Synergistic effects of TNF-alpha and melphalan in an isolated limb perfusion model of rat sarcoma: a histopathological, immunohistochemical and electron microscopical study.

Isolated limb perfusion (ILP) with tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) and melphalan has shown impressive results in patients with irresectable soft tissue sarcomas and stage III melanoma of the extremities. The mechanisms of the reported in vivo synergistic anti-tumour effects of TNF-alpha and melphalan are not precisely understood. We have developed an ILP model in the rat using a non-immunogenic sarcoma in which similar in vivo synergy is observed. The aim of this present study was to analyse the morphological substrate for this synergistic response of TNF-alpha in combination with melphalan to shed more light on the pathomechanisms involved. Histology of the tumours from saline- (n = 14) and melphalan-treated (n = 11) rats revealed apparently vital tumour cells in over 80% of the cross-sections. Interstitial oedema and coagulation necrosis were observed in the remaining part of the tumour. Haemorrhage was virtually absent. TNF-alpha (n = 22) induced marked oedema, hyperaemia, vascular congestion, extravasation of erythrocytes and haemorrhagic necrosis (20-60% of the cross-sections). Oedema and haemorrhage suggested drastic alterations of permeability and integrity of the microvasculature. Using light and electron-microscopy, we observed that haemorrhage preceded generalised platelet aggregation. Therefore, we suggest that the observed platelet aggregation was the result of the microvascular damage rather than its initiator. Remarkably, these events hardly influenced tumour growth. However, perfusion with the combination of TNF-alpha and melphalan (n = 24) showed more extensive haemorrhagic necrosis (80-90% of the cross-sections) and revealed a prolonged remission (mean 11 days) in comparison with the other groups of rats. Electron microscopical analysis revealed similar findings as described after TNF-alpha alone, although the effects were more prominent at all time points after perfusion. In conclusion, our findings suggest that the enhanced anti-tumour effect after the combination of TNF-alpha with melphalan results from potentiation of the TNF-alpha-induced vascular changes accompanied by increased vascular permeability and platelet aggregation. This may result in additive cytotoxicity or inhibition of growth of residual tumour cells

Nitric oxide synthase inhibition results in synergistic anti-tumour activity with melphalan and tumour necrosis factor alpha-based isolated limb perfusions

Nitric oxide (NO) is an important molecule in regulating tumour blood flow and stimulating tumour angiogenesis. Inhibition of NO synthase by L-NAME might induce an anti-tumour effect by limiting nutrients and oxygen to reach tumour tissue or affecting vascular growth. The anti-tumour effect of L-NAME after systemic administration was studied in a renal subcapsular CC531 adenocarcinoma model in rats. Moreover, regional administration of L-NAME, in combination with TNF and melphalan, was studied in an isolated limb perfusion (ILP) model using BN175 soft-tissue sarcomas. Systemic treatment with L-NAME inhibited growth of adenocarcinoma significantly but was accompanied by impaired renal function. In ILP, reduced tumour growth was observed when L-NAME was used alone. In combination with TNF or melphalan, L-NAME increased response rates significantly compared to perfusions without L-NAME (0–64% and 0–63% respectively). An additional anti-tumour effect was demonstrated when L-NAME was added to the synergistic combination of melphalan and TNF (responses increased from 70 to 100%). Inhibition of NO synthase reduces tumour growth both after systemic and regional (ILP) treatment. A synergistic anti-tumour effect of L-NAME is observed in combination with melphalan and/or TNF using ILP. These results indicate a possible role of L-NAME for the treatment of solid tumours in a systemic or regional setting. © 2000 Cancer Research Campaig

Acute success and short-term follow-up of catheter ablation of isthmus-dependent atrial flutter; a comparison of 8 mm tip radiofrequency and cryothermy catheters

Objectives: To compare the acute success and short-term follow-up of ablation of atrial flutter using 8 mm tip radiofrequency (RF) and cryocatheters. Methods: Sixty-two patients with atrial flutter were randomized to RF or cryocatheter (cryo) ablation. Right atrial angiography was performed to assess the isthmus. End point was bidirectional isthmus block on multiple criteria. A pain score was used and the analgesics were recorded. Patients were followed for at least 3 months. Results: The acute success rate for RF was 83% vs 69% for cryo (NS). Procedure times were similar (mean 144±48 min for RF, vs 158±49 min for cryo). More applications were given with RF than with cryo (26±17 vs. 18±10, p<0.05). Fluoroscopy time was longer with RF (29±15 vs. 19±12 min, p<0.02). Peak CK, CK-MB and CK-MB mass were higher, also after 24 h in the cryo group. Troponin T did not differ. Repeated transient block during application (usually with cryoablation) seemed to predict failure. Cryothermy required significantly less analgesia (p<0.01), and no use of long sheaths (p<0.005). The isthmus tended to be longer in the failed procedures (p=0.117). This was similar for both groups, as was the distribution of anatomic variations. Recurrences and complaints in the successful patients were similar for both groups, with a very low recurrence of atrial flutter after initial success. Concl

The CARTS study: Chemoradiation therapy for rectal cancer in the distal rectum followed by organ-sparing transanal endoscopic microsurgery

Contains fulltext : 96401.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Trends and overall survival after combined liver resection and thermal ablation of colorectal liver metastases:a nationwide population-based propensity score-matched study

Background: In colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) patients, combination of liver resection and ablation permit a more parenchymal-sparing approach. This study assessed trends in use of combined resection and ablation, outcomes, and overall survival (OS). Methods: This population-based study included all CRLM patients who underwent liver resection between 2014 and 2022. To assess OS, data was linked to two databases containing date of death for patients treated between 2014 and 2018. Hospital variation in the use of combined minor liver resection and ablation versus major liver resection alone in patients with 2–3 CRLM and ≤3 cm was assessed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to evaluate outcomes. Results: This study included 3593 patients, of whom 1336 (37.2%) underwent combined resection and ablation. Combined resection increased from 31.7% in 2014 to 47.9% in 2022. Significant hospital variation (range 5.9–53.8%) was observed in the use of combined minor liver resection and ablation. PSM resulted in 1005 patients in each group. Major morbidity was not different (11.6% vs. 5%, P = 1.00). Liver failure occurred less often after combined resection and ablation (1.9% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.017). Five-year OS rates were not different (39.3% vs. 33.9%, P = 0.145). Conclusion: Combined resection and ablation should be available and considered as an alternative to resection alone in any patient with multiple metastases.</p

Volume–outcome relationship of liver surgery: a nationwide analysis

Background: Evidence for an association between hospital volume and outcomes for liver surgery is abundant. The current Dutch guideline requires a minimum volume of 20 annual procedures per centre. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between hospital volume and postoperative outcomes using data from the nationwide Dutch Hepato Biliary Audit. Methods: This was a nationwide study in the Netherlands. All liver resections reported in the Dutch Hepato Biliary Audit between 2014 and 2017 were included. Annual centre volume was calculated and classified in categories of 20 procedures per year. Main outcomes were major morbidity (Clavien–Dindo grade IIIA or higher) and 30-day or in-hospital mortality. Results: A total of 5590 liver resections were done across 34 centres with a median annual centre volume of 35 (i.q.r. 20–69) procedures. Overall major morbidity and mortality rates were 11·2 and 2·0 per cent respectively. The mortality rate was 1·9 per cent after resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs), 1·2 per cent for non-CRLMs, 0·4 per cent for benign tumours, 4·9 per cent for hepatocellular carcinoma and 10·3 per cent for biliary tumours. Higher-volume centres performed more major liver resections, and more resections for hepatocellular carcinoma and biliary cancer. There was no association between hospital volume and either major morbidity or mortality in multivariable analysis, after adjustment for known risk factors for adverse events. Conclusion: Hospital volume and postoperative outcomes were not associated

Resectability and Ablatability Criteria for the Treatment of Liver Only Colorectal Metastases:Multidisciplinary Consensus Document from the COLLISION Trial Group

The guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer crudely state that the best local treatment should be selected from a 'toolbox' of techniques according to patient- and treatment-related factors. We created an interdisciplinary, consensus-based algorithm with specific resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). To pursue consensus, members of the multidisciplinary COLLISION and COLDFIRE trial expert panel employed the RAND appropriateness method (RAM). Statements regarding patient, disease, tumor and treatment characteristics were categorized as appropriate, equipoise or inappropriate. Patients with ECOG≤2, ASA≤3 and Charlson comorbidity index ≤8 should be considered fit for curative-intent local therapy. When easily resectable and/or ablatable (stage IVa), (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy is not indicated. When requiring major hepatectomy (stage IVb), neo-adjuvant systemic therapy is appropriate for early metachronous disease and to reduce procedural risk. To downstage patients (stage IVc), downsizing induction systemic therapy and/or future remnant augmentation is advised. Disease can only be deemed permanently unsuitable for local therapy if downstaging failed (stage IVd). Liver resection remains the gold standard. Thermal ablation is reserved for unresectable CRLM, deep-seated resectable CRLM and can be considered when patients are in poor health. Irreversible electroporation and stereotactic body radiotherapy can be considered for unresectable perihilar and perivascular CRLM 0-5cm. This consensus document provides per-patient and per-tumor resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of CRLM. These criteria are intended to aid tumor board discussions, improve consistency when designing prospective trials and advance intersociety communications. Areas where consensus is lacking warrant future comparative studies.</p

Immediate versus postponed intervention for infected necrotizing pancreatitis

BACKGROUND Infected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is encapsulated. Whether outcomes could be improved by earlier catheter drainage is unknown. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, randomized superiority trial involving patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, in which we compared immediate drainage within 24 hours after randomization once infected necrosis was diagnosed with drainage that was postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis was reached. The primary end point was the score on the Comprehensive Complication Index, which incorporates all complications over the course of 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS A total of 104 patients were randomly assigned to immediate drainage (55 patients) or postponed drainage (49 patients). The mean score on the Comprehensive Complication Index (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe complications) was 57 in the immediate-drainage group and 58 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, −1; 95% confidence interval [CI], −12 to 10; P=0.90). Mortality was 13% in the immediate-drainage group and 10% in the postponed-drainage group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.42 to 3.68). The mean number of interventions (catheter drainage and necrosectomy) was 4.4 in the immediate-drainage group and 2.6 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.0). In the postponed-drainage group, 19 patients (39%) were treated conservatively with antibiotics and did not require drainage; 17 of these patients survived. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS This trial did not show the superiority of immediate drainage over postponed drainage with regard to complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Patients randomly assigned to the postponed-drainage strategy received fewer invasive interventions