Masayoshi Nagahama

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that the survival rate of patients undergoing R0 esophagectomy after induction chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for unresectable T4 esophageal cancer (URT4) would be similar to that of patients undergoing esophagectomy for immediately resectable esophageal cancer with no unfavorable prognostic factors (RNU). METHODS: Between April 2002 and June 2012, 87 of 283 patients with esophageal cancer who presented at the University Hospital of the Ryukyus were enrolled in this prospective cohort study. Tumors were classified as RNU and URT4 in 44 and 43 of the 87 patients, respectively. Outcomes of treatment for URT4 patients were compared with those of RNU patients. RESULTS: The R0 resection rate (61 %) and in-hospital mortality rate (20 %) of URT4 patients were significantly poorer than those of RNU patients (98 and 2.3 %, respectively), although the morbidity rate was similar in the two groups (63 and 52 %, respectively). The 5-year survival rate (35 %) of URT4 patients was significantly poorer than that of RNU patients (67 %) in the intention-to-treat analysis. However, no significant difference was noted between the two survival curves for cases of R0 resection (5-year survival rate, 60 % vs. 69 %). Multivariate analysis revealed R status as the only significant independent prognostic factor for URT4 patients (P < 0.001; hazard ratio = 8.279). CONCLUSIONS: Satisfactory survival rates can be achieved if R0 resection is performed after induction treatment in patients with T4 esophageal cancer, although secondary radical esophagectomy is associated with a higher risk of in-hospital mortality.

Fifty-one cases of resected hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate the clinicopathologic features of HCC in patients with negative virus markers. The data were compared between three groups: hepatitis B surface antigen positive (HB, n = 11), hepatitis C virus antibody positive (HC, n = 21), and non-BC (both HbsAg and HCVAb negative, n = 12). Seven patients were excluded from the study because of operative death (n = 3), a history of alcohol abuse (n = 3), or the presence of dual positive HB and HC virus markers (n = 1). The data were analyzed by either an analysis of variance (ANOVA) or a contingency table. The age of the non-BC patients was higher (63.0 +/- 4.1, +/- SE) than that of HB patients (54.0 +/- 3.2, p < 0.05) but was identical to that of the HC group (62.0 +/- 1.8). Among the preoperative laboratory data, the serum glutamic oxaloacetate and glutamate pyruvate transaminoses (GOT, GPT) levels were statistically lower in the non-BC patients (32.8 +/- 4.8 and 28.0 +/- 4.4 IU/L, respectively) than in the HB and HC patients. The pathologic features of the resected specimens in the non-BC patients showed more invasive growth than in specimens from the HB or HC patients. The clinical stages (defined based on the criteria of the Japanese Association of Hepatocellular Carcinoma) were also more advanced in the non-BC patients than in the other groups. Postoperative survival time showed no significant difference among the groups. In conclusion, the non-BC patients had comparatively greater invasive growth and more advanced clinical stages than the HB and HC patients, despite the absence of liver cirrhosis, and so demonstrated the same poor survival data as observed in the HB and HC patients.

BACKGROUND: After small-for-size graft (SFSG) transplantation, elevated portal venous pressure (PVP) may lead to postoperative liver damage. Herein we evaluated the impact of portocaval shunt (PCS) to control PVP on liver grafts and intestine following SFSG transplantation. METHODS: Nineteen SFSG transplantations were performed with 30% of native liver in swine. Swine were divided into 3 groups: a high-flow shunt group (HS: n = 7), in which portal venous flow (PVF) was reduced with a 10-mm diameter PCS; a low-flow shunt group (LS: n = 6), in which PVF was reduced with a 5-mm diameter PCS, and a no-shunt group (NS: n = 6), in which no PCS was placed. RESULTS: Seven-day survivals were 83.3% in NS, 100% in LS and 0% in HS (p = 0.0088). PVP was significantly higher in the NS group (p = 0.0001; mean ± SEM NS/LS/HS: 20.5 ± 0.7/14.0 ± 1.2/11.6 ± 0.5 mm Hg). The LS group exhibited the highest compliance (PVF/PVP; NS/LS/HS 42.7 ± 10.9/44.6 ± 4.9/37.7 ± 8.3 ml/min/mm Hg; p = 0.009), the lowest aspartate aminotransferase (NS/LS/HS 562 ± 18/370 ± 55/720 ± 130 IU/l; p = 0.0493), and suppressed deleterious alternations of the hepatic parenchyma and intestinal mucosa. CONCLUSIONS: Portal hypertension after SFSG transplantation impaired liver and intestinal mucosa; however, inadequate portal flow impaired not only the liver, but also survival.

Phlegmonous infection involving the digestive tract has been reported to have a poor prognosis. However, the pathogenesis and clinical features of acute phlegmonous esophagitis have remained unclear due to the rarity of the disease. We herein report a case of acute phlegmonous esophagitis that showed a fulminant course during chemoradiotherapy for uterine cancer. The patient developed septic shock 10 h after postprandial nausea and vomiting, and a computed tomographic scan showed diffuse thickening of the esophageal wall. Severe leukopenia that was refractory to the administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor persisted during the first few days. The patient fortunately survived after intensive treatment. The acute phlegmonous esophagitis of the present case might have been evoked and worsened by chemoradiotherapy due to its emetic and myelosuppressive adverse effects, respectively. Although its incidence is extremely rare, acute phlegmonous esophagitis may occur as a life-threatening complication of chemoradiotherapy.