In patients with cirrhosis with a 1-2 cm nodule detected during surveillance, a single imaging technique showing a typical contrast pattern confidently permits the diagnosis of HCC, thereby reducing the need for FNB examinations.

Treatment with sorafenib of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma is challenged by anticipated discontinuation due to tumor progression, liver decompensation, or adverse effects. While postprogression survival is clearly determined by the pattern of tumor progression, understanding the factors that drive prognosis in patients who discontinued sorafenib for any reason may help to improve patient management and second-line trial design. Patients consecutively admitted to three referral centers who were receiving best supportive care following permanent discontinuation of sorafenib for any reason were included. Postsorafenib survival (PSS) was calculated from the last day of treatment to death or last visit available. Two hundred and sixty patients were included in this prospective study, aged 67 years, 60% with hepatitis C, 51% Child-Pugh A, 83% performance status (PS) 1, 41% with macroscopic vascular invasion, and 38% with extrahepatic tumor spread. Overall, median PSS was 4.1 (3.3-4.9) months, resulting from 4.6 (3.3-5.7) months for 123 progressors, 7.3 (6.0-10.0) months in 77 with adverse effects, and 1.8 (1.6-2.4) months in 60 decompensated patients (P < 0.001). Postsorafenib survival was independently predicted by PS, prothrombin time, extrahepatic tumor spread, macrovascular invasion, and reason for discontinuation. Two hundred patients potentially eligible for second-line therapy had a PSS of 5.3 (4.6-7.1) months, which was dependent on reasons of discontinuation (P 5 0.004), PS (P < 0.001), macrovascular invasion (P < 0.001), and extrahepatic metastases (P < 0.002). Conclusion: Discontinuation due to adverse effects in the absence of macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic metastases, and deteriorated PS predicts the best PSS in compensated patients, thereby setting the stage for both improved patient counseling and selection for second-line therapy. (HEPATOLOGY 2015;62:784-791)

Background Acute gastrointestinal bleeding (AGIB) results in significant morbidity and mortality. Topical hemostatic products have been developed for endoscopic use to help in the management of difficult bleeding. Our aim was to demonstrate the ease of use, safety, and efficacy of PuraStat, a novel hemostat, to control AGIB. Methods We describe 77 patients (41 men) who were treated for acute upper and lower AGIB in a 2-year period. In 50 patients, bleeding occurred as a complication of a previous endoscopic procedure, predominantly endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP); however, in the other 27 patients, it derived from peptic ulcers, angiodysplasia, cancers, and surgical anastomoses. Bleeding was spurting in 13 of the 77 patients and oozing in 64. PuraStat was used after the failure of at least two conventional hemostatic methods. Results A mean of 2.6 conventional hemostatic methods had been attempted prior to the application of PuraStat. PuraStat achieved successful hemostasis in 90.9 % of patients. In 41 patients, once hemostasis was obtained with PuraStat, endoscopists further stabilized hemostasis by using at least one additional method. Recurrence of bleeding was observed in eight patients (10.4 %). In 16 patients with intraprocedural bleeding, it was possible to complete the procedures (14 EMR, 2 ERCP) after PuraStat hemostasis. No adverse events related to PuraStat were recorded. Conclusions PuraStat is feasible, safe, and effective in controlling different types of gastrointestinal hemorrhage after failure of conventional hemostatic methods. Its application also does not hinder continuing endotherapy.