Search

Purpose: Clinical studies conducted in different geographic regions using different methods to compare transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and transarterial radioembolization (TARE) have demonstrated discordant results. Meta-analyses in this field indicate comparable overall survival (OS) with TACE and TARE, while reporting a longer time to progression and a higher downstaging effect with TARE treatment. In terms of isolated procedure costs, treatment with TARE is 2 to 3 times more, and in some countries even more, expensive than TACE. However, relevant literature indicates that TARE is more advantageous compared to TACE regarding the need for repeat procedures, costs of complication management, total hospital stay and quality of life. Heterogeneity of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients as well as the shortcomings of clinical classifications, randomized clinical trials and cost-effectiveness studies make it difficult to choose between treatment alternatives in this field. As in other countries, these challenges lead to differences in treatment choice across different centers in Turkey.Methods: The present expert panel used two round modified Delphi method to investigate the resources and clinical parameters referenced while selecting patients for drug-eluting beads (DEB)-TACE and TARE treatment modalities in Turkish clinical practice. The cost-effectiveness parameters and comparisons of these treatments have also been evaluated at a prediction level.Results: The panelists stated that they most commonly use the BCLC staging system for the management of HCC patients in Turkey. However, they did not find any of the staging systems or treatment guidelines sufficient enough for their clinical practice in terms of covering the down-staging intent of treatments. Since living donor transplant preference is higher in Turkey than the rest of the Western countries, down-staging treatments are thought to be more prioritized in Turkey than that in other Western countries. The panelists reached a consensus that TARE may provide improved OS and reduce the number of repeat procedures compared to DEB-TACE in intermediate-stage patients with a single tumor spanning a diameter above 5 cm who experience recurrence after previous treatment with TACE and most TACE-naïve patient groups in intermediate stage.Conclusion: Based on the consensus on OS and the number of procedures, the panelists assumed that TARE would be more cost-effective than DEB-TACE in most groups of TACE-naïve patients in intermediate stage and in those with a single tumor spanning a diameter above 5 cm. It was also stated that the predicted cost-effectiveness advantage of TARE could be more pronounced in patients with a tumor diameter greater than 7 cm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/aim: With the increased experience in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), it has been adopted for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with emerging discussions of criteria beyond tumor size and number. In contrast to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT), recipient selection for LDLT is not limited by organ allocation systems. We discuss herein the assessment, criteria, and experience with liver transplantation (LT) in HCC cases at a high-volume LDLT center. Material and methods: Between August 2006 and December 2017, 191 adult LT HCC recipients with at least one-year follow-up were retrospectively analyzed. Results: In 191 patients, one-, three- and five-year survival rates were 87.2%, 81.6%, and 76.2%, respectively, including early postoperative mortality. In 174 patients with long-term follow-up, one-, three- and five-year disease-free survival rates were 91.6%, 87.7%, and 84.4%, respectively. When multivariate analysis was utilized, tumor differentiation was the only factor which statistically affected survival (p = 0.025). Conclusion: LDLT allows us to push the limits forward and the question “Are the criteria always right?” is always on the table. We can conclude that, with the advantage of LDLT, every HCC patient deserves a case-by-case basis discussion for LT under scientific literature support. In borderline cases, tumor biopsy might help determine the decision for LT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/aims: The safety and efficacy of interferons in advanced delta hepatitis have not been explored. The aim of this subanalysis of a multicenter clinical trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of 48 weeks of pegylated interferon alpha-2a (180 μg weekly) with or without adefovir (10 mg daily) in patients with chronic delta hepatitis-induced advanced liver disease and in those with non-advanced liver disease., Materials and Methods: Thirty-one patients with advanced and 27 patients with non-advanced liver disease were assessed. Patients were considered to have advanced liver disease when biopsy disclosed a fibrosis score of ≥4 according to Ishak or when imaging studies were indicative of cirrhosis. Virologic response, defined as achievement of undetectable hepatitis D virus RNA, was assessed at the end of treatment and end of 24 weeks of treatment-free follow-up., Results: Patients with advanced disease had lower hepatitis D virus RNA levels and platelet counts (p=0.014 and p=0.0015, respectively). End of treatment and end of follow-up virologic responses in patients with advanced vs. non-advanced liver disease were similar (29% vs. 19% and 32% vs 23%). Proportion of adverse events did not differ between groups except that thrombocytopenia was noted more often in the advanced liver disease group. Further, four cases of clinically important adverse events including two cases of hepatic decompensation and one case of tuberculosis reactivation occurred in the advanced liver disease group., Conclusions: Pegylated interferon is as effective in patients with advanced liver disease due to chronic delta hepatitis as in patients with non-advanced liver disease, but patients should be monitored closely for clinically important side effects.