Activity

A self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) is commonly used for biliary stricture caused by pancreatic cancer. Covered SEMS may obstruct the cystic duct, causing acute cholecystitis. This study aimed to determine the outcomes of using a half-covered SEMS with an offset covered portion for preventing cystic duct obstruction.

Among 80 patients with half-covered SEMS placement for the treatment of pancreatic cancer-induced distal biliary stricture, 74 were followed up. The half-covered SEMS has a total length of 6 or 7 cm, and the offset covered part was 0.5-4.5 or 0.5-5.5 cm, respectively. Intraductal ultrasonography (IDUS) and endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) were performed during the initial endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). IDUS findings and ENBD tube cholangiogram confirmed the cystic duct confluence. Lithocholic acid SEMS placement was performed on the second ERCP or several weeks after the initial tube stent placement.

Half-covered SEMS placement was successful in all patients. However, four (5.4%) patients exhibited early complications, including acute cholecystitis in one patient and stent displacement in another. Over 30 days, cholangitis, tumor growth, and stent displacement occurred in nine (11.3%), five (6.3%), and two (2.5%) patients, respectively. The median stent patency was 71.1 weeks, and the median overall survival in patients with and without chemotherapy was 31.8 and 12.2 weeks, respectively.

With confirmation of the cystic duct confluence, half-covered SEMS placement may become a treatment option for distal biliary stricture caused by pancreatic cancer to prevent acute cholecystitis. Half-covered SEMS patency was comparable with that of covered SEMS.

With confirmation of the cystic duct confluence, half-covered SEMS placement may become a treatment option for distal biliary stricture caused by pancreatic cancer to prevent acute cholecystitis. Half-covered SEMS patency was comparable with that of covered SEMS.

Currently, there is no molecular-targeted agent that has demonstrated evidence of efficacy in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC) who have developed resistance to treatment with lenvatinib (LEN). In this real-world study, we aimed to investigate the therapeutic effect and safety of sorafenib (SOR) in patients with u-HCC after progression on treatment with LEN.

A total of 13 patients with u-HCC (12 males and 1 female), who were treated with SOR after progression on LEN, were enrolled in this retrospective study. Therapeutic efficacy was evaluated via contrast-enhanced computerized tomography at 8 weeks after the initiation of SOR therapy according to modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (mRECIST) and RECIST. According to mRECIST, the objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 15.3% (2/13) and 69.2% (9/13), respectively. According to RECIST, the ORR and DCR were 0% (0/13) and 69.2% (9/13), respectively. The median progression-free survival was 4.1 months. The median albumin-bilirubin scores did not deteriorate significantly at 4, 6, and 8 weeks after initiation of SOR, compared with the scores at the baseline. The most frequent grade 1 or 2 adverse events (AEs) were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, fatigue, diarrhea, and hypertension. There was no incidence of grade 3 AEs.

Treatment with SOR may be effective for u-HCC after failure on LEN and may not worsen the liver reserve.

Treatment with SOR may be effective for u-HCC after failure on LEN and may not worsen the liver reserve.

Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), with or without inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), confers the risk of cholangiocarcinoma. Isolated IBD may be an independent risk factor for cholangiocarcinoma. We sought to compare cholangiocarcinoma phenotype and outcomes between patients with PSC, IBD, and neither.

Patients with malignancy were separated into cohorts by the presence of PSC and IBD. Data regarding demographics, clinical presentation, therapeutic regimens, and survival were collected. Statistical analysis was carried out using GraphPad and R-Studio.

Of 946 patients, 22 had PSC, and 18 had isolated IBD. PSC and IBD patients were younger than controls (

 < 0.001,

= 0.01). Cholangiocarcinoma prevalence was estimated at 0.01% for IBD patients, 0.6% for PSC patients, and 0.002% for all other patients. All cohorts most often presented at stage 4. PSC patients presented more often at stage 3 (

= 0.04) and with perihilar disease (

= 0.001). Patients with PSC or IBD received less chemotherapy (

ols that are able to detect and treat cholangiocarcinoma in high-risk populations (PSC) at an early stage.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related tissue acquisition, including fluoroscopy-guided forceps biopsy (F-FB), is a common technique in diagnosing indeterminate biliary lesions. Recently, peroral cholangioscopy (POCS) and POCS-guided forceps biopsy (POCS-FB) has also been used for the diagnosis of indeterminate biliary lesions. However, it is uncertain which of those techniques were superior for the diagnosis of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC). We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield and safety of F-FB for indeterminate biliary lesions compared with POCS-FB.

Patients who underwent F-FB or POCS-FB to evaluate indeterminate biliary lesions between October 2011 and August 2019 were enrolled retrospectively. We carried out propensity score matching to balance these clinical differences between the F-FB group and POCS-FB group. In the propensity score-matched cohort, we compared the diagnostic performance of F-FB with that of POCS-FB based on the pathological evaluation. We also evaluate adverse events associated with F-FB and POCS-FB.

We enrolled 113 patients with biliary diseases, and 62 patients were analyzed in the propensity score-matched cohort. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of F-FB were 82.4, 100, and 90.3%, and for POCS-FB, those values were 83.3, 100, and 90.3%, respectively. There were no significant differences in the diagnostic performance between F-FB and POCS-FB. There were also no significant differences in the occurrence of adverse events between F-FB and POCS-FB (41.9

29.0%,

= 0.289).

The diagnostic yield of F-FB for ECC is similar to that of POCS-FB. POCS-FB is not necessary for the initial pathological diagnosis of indeterminate biliary lesions.

The diagnostic yield of F-FB for ECC is similar to that of POCS-FB. POCS-FB is not necessary for the initial pathological diagnosis of indeterminate biliary lesions.