Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatic Transmural Stenting and Transmural Intervention

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided pancreatic access is an emergent method that can be divided into the two main techniques of EUS-guided rendezvous and pancreatic transmural stenting (PTS). While many reports have described EUS-guided procedures, the indications, technical tips, clinical effects, and safety of EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PD) remain controversial. This review describes the current status of and problems associated with EUS-PD, particularly PTS. We reviewed clinical data derived from a total of 334 patients. Rates of technical and clinical success ranged from 63% to 100% and 76% to 100%, respectively. In contrast, the rate of procedure-related adverse events was high at 26.7% (89/334). The most frequent adverse events comprised abdominal pain (n=38), acute pancreatitis (n=15), bleeding (n=9), and issues associated with pancreatic juice leakage such as perigastric fluid, pancreatic fluid collection, or pancreatic juice leaks (n=8). In conclusion, indications for EUS-PTS are limited, as is the evidence of its viability, due to the scarcity of expert operators. Despite improvements made to various devices, EUS-PTS remains technically challenging. Therefore, a long-term, large-scale, multicenter study is required to establish this technique as a viable alternative drainage method

Sequential therapies after atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib first-line treatments in hepatocellular carcinoma patients

Introduction: The aim of this retrospective proof-of-concept study was to compare different second-line treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and progressive disease (PD) after first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.Materials and methods: A total of 1381 patients had PD at first-line therapy. 917 patients received lenvatinib as first-line treatment, and 464 patients atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line.Results: 49.6% of PD patients received a second-line therapy without any statistical difference in overall survival (OS) between lenvatinib (20.6 months) and atezolizumab plus bev-acizumab first-line (15.7 months; p = 0.12; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80). After lenvatinib first-line, there wasn't any statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p = 0.27; sorafenib HR: 1; immunotherapy HR: 0.69; other therapies HR: 0.85). Patients who under-went trans-arterial chemo-embolization (TACE) had a significative longer OS than patients who received sorafenib (24.7 versus 15.8 months, p < 0.01; HR = 0.64). After atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line, there was a statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p < 0.01; sorafenib HR: 1; lenvatinib HR: 0.50; cabozantinib HR: 1.29; other therapies HR: 0.54). Patients who received lenvatinib (17.0 months) and those who under-went TACE (15.9 months) had a significative longer OS than patients treated with sorafenib (14.2 months; respectively, p = 0.01; HR = 0.45, and p < 0.05; HR = 0.46).Conclusion: Approximately half of patients receiving first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab access second-line treatment. Our data suggest that in patients progressed to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is lenvatinib, while in patients progressed to lenvatinib, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is immunotherapy

CD34+CD10+CD19− Cells in Patients with Unhealthy Alcohol Use Stimulate the M2b Monocyte Polarization

M2b monocytes commonly isolated from patients with unhealthy alcohol use (Alc) have been described as cells that make the host susceptible to opportunistic infections. CD34+CD10+CD19− cells are multilineage progenitors of CD19+ cells, and we show that the effect of these cells from the peripheral blood on M2b monocyte polarization differed between healthy donors and Alc in this study. In healthy donors, these cells consistently differentiated into high-mobility group box-1 (HMGB1)-nonproducing cells (CD19+ cells) in response to retinoic acid (RA). However, owing to the lack of expression of RA receptor (RAR), these cells from Alc failed to differentiate into CD19+ cells under the same RA stimulation. Conditioned medium (CM) of these cells from Alc induced the polarization of M2b monocytes, which increases the susceptibility of hosts to opportunistic infections in Alc. When the alcoholic individuals were subjected to 2 weeks of abstinence from alcohol, these cells from Alc recovered their RAR expression and differentiated into CD19+ cells. Moreover, the CM of these cells from Alc after abstinence lost its ability to induce M2b monocyte polarization. These results indicate that these cells from Alc have different properties from those of healthy donors. In Alc, these cells without RAR stimulate M2b monocyte polarization through the production of HMGB1

Association between Administration of Antithrombotics and Intraperitoneal Hemorrhage in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Interventions for Liver Diseases

Currently, percutaneous interventions are essential for diagnosis and treatment of liver diseases. The most frequent complication of percutaneous interventions is intraperitoneal hemorrhage. Recently, the number of patients with liver diseases on antithrombotics has been increasing. This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the risk factors for intraperitoneal hemorrhage in patients after percutaneous interventions for liver diseases. This study included 1025 patients who underwent percutaneous interventions for liver diseases from April 2015 to March 2020. All interventions were performed using an ultrasound-guided approach. The influence of antithrombotic drug administration in patients, who underwent percutaneous interventions according to the guidelines for the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease, was evaluated. Intraperitoneal hemorrhage after percutaneous interventions was detected by computed tomography. Intraperitoneal hemorrhage occurred in nine patients (0.88%); however, these adverse events were not severe. We compared clinical characteristics between the patients with and without intraperitoneal hemorrhage. Although, there was no difference based on the administration of antithrombotics (p = 0.1961), seven of nine patients who showed intraperitoneal hemorrhage received percutaneous treatments (radio frequency ablation or microwave ablation). Therefore, we divided patients who underwent treatments and liver biopsy and then investigated the influence of antithrombotics on the intraperitoneal hemorrhage. After propensity score matching in each patient group, the administration of antithrombotics was not identified as a risk factor for hemorrhage in patients who underwent interventional treatments and patients who underwent liver biopsy. When the antithrombotics were discontinued, according to the guidelines, it may not increase the risk factor for hemorrhage in patients of liver disease who underwent percutaneous interventions