European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT) Consensus Report on Downstaging, Bridging and Immunotherapy in Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Liver transplantation offers the best chance of cure for most patients with non-metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Although not all patients with HCC are eligible for liver transplantation at diagnosis, some can be downstaged using locoregional treatments such as ablation and transarterial chemoembolization. These aforementioned treatments are being applied as bridging therapies to keep patients within transplant criteria and to avoid them from dropping out of the waiting list while awaiting a liver transplant. Moreover, immunotherapy might have great potential to support downstaging and bridging therapies. To address the contemporary status of downstaging, bridging, and immunotherapy in liver transplantation for HCC, European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT) convened a dedicated working group comprised of experts in the treatment of HCC to review literature and to develop guidelines pertaining to this cause that were subsequently discussed and voted during the Transplant Learning Journey (TLJ) 3.0 Consensus Conference that took place in person in Prague. The findings and recommendations of the working group on Downstaging, Bridging and Immunotherapy in Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma are presented in this article.</p

Conducting retrospective impact analysis to inform a medical research charity’s funding strategies: The case of Asthma UK

© 2013 Hanney et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.This article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund.BACKGROUND: Debate is intensifying about how to assess the full range of impacts from medical research. Complexity increases when assessing the diverse funding streams of funders such as Asthma UK, a charitable patient organisation supporting medical research to benefit people with asthma. This paper aims to describe the various impacts identified from a range of Asthma UK research, and explore how Asthma UK utilised the characteristics of successful funding approaches to inform future research strategies. METHODS: We adapted the Payback Framework, using it both in a survey and to help structure interviews, documentary analysis, and case studies. We sent surveys to 153 lead researchers of projects, plus 10 past research fellows, and also conducted 14 detailed case studies. These covered nine projects and two fellowships, in addition to the innovative case studies on the professorial chairs (funded since 1988) and the MRC-Asthma UK Centre in Allergic Mechanisms of Asthma (the ‘Centre’) which together facilitated a comprehensive analysis of the whole funding portfolio. We organised each case study to capture whatever academic and wider societal impacts (or payback) might have arisen given the diverse timescales, size of funding involved, and extent to which Asthma UK funding contributed to the impacts. RESULTS: Projects recorded an average of four peer-reviewed journal articles. Together the chairs reported over 500 papers. All streams of funding attracted follow-on funding. Each of the various categories of societal impacts arose from only a minority of individual projects and fellowships. Some of the research portfolio is influencing asthma-related clinical guidelines, and some contributing to product development. The latter includes potentially major breakthroughs in asthma therapies (in immunotherapy, and new inhaled drugs) trialled by university spin-out companies. Such research-informed guidelines and medicines can, in turn, contribute to health improvements. The role of the chairs and the pioneering collaborative Centre is shown as being particularly important. CONCLUSIONS: We systematically demonstrate that all types of Asthma UK’s research funding assessed are making impacts at different levels, but the main societal impacts from projects and fellowships come from a minority of those funded. Asthma UK used the study’s findings, especially in relation to the Centre, to inform research funding strategies to promote the achievement of impact.This study was funded by Asthma UK

GPs' reasons for referral of patients with chest pain: a qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Prompt diagnosis of an acute coronary syndrome is very important and urgent referral to a hospital is imperative because fast treatment can be life-saving and increase the patient's life expectancy and quality of life. The aim of our study was to identify GPs' reasons for referring or not referring patients presenting with chest pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a semi-structured interview, 21 GPs were asked to describe why they do or do not refer a patient presenting with chest pain. Interviews were taped, transcribed and qualitatively analysed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Histories of 21 patients were studied. Six were not referred, seven were referred to a cardiologist and eight to the emergency department. GPs' reasons for referral were background knowledge about the patient, patient's age and cost-benefit estimation, the perception of a negative attitude from the medical rescue team, recent patient contact with a cardiologist without detection of a coronary disease and the actual presentation of signs and symptoms, gut feeling, clinical examination and ECG results.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study suggests that GPs believe they do not exclusively use the 'classical' signs and symptoms in their decision-making process for patients presenting with chest pain. Background knowledge about the patient, GPs' personal ideas and gut feeling are also important.</p

Neuroendovascular Management of Emergent Large Vessel Occlusion: Update on the Technical Aspects and Standards of Practice by the Standards and Guidelines Committee of the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery

Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is the fifth leading cause of death, and remains the leading cause of disability in the USA.1 There are an estimated 680 000 new strokes per year in the USA, with a mortality rate of 53–94%, and with an even greater morbidity.2 It is estimated that 3–22% of these patients are candidates for endovascular therapy.3–6 In addition to baseline stroke severity, emergent large vessel occlusion (ELVO) has been shown to be an independent predictor of poor outcome at 6 months.3 4 While intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (IV r-tPA) has proven efficacious predominantly for small cerebral vessel occlusions, endovascular therapies, including stent retriever based, aspiration based mechanical thrombectomy techniques, and intra-arterial administration of thrombolytic agents, have been shown to achieve higher rates of recanalization in patients with ELVO.7–10 The purpose of this document is to provide an update and critical assessment of technical aspects of the mechanical thrombectomy procedure