Regorafenib Efficacy After Sorafenib in Patients With Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Liver Transplantation: A Retrospective Study.

Safety of regorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after liver transplantation (LT) has been recently demonstrated. We aimed to assess the survival benefit of regorafenib compared with best supportive care (BSC) in LT patients after sorafenib discontinuation. This observational multicenter retrospective study included LT patients with HCC recurrence who discontinued first-line sorafenib. Group 1 comprised regorafenib-treated patients, whereas the control group was selected among patients treated with BSC due to unavailability of second-line options at the time of sorafenib discontinuation and who were sorafenib-tolerant progressors (group 2). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) of group 1 compared with group 2. Secondary endpoints were safety and OS of sequential treatment with sorafenib + regorafenib/BSC. Among 132 LT patients who discontinued sorafenib included in the study, 81 were sorafenib tolerant: 36 received regorafenib (group 1) and 45 (group 2) received BSC. Overall, 24 (67%) patients died in group 1 and 40 (89%) in group 2: the median OS was significantly longer in group 1 than in group 2 (13.1 versus 5.5 months; P < 0.01). Regorafenib treatment was an independent predictor of reduced mortality (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.89; P = 0.02). Median treatment duration with regorafenib was 7.0 (95% CI, 5.5-8.5) months; regorafenib dose was reduced in 22 (61%) patients for adverse events and discontinued for tumor progression in 93% (n = 28). The median OS calculated from sorafenib start was 28.8 months (95% CI, 17.6-40.1) in group 1 versus 15.3 months (95% CI, 8.8-21.7) in group 2 (P < 0.01). Regorafenib is an effective second-line treatment after sorafenib in patients with HCC recurrence after LT.

Spontaneous hepatic haemorrhage secondary to ruptured hepatocellular adenoma in a young male patient.

A 27-year-old man presented with acute right upper quadrant abdominal pain and vomiting. He was clinically in hypovolaemic shock. Investigations revealed normocytic anaemia with a normal bilirubin and moderate liver function test abnormalities. CT abdomen and pelvis demonstrated haemoperitoneum and a large solitary hepatic mass in segments V and VI, suspicious for a ruptured hepatic tumour. Massive transfusion protocol was commenced and angioembolisation of the inferior branch of the right hepatic artery was undertaken. Despite this, his haemorrhagic shock was resistant to resuscitation. Thus, he underwent emergent exploratory laparotomy, which resulted in segments V and VI liver resection and packing. Re-look laparotomy 2 days following initial exploration was performed where haemostasis was confirmed. Histopathology revealed a ruptured well-differentiated hepatocellular adenoma. The patient made a good recovery following a 2-week admission.

Beware the band adhesion: an unexpected cause of double obstruction following intraperitoneal kidney transplantation.

Small bowel obstruction (SBO) following intraperitoneal renal transplantation, either solitary or due to simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation, is a known complication. While SBO is most commonly due to adhesions, there have been documented cases of internal herniation following simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation with enteric drainage due to the formation of a mesenteric defect. We present a unique complication in which the transplant ureter has caused strangulation and necrosis of a length of small intestine. The transplant ureter was mistaken for a band adhesion and divided. Post-operative anuria signalled this difficult diagnosis. Subsequent re-look laparotomy and ureteric reimplantation with Boari flap were required. Therefore, it is important to consider the ureter as a cause of internal herniation in kidney transplant patients and recognize that a band adhesion within the pelvis may in fact be the transplant ureter, obstructing a loop of small intestine beneath its course.

Spontaneous ureteric rupture secondary to an invasive desmoid tumour.

INTRODUCTION: Spontaneous ureteric rupture is a rare entity that presents as an extravasation of urine from the ureter without previous surgery, ureteric manipulation and external trauma of the ureter. We report the case of a desmoid tumour presenting as spontaneous ureteric rupture which was managed in our institution. PRESENTATION OF CASE: A 28 years old healthy male presented with a four day history of generalised abdominal pain secondary to spontaneous right ureteric rupture. Patient was initially managed via insertion of nephrostomy tube and antibiotics. After unsuccessful attempts of retrograde and antegrade ureteric stent insertion, patient was subsequently managed via elective surgical intervention. The excised specimen revealed desmoid tumour as cause of the ureteric rupture. DISCUSSION: Desmoid tumours are rare benign tumours arising from fascial or musculoaponeurotic structures that do not metastasise, but tend to invade locally. It is often initially managed medically prior to undertaking a definitive surgical intervention. To our knowledge this is the first reported case of ureteric perforation secondary to a desmoid tumour of the mesentery. CONCLUSION: Spontaneous rupture of the ureter is often misdiagnosed as other conditions. History taking and examination can be unreliable, hence a high level of suspicion and further investigations should be utilised. Once the diagnosis is made, treatment can be individualised based on aetiology.