Post-surgical Pancreatitis Masquerading as Recurrent Neuroendocrine Cancer

Neuroendocrine tumours of the pancreas can have a spectrum of behaviour from relatively benign to aggressive. Resection can result in cure although metastatic disease is described. We present an unusual case of an apparent local recurrence of previously resected neuroendocrine tumour in a young man who had undergone distal pancreatectomy. Pathological analysis demonstrated focal post-surgical pancreatitis with radiological appearances bearing striking similarity to the original primary tumour

A33 shows similar sensitivity to but is more specific than CDX2 as an immunomarker of colorectal carcinoma

Aims: CDX2 is widely used as a sensitive and specific immunomarker for colorectal carcinoma (CRC) but neither this sensitivity nor specificity is absolute. This study is the first known comparison of CDX1 and A33 against CDX2 as immunomarkers for CRC. Methods and Results: As a pilot study, whole sections of 51 cases of liver metastatic carcinoma of different origins - colorectum (n=32), breast (n=3), oesophagogastric tract (n=4), lung (n=3), pancreas (n=8), and prostate (n=1) - were immunostained with CDX1, CDX2 and A33. Compared with CDX1, A33 showed higher sensitivity as a CRC immunomarker, greater interobserver reproducibility for assessment of expression, and less background cross-reactivity. Therefore, only A33 was compared with CDX2 for a tissue microarray-based study of primary adenocarcinomas of different origin: CRC (n=55), liver deposits of metastatic CRC (n=60), breast (n=101), lung (n=40), oesophagogastric tract (n=134), ovary (n= 67), pancreas (n= 77), and prostate (n= 56). Combining the whole section and TMA cases of CRC, A33 had a sensitivity of 95.9% and CDX2 a sensitivity of 97.2%. Combining all the whole section and TMA cases of non-colorectal carcinomas, A33 showed 85.4% specificity as a marker of CRC compared to CDX2 which showed a specificity of 64.3%. The higher specificity of A33 as a colorectal carcinoma immunomarker compared with CDX2 was particularly seen amongst pancreatic and ovarian carcinomas. Further, unlike with CDX2, none of the prostatic and lung carcinomas studied showed A33 positivity. Conclusions: A33 shows similar sensitivity to but is more specific than CDX2 as an immunomarker of CRC

Equity of access to renal transplant waiting list and renal transplantation in Scotland: cohort study

Objective To examine the access to the renal transplant waiting list and renal transplantation in Scotland. Design Cohort study. Setting Renal and transplant units in Scotland. Participants 4523 adults starting renal replacement therapy in Scotland between 1 January 1989 and 31 December 1999. Main outcome measures Impact of age, sex, social deprivation, primary renal disease, renal or transplant unit, and geography on access to the waiting list and renal transplantation. Results 1736 of 4523 (38.4%) patients were placed on the waiting list for renal transplantation and 1095 (24.2%) underwent transplantation up to 31 December 2000, the end of the study period. Patients were less likely to be placed on the list if they were female, older, had diabetes, were in a high deprivation category, and were treated in a renal unit in a hospital with no transplant unit. Patients living furthest away from the transplant centre were listed more quickly. The only factors governing access to transplantation once on the list were age, primary renal disease, and year of listing. A significant centre effect was found in access to the waiting list and renal transplantation. Conclusions A major disparity exists in access to the renal transplant waiting list and renal transplantation in Scotland. Comorbidity may be an important factor

Inequity in access to transplantation in the UK

Background and objectives Despite the presence of a universal health care system, it is unclear if there is intercenter variation in access to kidney transplantation in the United Kingdom. This study aims to assess whether equity exists in access to kidney transplantation in the United Kingdom after adjustment for patient-specific factors and center practice patterns. Design, setting, participants, & measurements In this prospective, observational cohort study including all 71 United Kingdom kidney centers, incident RRT patients recruited between November 2011 and March 2013 as part of the Access to Transplantation and Transplant Outcome Measures study were analyzed to assess preemptive listing (n=2676) and listing within 2 years of starting dialysis (n=1970) by center. Results Seven hundred and six participants (26%) were listed preemptively, whereas 585 (30%) were listed within 2 years of commencing dialysis. The interquartile range across centers was 6%–33% for preemptive listing and 25%–40% for listing after starting dialysis. Patient factors, including increasing age, most comorbidities, body mass index >35 kg/m2, and lower socioeconomic status, were associated with a lower likelihood of being listed and accounted for 89% and 97% of measured intercenter variation for preemptive listing and listing within 2 years of starting dialysis, respectively. Asian (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.33 to 0.72) and Black (odds ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.71) participants were both associated with reduced access to preemptive listing; however Asian participants were associated with a higher likelihood of being listed after starting dialysis (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.12 to 1.79). As for center factors, being registered at a transplanting center (odds ratio, 3.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.36 to 4.07) and a universal approach to discussing transplantation (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.08 to 1.78) were associated with higher preemptive listing, whereas using a written protocol was associated negatively with listing within 2 years of starting dialysis (odds ratio, 0.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.9). Conclusions Patient case mix accounts for most of the intercenter variation seen in access to transplantation in the United Kingdom, with practice patterns also contributing some variation. Socioeconomic inequity exists despite having a universal health care system

Understanding cost of care for patients on renal replacement therapy: looking beyond fixed tariffs.

BACKGROUND: In a number of countries, reimbursement to hospitals providing renal dialysis services is set according to a fixed tariff. While the cost of maintenance dialysis and transplant surgery are amenable to a system of fixed tariffs, patients with established renal failure commonly present with comorbid conditions that can lead to variations in the need for hospitalization beyond the provision of renal replacement therapy. METHODS: Patient-level cost data for incident renal replacement therapy patients in England were obtained as a result of linkage of the Hospital Episodes Statistics dataset to UK Renal Registry data. Regression models were developed to explore variations in hospital costs in relation to treatment modality, number of years on treatment and factors such as age and comorbidities. The final models were then used to predict annual costs for patients with different sets of characteristics. RESULTS: Excluding the cost of renal replacement therapy itself, inpatient costs generally decreased with number of years on treatment for haemodialysis and transplant patients, whereas costs for patients receiving peritoneal dialysis remained constant. Diabetes was associated with higher mean annual costs for all patients irrespective of treatment modality and hospital setting. Age did not have a consistent effect on costs. CONCLUSIONS: Combining predicted hospital costs with the fixed costs of renal replacement therapy showed that the total cost differential for a patient continuing on dialysis rather than receiving a transplant is considerable following the first year of renal replacement therapy, thus reinforcing the longer-term economic advantage of transplantation over dialysis for the health service.<br/

Criteria for and Appropriateness of Renal Transplantation in Elderly Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease : A Literature Review and Position Statement on Behalf of the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association Descartes Working Group and European Renal Best Practice

During the last 20 years, waiting lists for renal transplantation (RT) have grown significantly older. However, elderly patients (ie ≥65 years of age) are still more rarely referred or accepted to waiting lists and, if enlisted, have less chances of actually receiving a kidney allograft, than younger counterparts. In this review, we looked at evidence for the benefits and risks of RT in the elderly trying to answer the following questions: Should RT be advocated for elderly patients? What should be the criteria to accept elderly patients on the waiting list for RT? What strategies might be used to increase the rate of RT in waitlisted elderly candidates? For selected elderly patients, RT was shown to be superior to dialysis in terms of patient survival. Virtually all guidelines recommend that patients should not be deemed ineligible for RT based on age alone, although a short life expectancy generally might preclude RT. Concerning the assessment of comorbidities in the elderly, special attention should be paid to cardiac evaluation and screening for malignancy. Comorbidity scores and frailty assessment scales might help the decision making on eligibility. Psychosocial issues should also be evaluated. To overcome the scarcity of organ donors, elderly RT candidates should be encouraged to consider expanded criteria donors and living donors, as alternatives to deceased standard criteria donors. It has been demonstrated that expanded criteria donor RT in patients 60 years or older is associated with higher survival rates than remaining on dialysis, whereas living donor RT is superior to all other options.Peer reviewe