Search

Background and Aims: Post-surgical biliary leaks (PSBL) are one of the most prevalent and significant adverse events emerging after liver or biliary tract surgeries. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) alone or combined with another approach (Rendez Vous) as treatment of PSBL obtains optimal outcomes due to the possibility of modifying the resistances in the biliary tree. Methods: A retrospective double-center study was conducted in two tertiary centers. Consecutive patients who underwent at least one attempt of PSBL correction by ERCP or Rendez Vous procedure between January 2018 and August 2023 were included. The primary outcome was overall endoscopic clinical success. In contrast, the secondary outcomes were hospital stay exceeding five days and endoscopic clinical success with the first endoscopic procedure at the tertiary center. Both univariate and multivariate analyses were used to assess outcomes. Results: 65 patients were included. Patients with one or multiple) leaks had more possibility to achieve the endoscopic clinical success compared to those affected by the association of leaks and stricture (96% vs 67%, pvalue 0.005). Leaks occurring in the main biliary duct had less probability (67%) to achieve the overall endoscopic clinical success compared to those in the end-to-end anastomosis (90%), in the resection plane or biliary stump (96%) or first or secondary order biliary branches (100%, pvalue 0.038). A leak-bridging stent positioning had more probability of achieving the endoscopic clinical success than a not leak-bridging stent (91% vs 53%, pvalue 0.005). Conclusions: ERCP and Rendez Vous procedures are safe and effective for treating PSBL, regardless of the type of preceding surgery, even if technical or clinical success was not achieved on the first attempt. A stent should be placed, if feasible, leak-bridging to enhance treatment efficacy. Graphical abstract:

Background: Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction (MBDO) is a common event occurring along the natural history of both pancreatic cancer and cholangiocarcinoma. Epidemiological and biological features make MBDO one of the key elements of the clinical management of patients suffering for of pancreatic cancer or cholangiocarcinoma. The development of dedicated biliary lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) is changing the clinical work up of patients with MBDO. i-EUS is an Italian network of clinicians and scientists with a special interest in biliopancreatic endoscopy, EUS in particular. Methods: The scientific methodology was chosen in line with international guidance and in a fashion similar to those applied by broader scientific associations. PICO questions were elaborated and subsequently voted by a broad panel of experts within a simplified Delphi process. Results and conclusions: The manuscripts describes the results of a consensus conference organized by i-EUS with the aim of providing an evidence based-guidance for the appropriate use of the techniques in patients with MBDO.

Background: Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction (mGOO) has been standardly treated by surgical Gastrojejunostomy (S-GJ) or Endoscopic Stenting (ES). Recently, EUS-Gastrojejunostomy (EUS-GJ) has emerged as an alternative, despite its worldwide diffusion is heterogeneous. The aim of this survey was to assess clinical decision-making around mGOO and to explore current opinions regarding EUS-GJ. Methods: An online survey, spread through social networks and EPC newsletter, was created exploring opinions regarding indications, contraindications, benefits/risks, availability of mGOO treatments; 2 case vignettes explored clinical decision-making in different scenarios. Results: Overall, 290 pancreatologists from 44 countries responded, of whom 35% surgeons and 65% gastroenterologists. The most common treatment for mGOO was ES (86%), followed by laparoscopic GJ (76%). EUS-GJ was accessible to 59% of respondents, with 10% proficient in this technique. Gold-standard treatment for mGOO varied by specialty; 45% of gastroenterologists preferred ES, 20% EUS-GJ, and 10% surgical GJ, while among surgeons, these were 24%, 8%, and 25%, respectively. A higher annual volume of mGOO treated correlated with increased EUS-GJ adoption and reduced surgical advice. For 51%, EUS-GJ will become the primary treatment for mGOO, notably higher among gastroenterologists and high-volume centers. For 14%, EUS-GJ spread will be limited in the future, or used only when ES fails (19%). Life expectancy, disease stage and patient’s frailty are the main decision driver in therapeutic choice, whereas future surgical resectability does not contraindicate any treatment for 75%. EUS-GJ’s main advantages were its minimally invasive nature and clinical efficacy, offset by its steep learning curve. Conclusions: This survey revealed significant differences in the management of mGOO, depending on specialties, local expertise and treatment volume, suggesting the lack of standardized algorithms. Life expectancy and patients’ frailty are the main decision drivers. Regarding EUS-GJ, its availability remains suboptimal, with learning curve as the main perceived barrier.

Background:Atezolizumab + bevacizumab represent the current standard of care for first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, direct comparison with other combination treatments including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) + tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are lacking. Objectives:This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to indirectly compare the efficacy and the safety of first-line systemic therapies for unresectable advanced HCC. Method:A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and SCOPUS databases was conducted up to October 31, 2022. Phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing TKIs, including sorafenib and lenvatinib, or ICIs reporting overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were included. Individual survival data were extracted from OS and PFS curves to calculate restricted mean survival time. A Bayesian NMA was performed to compare treatments in terms of efficacy (15- and 30-month OS, 6-month PFS) and safety, represented by grade ≥3 (severe) adverse events (SAEs). The incremental safety-effectiveness ratio as measure of net health benefit was calculated as the difference in SAE probability divided by survival difference between the 2 most effective treatments. Results:Nine RCTs enrolling 6,600 patients were included. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed the highest probability (88%) of achieving the 30-month OS landmark. Lenvatinib showed a probability of 86% of achieving best PFS outcomes. ICI monotherapies ranked as most tolerable. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed the best net health benefit for OS, compared to durvalumab plus tremelimumab. When evaluating the net health benefit for PFS, at a willingness-to-risk threshold of 10% of SAEs for life-month gained, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was favoured in 78% of cases, while at threshold of 30% of SAEs for life-month gained, lenvatinib was favoured in 76% of cases. Conclusions:Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is the best treatment in terms of net benefit and therefore it should be recommended as standard of care. Compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, lenvatinib monotherapy had the best net benefit for PFS when physicians and patients are available to accept a higher risk of toxicity.

Introduction:Atezolizumab (ATEZO) plus bevacizumab (BEVA) represents the new standard of care for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the choice of the second-line treatment after the failure of immunotherapy-based first-line remains elusive. Taking into account the weaknesses of the available evidence, we developed a simulation model based on available phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to identify optimal risk/benefit sequential strategies. Methods:A Markov model was built to estimate the overall survival (OS) of sequential first- and second-line systemic treatments. Sequences starting with first-line ATEZO plus BEVA followed by 5 second-line treatments (sorafenib [SORA], lenvatinib [LENVA], regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab) were compared. The probability of transition between states (initial treatment, cancer progression, and death) was derived from RCTs. Life-year gained (LYG) was the main outcome. Rates of severe adverse events (SAEs) (≥ grade 3) were calculated. The incremental safety-effectiveness ratio (ISER) was calculated as the difference in probability of SAEs divided by LYG between the 2 most effective sequences. Results:ATEZO plus BEVA followed by LENVA (median OS, 24 months) or SORA (median OS, 23 months) was the most effective sequence, producing a LYG of 0.50 and 0.42 year, respectively. ATEZO plus BEVA followed by SORA was the safest sequence (SAEs 63%). At a willingness-to-risk threshold of 10% of SAEs for LYG, ATEZO plus BEVA followed by second-line SORA was favored in 72% of cases, while at a threshold of 30% of SAEs for LYG, ATEZO plus BEVA followed by second-line LENVA was favored in 69% of cases. Conclusion:Our simulation model provides a strong rationale to support ongoing trials evaluating second-line tyrosine-kinase inhibitors after first-line ATEZO plus BEVA. Future evidence from ongoing RCTs and prospective real-world studies are needed to prove the net health benefit of sequential treatment options for advanced HCC.

ObjectiveThe benefit of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) against HCV following successful treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains controversial. This meta-analysis of individual patient data assessed HCC recurrence risk following DAA administration.DesignWe pooled the data of 977 consecutive patients from 21 studies of HCV-related cirrhosis and HCC, who achieved complete radiological response after surgical/locoregional treatments and received DAAs (DAA group). Recurrence or death risk was expressed as HCC recurrence or death per 100 person-years (100PY). Propensity score-matched patients from the ITA.LI.CA. cohort (n=328) served as DAA-unexposed controls (no-DAA group). Risk factors for HCC recurrence were identified using random-effects Poisson.ResultsRecurrence rate and death risk per 100PY in DAA-treated patients were 20 (95% CI 13.9 to 29.8, I2=74.6%) and 5.7 (2.5 to 15.3, I2=54.3), respectively. Predictive factors for recurrence were alpha-fetoprotein logarithm (relative risk (RR)=1.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.19; p=0.01, per 1 log of ng/mL), HCC recurrence history pre-DAA initiation (RR=1.11, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.16; p<0.001), performance status (2 vs 0, RR=4.35, 95% CI 1.54 to 11.11; 2 vs 1, RR=3.7, 95% CI 1.3 to 11.11; p=0.01) and tumour burden pre-HCC treatment (multifocal vs solitary nodule, RR=1.75, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.43; p<0.001). No significant difference was observed in RR between the DAA-exposed and DAA-unexposed groups in propensity score-matched patients (RR=0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.1; p=0.1).ConclusionEffects of DAA exposure on HCC recurrence risk remain inconclusive. Active clinical and radiological follow-up of patients with HCC after HCV eradication with DAA is justified.