Liver transplantation for metastatic neuroendocrine tumor: A case report and review of the literature

Neuroendocrine tumors are divided into gastrointestinal carcinoids and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. The WHO has updated the classification of these lesions and has abandoned the term ＂carcinoid＂. Both types of tumors are divided into functional and non-functional tumors. They are characterized by slow growth and frequent metastasis to the liver and may be limited to the liver for long periods. The therapeutic approach to hepatic metastases should consider the number and distribution of the liver metastases as well as the severity of symptoms related to hormone production and tumor bulk. Surgery is generally considered as the first line therapy. In patients with unresectable liver metastases, alternative treatments are dependent on the type and the growth rate. Initial treatments consist of long acting somatostatin analogs and/or interferon. Streptozocin-based chemotherapy is usually reserved for symptomatic patients with rapidly advancing disease, but generally the therapy is poorly tolerated and its effects are short-lived. Locoregional therapy directed such as hepatic-artery embolization and chemoembolization, radiofrequency thermal ablation and cryosurgery, is often used instead of systemic therapy, if the disease is limited to the liver. However, liver transplantation should be considered in patients with neuroendocrine metastases to the liver that are not accessible to curative or cytoreductive surgery and if medical or Iocoregional treatment has failed and if there are life threatening hormonal symptoms. We report a case of liver transplantation for metastatic neuroendocrine tumor of unknown primary source and provide a detailed review of the world literature on this controversial topic.

Hepatitis C virus therapy with peg-interferon and ribavirin in Myanmar: A resource-constrained country

AIM To investigate peg-interferon(peg-IFN) and ribavirin(RBV) therapy in Myanmar and to predict sustained virologic response(SVR).METHODS This single-center, open-label, study was conducted in Myanmar between 2009 and 2014. A total of 288 patients infected with HCV genotypes 1, 2, 3 and 6 were treated with peg-IFN alpha-2a(180 μg/wk) or alpha-2b(50 to 100 μg as a weight-based dose) and RBV as a weight-based dose(15 mg/kg/d). Treatment duration was 48 wk for genotypes 1 and 6, 24 wk for genotype 2, and 24 or 48 wk for genotype 3 based on rapid virologic response(RVR). Those co-infected with hepatitis B received 48 wk of therapy.RESULTS Overall, SVR was achieved for 82% of patients and the therapy was well tolerated. All patients achieved SVR at equivalent rates regardless of HCV genotype(P = 0.314). Low fibrosis scores(P < 0.001), high baseline albumin levels(P = 0.028) and low baseline viral loads(P = 0.029) all independently predicted SVR. On the other hand, IL-28 B TT and CC genotypes were not found to significantly predict SVR(P = 0.634; P = 0.618). Among those who completed treatment, the occurrence of RVR showed a > 96% positive predictive value for achieving SVR. Treatment duration did not significantly impact the likelihood of achieving SVR for patients infected with genotype 3 HCV(P = 0.371). The most common adverse events were fatigue(71%) and poor appetite(60%). Among patients with genotype 3 HCV, more patients in the 48-wk treatment group required erythropoietin than in the 24-wk treatment group(61.1% vs 49.2%).CONCLUSION SVR rates were high with peg-IFN and RBV therapy in Myanmar. Fibrosis scores, baseline albumin, HCV RNA levels and RVR independently predicted SVR.

Hepatitis C virus genotype 3: Meta-analysis on sustained virologic response rates with currently available treatment options

AIM: To address the therapeutic efficacy of various treatment regimens in genotype 3 selecting randomized clinical trials and prospective National Cohort Studies.METHODS:(1) PEG-INF-based therapy including sofosbuvir(SOF) + RBV for 12 wk vs SOF + RBV 24 wk;(2) SOF + RBV therapy 12 wk/16 wk vs 24 wk; and(3) the role of RBV in SOF + daclatasvir(DCV) and SOF + ledipasvir(LDV) combinations. This metaanalysis provides robust information with the intention of addressing treatment strategy for hepatitis C virus genotype 3.RESULTS: A combination treatment including SOF + RBV + PEG-IFN for 12 wk notes better SVR than with only SOF + RBV for 12 wk, although its association with more frequent adverse effects may be a limiting factor. Longer duration therapy with SOF + RBV(24 wk) has achieved higher SVR rates than shorter durations(12 or 16 wk). SOF + LDV are not an ideal treatment for genotype 3. CONCLUSION: Lastly, SOF + DCV combination is probably the best oral therapy option and the addition of RBV does not appear to be needed to increase SVR rates substantially.