Clinical diagnosis and treatment of alpha-fetoprotein-negative small hepatic lesions

Objective： We examined 103 cases over the last five years and discussed diagnosis and treatment of alpha- fetoprotein （AFP）-negative small hepatic lesions. Background： Small hepatic lesions （less than 2 cm in diameter） usually have no typical imaging characteristics and therefore are difficult to diagnose, especially when AFP tests provide a negative result. Methods： A total of 103 patients with AFP-negative small hepatic lesions from January 2003 to December 2008 were retrospectively reviewed. Differential diagnosis was performed by digital subtraction angiography （DSA）, dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging （DCE-MRI）, contrast-enhanced ultrasound （CEUS）, or positron emission tomography-computed tomography （PET-CT） based on the multiplicity of lesions. Ninety-four patients with suspected cancers underwent partial hepatectomy. Clinical data were collected from hospital records and follow-up questionnaires. Results： Hepatocellular carcinoma （HCC） diagnostic sensitivity of DSA, DCE-MRI, CEUS and PET-CT was 88.2%, 93.9%, 88.9% and 88.9%, respectively. The surgery-related complication rate was 6.4%. Prognosis was good, with 1- and 3-year survival rates of 98.8% and 76.1%, respectively. Conclusions： DSA, DCE-MRI, CEUS and PET-CT are valuable for diagnosis of small hepatic lesions. Partial hepatectomy is a preferred surgical procedure. Surgery for small liver cancers usually has little risk and good prognosis, therefore it can be actively applied in suspected HCC cases.

Drug-eluting stent for the treatment of small coronary lesion:comparison between sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stent

Background Patients with small coronary lesions are at increased risk for repeat interventions after coronary angioplasty and stenting. The efficacy of drug-eluting stents （DES） has been demonstrated to improve the outcomes of these patients and is a focus of interest. Currently, two platforms of DES are available （sirolimus-eluting stent （SES） and paclitaxel-eluting stent （PES））. However, it has less been known that DES, SES vs PES, is superior for the treatment of small coronary lesions. Methods In this retrospective study, 87 consecutive patients with 151 lesions underwent implantation of coronary SES （n=68） and PES （n=83）. Quantitative coronary angiography （QCA） was performed at the time of stent implantation and subsequently at 8 months post-stenting. Small vessel disease was defined as lesions in vessels with diameter 42.5 mm measured by QCA. Major adverse cardiac events （MACE） including death, thrombosis, nonfatal myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization （TLR） were compared between the two groups. Results Baseline clinical characteristics and angiographic parameters were similar between the two groups. At clinical and angiographic follow-up, overall thrombosis rates were similar in both groups （0 vs 1.2%, P〉0.05）. The TLR and in-segment restenosis were not significantly different （19.1% vs 25.3%; 10.3% vs 10.8%, P=0.365 and P=0.913 respectively） between the two groups. The in-stent restenosis rate, however, was significantly higher in the PES group （4.4% vs 21.7%; P=0.002）. Similarly, the late loss was significantly higher in the PES group （（0.14±0.38） mm vs （0.49±0.61） mm; P〈0.001）. Conclusions In this small sample-size, non-randomized study, the data indicated that implantation of SES for the treatment of patients with small coronary lesion showed more favorable results in respect of restenosis compared with PES implantation.