Search

Introduction Although various treatment options for hidrocystomas have been described, the comparative efficacy of these treatments is poorly understood. Methods We conducted a systematic review of all articles describing the treatment of hidrocystomas. Treatment modalities were categorized as destructive surgical procedures, skin-directed therapies, systemic medical therapies, general measures, or combined. Patient and tumor characteristics, as well as response rate, recurrence rate, and adverse effects, were extracted from each article. Results A total of 94 articles involving 192 patients and 255 unique treatment events were included in the final analysis. Destructive surgical procedures had an overall response rate and recurrence rate of 92.9% and 10.8%, respectively. Skin-directed therapies had an overall response rate of 72.6%. The overall response rate to systemic medical therapies was 71.4%. Solitary hidrocystomas were primarily treated with destructive surgical procedures, including excision, which was associated with a 4.7% recurrence rate. Multiple hidrocystomas were successfully treated with a variety of therapies, including destructive surgical procedures and skin-directed therapies requiring ongoing or repeated therapy. Conclusions Excision has the highest efficacy for solitary hidrocystomas. A number of therapies have shown efficacy for multiple hidrocystomas, including lasers, intracystic trichloroacetic acid, intracystic hypertonic glucose, topical and oral anticholinergics, and botulinum toxin. Aluminum chloride is associated with a low response rate. Larger comparative studies are needed to further evaluate the optimal treatments for solitary and multiple hidrocystomas.

Aorto-enteric fistula (AEF) is a rare life-threatening condition. Early recognition and diagnosis are of paramount importance to improve outcome. In this article four cases of AEF with relevant pre- and post-procedural images are presented to demonstrate the utility of cross-sectional imaging in the work-up of AEF. The literature is reviewed to describe the typical presentation of AEF, the diagnostic work-up of AEF, and the different methods used to treat AEF. Endovascular repair of AEF is gaining increasing attention due to its decreased short-term mortality compared to open surgical techniques.

The recently published Prevention of Serious Adverse Events Following Angiography (PRESERVE) trial is presently the largest and most comprehensive clinical trial comparing commonly applied strategies for prevention of iodinated contrast-induced acute kidney injury in high-risk patients. The fundamental conclusion of the PRESERVE trial is that oral acetylcysteine and i.v. sodium bicarbonate are not superior to simple i.v. hydration with isotonic saline for the prevention of contrast-induced renal sequelae. In this commentary, we discuss the results in the context of selected past major trials, and provide insights into the strengths and potential weaknesses of the PRESERVE trial. In the future, developing individualized preventive approaches to avoid contrast-induced acute kidney injury for different patient populations is recommended.

Endoleaks are a common complication of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). As a result, patients require lifelong imaging surveillance following EVAR. In current clinical practice, evaluation for endoleaks is predominantly performed with CT angiography (CTA). Due to the significant cumulative radiation burden associated with repetitive CTA imaging, as well as the repeated administration of nephrotoxic contrast agent, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) have evolved as potential modalities for lifelong surveillance post-EVAR. In this paper, multimodality imaging, including CTA, CEUS and MRA, for the surveillance of endoleaks is discussed. Further, new CTA techniques for radiation reduction are elaborated. Additionally, imagery for three cases of aortic endoleak detection using CTA and five cases using MRA are presented. Imaging for different types of endoleaks with CTA, MRA and CEUS are presented. For lifelong endoleak surveillance post-EVAR, CTA is still regarded as the imaging modality of choice. However, advancements in CEUS and MRA technique enable partial replacement of CTA in certain patients.

Abstract 585 Introduction Plerixafor is a bicyclam compound that inhibits the binding of stromal cell derived factor-1 (SDF-1) to its cognate receptor CXCR4. This results in therapid release of CD34+ cells into circulation, which can then be collected by apheresis. Plerixafor is FDA approved at the 240 μg/kg dose to be used in conjunction with G-CSF to mobilize autografts for transplantation. Allogeneic grafts can also be mobilized using single agent plerixafor without G-CSF, and following transplantation, result in sustained donor derived hematopoiesis. However, when the 240 μg/kg dose is used, 1/3 of donors fail to mobilize minimally acceptable doses of CD34+ cells. Recently, we demonstrated the safety of administration of a single dose of 480 μg/kg of subcutaneous (sc) plerixafor in humans. We subsequently conducted a randomized cross-over trial comparing CD34+ mobilization in healthy subjects mobilized with a single dose of sc plerixafor given at either a high dose (480 μg/kg) or a conventional dose (240 μg/kg). Methods Twenty normal healthy volunteers were randomized and received either a 240 or 480 μg/kg dose of sc plerixafor followed by at least a 2 week wash out period then were administered the other dose of plerixafor. Circulating numbers of leukocytes and CD34+ cells/μlwere measured at multiple time points for 24 hours following each plerixafor injection and the CD34+ AUC over 24 hours was calculated for each subject at each dose level. Peripheral blood colony forming unit (CFU) assays were performed at baseline and 6 hours after plerixafor dosing. Adverse events were graded using CTCAE version 3.A sample size of 20 subjects was determined to have over 90% power to detect an absolute CD34+ count difference of 10/μl using this crossover design and a two-sidedpaired t-test at the 0.05 level. Results Twenty-three subjects were enrolled and 20 completed administration of both doses. Peak circulating CD34+ cell numbers (median 31.5 vs 25, p=0.0009), circulating CD34+ cell numbers at 24hrs (median 15.5 vs 9, p Conclusion These preliminary data suggest high dose plerixafor can be administered safely and may mobilize more CD34+ cells than standard dose plerixafor. Furthermore, these data suggest mobilization following a single dose of plerixafor and a single apheresis procedure would result in graft collections containing higher CD34+ cell numbers when allogeneic stem cell donors are mobilized with high-dose plerixafor compared to standard-dose. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Plerixafor, a hematopoietic stem cell mobilizer, is indicated in combination with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells to the peripheral blood for collection and subsequent autologous transplantation in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and multiple myeloma (MM).