Expression of LAIR-1 (CD305) on Human Blood Monocytes as a Marker of Hepatic Cirrhosis Progression.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The presumed role of the inhibitory receptor LAIR-1 (CD305) in the inflammatory response suggests that it might contribute to the pathophysiology of chronic inflammatory diseases such as liver cirrhosis. We studied the LAIR-1 expression on liver macrophages and blood monocytes related to the progression of liver cirrhosis. METHODS: The expression of LAIR-1 was analyzed by immunohistochemistry, flow cytometry, and Western blot. RESULTS: We found a decreased number of macrophages expressing LAIR-1 in cirrhotic liver that could be due to a high presence of collagen, ligand of LAIR-1, in the fibrotic tissue which could downregulate its expression or interfere with the immunostaining. The expression of LAIR-1 decreased after cell differentiation, and the total content, but not the cell surface expression, increased after activation in the HL-60 human macrophage in vitro model. Blood monocytes exhibited higher LAIR-1 expression levels in cirrhotic patients, which were evident even in early clinical stages in all monocyte subsets, and greater in the "intermediate" inflammatory monocyte subpopulation. The in vitro activation of human blood monocytes did not increase its expression on the cell surface suggesting that the in vivo increase of LAIR-1 must be the result of a specific combination of stimuli present in cirrhotic patients. This represents an exclusive feature of liver cirrhosis, since blood monocytes from other chronic inflammatory pathologies showed similar or lower LAIR-1 levels compared with those of healthy controls. CONCLUSIONS: These results may indicate that monocyte LAIR-1 expression is a new biomarker to early detect liver damage caused by chronic inflammation in liver cirrhosis.

ALPPS for hepatocarcinoma under cirrhosis: a feasible alternative to portal vein embolization.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common and malignant tumors. Preoperative portal vein embolization (PVE) is currently the most accepted treatment before major hepatic resection for HCC in patients with liver fibrosis or cirrhosis and associated insufficient future liver remnant (FLR). In the last decade, associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) technique has been described to obtain an increase of volume regarding PVE and a decrease of drop out. The initial excessive morbidity and mortality of this technique have decreased drastically due to a better selection of patients, the learning curve and the use of less aggressive variations of the original technique in the first stage. For both techniques a complete preoperative assessment of the FLR is the most important issue and only patients with and adequate FLR should be resected. ALPPS could be a feasible technique in very selected patients with HCC and cirrhosis. As long as it is performed in an experienced center could be used as a first choice technique versus PVE or could be used as a rescue technique in case of PVE failure.

CD28 biomarker quantification and expression level profiles in CD4+ T-lymphocytes in solid organ transplantation.

The introduction of anti-calcineurin-based therapies has led to an increase in the one-year survival as well as graft function rates in patients undergoing solid organ transplantation (SOT). Nonetheless, early cellular acute rejection (EAR) incidence still remains a major challenge that irrevocably heads to poor outcomes. The mechanisms underlying CD4 T cell activation in SOT are still under research. In this sense, CD28 co-stimulatory molecule plays a pivotal role triggering CD4 T cell activation as well as survival maintenance. Previous own studies stated the role that CD4+CD28+ circulating T lymphocytes plays before and during EAR episodes. We assessed the percentage as well as the absolute number of CD28 molecules on CD4+ T cells as predictive surrogate biomarker of EAR in a prospective cohort of liver and kidney transplant recipients. Quantitative analysis of CD28 was carried out on whole peripheral blood samples by flow cytometry. Decreased pre-transplant expression of CD28 was associated with EAR in both study groups. Furthermore, the expression of CD28 within the rejected group, experimented an up-regulation upon transplantation. These preliminary results suggest that patients undergoing liver or kidney transplant can be stratified at high risk of EAR according to their CD28 molecule expression on peripheral CD4+ T lymphocytes.

KIR gene mismatching and KIR/C ligands in liver transplantation: consequences for short-term liver allograft injury.

BACKGROUND: Killer immunoglobulin-like receptors (KIRs) bind human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class-I (HLA-I) ligands and regulate functions of natural killer cells and subsets of T cells. KIR/HLA-I interactions allow predicting natural killer cell alloreactivity in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and in HLA-compatible kidney transplants, but its meaning in liver transplantation remains controversial. METHODS: KIR and HLA genotypes were studied in 402 liver transplants, using sequence-specific oligonucleotides and primer methods. Recipients and donor KIRs, HLA-C genotypes, KIR gene mismatches (MMs) between recipient-donor pairs, and KIR/HLA-ligand combinations were analyzed in overall transplantations, in the acute rejection (AR; n=110) and non-AR (n=292) groups. RESULTS: KIR gene MMs between recipients and donors, mainly in activating KIRs, and KIR2DL3 and KIR2DS1 of recipients in the presence of donor C2 ligands, significantly enhanced early AR rate (P<0.05), with KIR2DL3 and KIR2DS1 exhibiting a synergic effect in dependence of the donor C2 ligand number (χ2=7.662, P=0.022). KIR2DL3, KIR2DS1, and also KIR2DS4 significantly influenced short-term graft survival, with a benefit for transplantations combining KIR2DL3 recipients and donors having C1 ligands (log rank, P<0.019 at 1 year; hazards ratio [HR], 0.321; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.107-0.962; P=0.042), whereas KIR2DS1 and KIR2DS4 recipients combined with donors lacking C1 ligands (C2/C2) exhibited a worse graft survival (log rank, P=0.035 at 6 months; HR, 7.713; 95% CI, 2.156-27.369; P=0.002 for KIR2DS1; and log rank, P=0.006 at 1 year; HR, 3.794; 95% CI, 1.267-11.365; P=0.017 for KIR2DS4). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that KIR gene-gene MMs increase AR and that KIRs/C ligands associated to AR and KIR2DS4/C ligands also influence short-term graft survival.

[Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus robotic]. / Prostatectomía radical laparoscópica versus robótica.

OBJECTIVES: laparoscopic surgery has demonstrated that it is a good alternative to conventional surgery for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Robotic surgery could be a therapeutic option. We try to evaluate both techniques, analyzing a series of parameters that allow us to describe the advantages and disadvantages of both techniques. METHODS: We performed a MEDLINE search and reviewed the main series of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic radical prostatectomy (RRP). The parameters analyzed for each techniques were: oncological results, functional results, blood loss, transfusion rates, surgical times, complications rates, learning curve and cost. RESULTS: Both techniques have the advantage of being minimally invasive, which results in better recovery and aesthetic results. The learning curve of the robotic prostatectomy is shorter, 10 to 20 cases in comparison with 50 to 60 for the LRP. Cost analysis is more favourable for LRP, with a single-use instrument expenditure of 533 dollars per patient in comparison with 1.705 dollars with the robot. The cost of the robot is 1.200.000 dollars plus 100.000 dollars of annual maintenance (1). Operative time was 182 minutes [ 14 1-250] for robotic surgery and 234 min. [151-453] for LRP. Within the same institution, like Montsouris, times are very similar: 155 min. for the RRP and 18 1 min. for the (LRP). Mean operative blood loss was 234 ml [75-500] for the robot and 482 ml [185-859] for the LRP depending on the technique employed and the institution. Complication rate is similar for both techniques. The percentage of positive surgical margins is 20.6% for LRP and 19.24% for RRP Long term results on the biochemical PSA recurrence cannot be given due to the short life of both techniques. Continence rates are 56-100% for LRP and 70-98% for RRP Potency rates are 25-82% for LRP and 79-100% for RRP It is difficult to evaluate hospital stay because it depends on the politics of the medical institutions; nevertheless, it seems there are not significant differences between techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Introoperative and postoperative advantages are comparable with both techniques. Robotic prostatectomy has a shorter learning curve. Prospective studies with longer follow-up are necessary to compare oncological and functional results. The cost of LRP is lower than RRP.