable perihilar and perivascular CRLM 0-5cm. This consensus document provides per-patient and per-tumor resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of CRLM. These criteria are intended to aid tumor board discussions, improve consistency when designing prospective trials and advance intersociety communications. Areas where consensus is lacking warrant future comparative studies.
