Survival analysis of breast cancer liver metastasis treated by hepatectomy: A propensity score analysis for Chinese women in Hong Kong.

BACKGROUND: Survival of patients with breast cancer liver metastasis is very poor. This study aimed to analyze the survival outcome of hepatectomy for this patient population. METHODS: From January 1995 to December 2014, 2522 patients with liver cancer received hepatectomy at our hospital. Twenty-one of them, all female, received the operation for breast cancer liver metastasis. Performance was compared with patients with colorectal liver metastasis treated with hepatectomy after propensity score analysis in a ratio of 1:3. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients received hepatectomy for breast cancer. After propensity score matching, 63 patients who had hepatectomy for colorectal cancer were selected for comparison. There was no significant difference in immediate or short-term outcomes between the two groups of patients in terms of operative time, blood loss and surgical morbidities. All patients with breast cancer had R0 resection. No hospital death occurred. After hepatectomy, the 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 100.0%, 58.9% and 58.9% respectively in patients with breast cancer. The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 95.0%, 57.2% and 39.7% respectively in patients with colorectal cancer (P = 0.572). On multivariate analysis, triple negative status was the only independent poor prognostic factor in breast cancer liver metastasis (OR = 6.411; 95% CI: 1.351-30.435; P = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Hepatectomy is a safe and effective way of treating breast cancer liver metastasis at experienced centers where multidisciplinary adjuvant treatments are available. It can be considered more frequently as part of the multidisciplinary care for this patient population.

Prevention of post-sphincterotomy bleeding by proton pump inhibitor: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Post-endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) bleeding is one of the most frequent complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Although the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduces the risk of peptic ulcer bleeding, their role in preventing EST bleeding has not been evaluated. This study aimed to assess the use of pre-emptive PPIs in patients undergoing EST. METHODS: This was an investigator-initiated, open-label, randomized study. Consecutive patients scheduled to undergo ERCP and EST were enrolled after excluding those who had previous EST or used acid-suppression agents. Eligible patients were randomized to receive either PPI or standard care. The PPI group received intravenous esomeprazole 4 h before the EST and then every 12 h for 1 day, followed by high-dose oral esomeprazole for 10 days. All patients were followed up for 30 days. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with combined immediate and delayed overt post-EST bleeding. RESULTS: Altogether 125 patients (60 in the PPI arm and 65 in the standard care arm) who had undergone EST were analyzed. Immediate bleeding was noted in nine (15.0%) patients in the PPI group and four (6.2%) in the standard care group (P = 0.14). Overt delayed post-EST bleeding was seen in two (3.3%) and five (7.7%) patients in PPI and standard care arms, respectively (P = 0.44). There were no significant differences in other outcomes, including a decrease in hemoglobin of >20 g/L, the need for blood transfusion, length of hospital stay and 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: Pre-emptive PPI did not reduce the risk of post-EST bleeding.

Samaritan donor interchange in living donor liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: In order to overcome ABO blood group incompatibility, paired donor interchange has been practised in living donor liver transplantation. Liver transplantations using grafts donated by Samaritan living donors have been performed in Europe, North America, South Korea, and Hong Kong. Such practice is clearly on strong biological grounds although social and psychological implications could be far-reaching. Local experience has been satisfactory but is still limited. As few centers have this arrangement, its safety and viability are still being assessed under a clinical trial setting. METHODS: Here we report a donor interchange involving an ABO-compatible pair with a universal donor and an ABO-incompatible pair with a universal recipient. This matching was not only a variation but also an extension of the donor interchange scheme. RESULTS: The four operations (two donor hepatectomies and two recipient operations) were successful. All the two donors and the two recipients recovered well. Such donor interchange further supports the altruistic principle of organ donation in contrast to exchange for a gain. CONCLUSIONS: Samaritan donor interchange certainly taxes further the ethical challenge of donor interchange. Although this practice has obvious biological advantages, such advantages have to be weighed against the potential increase in potential psychological risks to the subjects in the interchange. Further ethical and clinical evaluations of local and overseas experiences of donor interchange should guide future clinical practice in utilizing this potential organ source for transplantation.