| 1. |
- Schnitzbauer, Andreas A, et al.
(författare)
-
A prospective randomised, open-labeled, trial comparing sirolimus-containing versus mTOR-inhibitor-free immunosuppression in patients undergoing liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma.
- 2010
-
Ingår i: BMC cancer. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2407. ; 10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The potential anti-cancer effects of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors are being intensively studied. To date, however, few randomised clinical trials (RCT) have been performed to demonstrate anti-neoplastic effects in the pure oncology setting, and at present, no oncology endpoint-directed RCT has been reported in the high-malignancy risk population of immunosuppressed transplant recipients. Interestingly, since mTOR inhibitors have both immunosuppressive and anti-cancer effects, they have the potential to simultaneously protect against immunologic graft loss and tumour development. Therefore, we designed a prospective RCT to determine if the mTOR inhibitor sirolimus can improve hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)-free patient survival in liver transplant (LT) recipients with a pre-transplant diagnosis of HCC.
|
|
| 2. |
- Schnitzbauer, Andreas A., et al.
(författare)
-
mTOR Inhibition Is Most Beneficial After Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Active Tumors
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgery. - : LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. - 0003-4932 .- 1528-1140. ; 272:5, s. 855-862
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival benefit of sirolimus in patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (exploratory analysis of the SiLVER-trial). Summary and Background Data: Patients receiving LT) for HCC are at a high risk for tumor recurrence. Calcineurin inhibitors have shown evidence to promote cancer growth, whereas mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors like sirolimus have anticancer effects. In the SiLVER-trial (Clinicaltrials.gov:NCT00355862), the effect of sirolimus on the recurrence of HCC after LTwas investigated in a prospective randomized trial. Although the primary endpoint of improved disease-free survival (DFS) with sirolimus was not met, outcomes were improved for patients in the sirolimus-treatment arm in the first 3 to 5 years. To learn more about the key variables, a multivariate analysis was performed on the SiLVER-trial data. Patients and Methods: Data from 508 patients of the intention-to-treat analysis were included in exploratory univariate and multivariate models for overall survival (OS), DFS and a competing risk analysis for HCC recurrence. Results: Sirolimus use for >= 3 months after LT for HCC independently reduced the hazard for death in the multivariate analysis [hazard ratio (HR): 0.7 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.52-0.96, P = 0.02). Most strikingly, patients with an alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) >= 10 ng/mL and having used sirolimus for >= 3 months, benefited most with regard to OS, DFS, and HCC-recurrence (HR: 0.49- 0.59, P = 0.0079- 0.0245). Conclusions: mTOR-inhibitor treatment with sirolimus for >= 3 months improves outcomes in LT for HCC, especially in patients with AFP-evidence of higher tumor activity, advocating particularly for mTOR inhibitor use in this subgroup of patients. Clinical Trial Registration: EudraCT: 2005-005362-36 Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00355862.
|
|
| 3. |
- Vonlanthen, René, et al.
(författare)
-
Toward a Consensus on Centralization in Surgery.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Annals of surgery. - 1528-1140. ; 268:5, s. 712-724
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To critically assess centralization policies for highly specialized surgeries in Europe and North America and propose recommendations.Most countries are increasingly forced to maintain quality medicine at a reasonable cost. An all-inclusive perspective, including health care providers, payers, society as a whole and patients, has ubiquitously failed, arguably for different reasons in environments. This special article follows 3 aims: first, analyze health care policies for centralization in different countries, second, analyze how centralization strategies affect patient outcome and other aspects such as medical education and cost, and third, propose recommendations for centralization, which could apply across continents.Conflicting interests have led many countries to compromise for a health care system based on factors beyond best patient-oriented care. Centralization has been a common strategy, but modalities vary greatly among countries with no consensus on the minimal requirement for the number of procedures per center or per surgeon. Most national policies are either partially or not implemented. Data overwhelmingly indicate that concentration of complex care or procedures in specialized centers have positive impacts on quality of care and cost. Countries requiring lower threshold numbers for centralization, however, may cause inappropriate expansion of indications, as hospitals struggle to fulfill the criteria. Centralization requires adjustments in training and credentialing of general and specialized surgeons, and patient education.There is an obvious need in most areas for effective centralization. Unrestrained, purely "market driven" approaches are deleterious to patients and society. Centralization should not be based solely on minimal number of procedures, but rather on the multidisciplinary treatment of complex diseases including well-trained specialists available around the clock. Audited prospective database with monitoring of quality of care and cost are mandatory.
|
|
