Liver Embolisation for Patients with Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Liver embolisation is one of the treatment options available for patients diagnosed with neuro-endocrine neoplasms (NEN). It is still uncertain whether the benefits of the various types of embolisation treatments truly outweigh the complications in NENs. This systematic review assesses the available data relating to liver embolisation in patients with NENs. METHODS: Eligible studies (identified using MEDLINE-PubMed) were those reporting data on NEN patients who had undergone any type of liver embolisation. The primary end points were best radiological response and symptomatic response; secondary end-points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. RESULTS: Of 598 studies screened, 101 were eligible: 16 were prospective (15.8%). The eligible studies included a total of 5,545 NEN patients, with a median of 39 patients per study (range 5-214). Pooled rate of partial response was 36.6% (38.9% achieved stable disease) and 55.2% of patients had a symptomatic response to therapy when pooled data were analysed. The median PFS and OS were 18.4 months (95% CI 15.5-21.2) and 40.7 months (95% CI 35.2-46.2) respectively. The most common toxicities were found to be abdominal pain (48.8%) and nausea (48.1%). Outcome did not significantly vary depending on the type of embolisation performed. CONCLUSION: Liver embolisation provides adequate symptom relief for patients with carcinoid syndrome and is also able to reach partial response in a significant proportion of patients and a reasonable PFS. Quality of studies was limited, highlighting the need of further prospective studies to confirm the most suitable form of liver embolisation in NENs.

Evaluation of the Manchester COVID-19 Urgent Eyecare Service (CUES).

INTRODUCTION: Pressure on capacity in ophthalmology alongside the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic led to the development of the COVID-19 Urgent Eyecare Service (CUES), allowing patients to receive a prompt ophthalmic consultation, including remotely. The aim of this study was to conduct a service evaluation of CUES in Manchester. METHODS: Data were collected both prospectively and retrospectively from both primary and secondary care over an 8-week period from June to August 2020. RESULTS: In primary care CUES in Greater Manchester (GM) 2461 patients were assessed, with a majority self-referring to the service (68.7%, n = 1844). 91.7% of cases initially screened for CUES were deemed eligible and given a telemedicine appointment in GM; 53.3% of these cases required face-to-face consultation. 14.3% of cases seen within in GM CUES (351 out of 2461) were provisionally referred to secondary care. Contemporaneously the main provider emergency eyecare department (EED) attendances were reduced by 37.7% per month between April and December 2020 inclusive, compared to the same months in 2019. Patients attending a CUES face-to-face assessment were more likely to have a diagnosis in agreement with secondary care, compared to patients referred in from telemedicine assessment only (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This evaluation of CUES demonstrates a high level of primary care activity alongside a sustained reduction in EED cases. The case-mix of patients seen within EED following referral appears to be of a less benign nature than those cases seen prior to the introduction of CUES.