Long-term effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma of 3.5 cm or less.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Hepatocellular carcinoma is one of the leading causes of death for cirrhosis, and patients are often not eligible for surgery. To evaluate the effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation in single (less than 3.5cm in diameter) or multiple nodules (up to 3, sized less than 3cm) in respect of acceptability, applicability, primary ablation rate, local recurrence, complications, and long-term patients outcome. METHODOLOGY: 184 hepatic nodules detected in 156 consecutive patients recruited from a local sonographic screening were treated. In 10.2% of patients under study, a laparoscopic or laparotomy guided technique was preferred to the percutaneous approach. Overall and tumor-free survivals were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. For the multivariate analysis, the hazard ratios and their 95 percent confidence intervals were computed by Cox model regression analysis. RESULTS: No treatment-related deaths and a severe complication rate of 3.2% were recorded. Primary complete ablation was obtained in 83.7% of nodules (87.1% of patients), and in a significantly higher rate for nodules up to 2cm (91.3%; p<0.013). Acceptability was 100%, and eligibility was very high (156 out of 160 cases). Local recurrence rate at 1 and 3 years was 10% and 25% respectively. The overall 3- and 5-year survival rates after treatment were 69.3% and 34.6%. Higher survival rates were obtained in the Child A cirrhosis subgroup (p<0.03) after complete response (p<0.001) and in the absence of new lesions (p<0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Radiofrequency ablation has great acceptability and applicability, and is a safe and effective treatment to be used after sonographic screening for small hepatocellular carcinomas.

Colonic amoebiasis and spirochetosis: morphological, ultrastructural and microbiological evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The present study reports on a prompt diagnosis of colonic amoebiasis with colonic spirochetosis by Brachyspira aalborgi and B. pilosicoli; such diagnosis allowed exclusion of other diseases and resolution of the case after specific treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: A 37-year-old Italian man with a history of several months' mucosal diarrhea travelled to Greece, Romania and Tunisia. After his last trip he presented with an increase of up to 3-5 discharges daily, associated with bloody diarrhea, supporting the clinical suspect of inflammatory bowel disease. Colonoscopy revealed erosions from the cecum to the rectum, and ulcers both in the descending and sigmoid colon. Structures resembling amoebic trophozoites and sinusoidal microorganisms were observed in the colonic biopsies at histopathology and electron microscopy. Entamoeba histolytica DNA was detected by small-subunit rDNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) from feces, rectal biopsies and isolated trophozoites. Spirochetes were identified from feces, colonic biopsies and cultures using a 16S rDNA restriction fragment length polymorphism-PCR specific for the detection of B. aalborgi and B. pilosicoli. After therapy, the patient was restored to health. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid identification of E. histolytica, B. aalborgi and B. pilosicoli using traditional and specific and sensitive molecular methods permitted an accurate diagnosis and a specific therapy. It is suggested that mixed infection by parasites and spirochetes might occur more frequently than expected: it would be of extreme interest and importance to intensify clinical findings, and one infection should not prompt the pathologist/clinician to stop looking.

Is esophageal pH monitoring used appropriately in an open-access system? A prospective multicenter study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the referral patterns and indications for esophageal pH monitoring in an open-access system and to determine whether these indications conform to practice guidelines of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). METHODS: A total of 851 consecutive patients referred for ambulatory pH monitoring to nine open-access gastrointestinal units over a 12-month period received a structured interview. The indication for the examination was decided by the physician performing the procedure, on the basis of the patient's clinical history and main complaint. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-three (38%) examinations were for indications in accordance with the guidelines. The proportion of appropriate requests in each center ranged from 34% to 47%. This figure was not significantly different in larger gastrointestinal units (more than 150 examinations per year) and smaller ones (35% and 40%; p= 0.14). The proportion of appropriate requests was 45% for gastroenterologists, 38% for surgeons, 32% for other specialists, and 24% for primary care physicians (PCPs) (p < 0.001). The percentage of appropriateness was significantly different between gastrointestinal specialists and PCPs (p < 0.001 vs gastroenterologists, p= 0.015 vs GI surgeons), and between gastroenterologists and other specialists (p= 0.006). The underuse of an empirical trial of acid-suppression therapy in patients with suspected reflux disease and the overuse of this test to confirm a diagnosis in patients with erosive esophagitis and in endoscopy-negative cases with typical symptoms responding completely to antisecretory therapy accounted for most of the referrals, which was not in accordance with the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: In an open-access system, a high proportion of esophageal pH studies are done for indications not consistent with published guidelines, particularly among the examinations not requested by gastrointestinal specialists. Further education is still needed on the appropriate use of esophageal pH monitoring and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).