Iron was systematically studied in the nontumorous liver of 24 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) developed on a noncirrhotic liver compared with 4 control groups (cirrhosis with and without HCC, liver metastasis, and normal liver) matched according to age, sex, and presence of chronic alcoholism. Assessment of liver iron was made by (1) histology according to iron distribution and quantification (total iron score: 0 to 60), and (2) biochemistry (liver iron concentration-N < 36 mumol/g) with calculation of the hepatic iron index (liver iron concentration/age). Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma developed on a noncirrhotic liver presented with (1) histological iron in 83%; (2) parenchymal iron excess significantly more frequent (90%) than in controls; (3) total iron score (15 +/- 12) and liver iron concentration (81 +/- 96) significantly greater than in controls; and (4) hepatic iron index significantly increased (1.4 +/- 1.5) when compared with control groups, except for the hepatocellular carcinoma complicating cirrhosis group (0.9 +/- 1.1). This study (1) shows a mild but unquestionable parenchymal iron excess in the nontumorous liver of most patients presenting with hepatocellular carcinoma developed on a noncirrhotic liver and, at a lesser extent, on cirrhosis, (2) should incite others to study the putative role of iron in the development of liver cancer both in patients with cirrhosis and those without it, whatever the cause of the underlying liver disease, and (3) add argument to take into account and to treat any liver iron excess, even when mild.

No abstract

A combined approach with infliximab induction, two surgical sphincter-sparing steps and methotrexate is effective in achieving short-term response in severe fistulizing anoperineal CD. The best maintenance regimen remains to be determined.

Providing that adequate intraoperative exposure is obtained and advanced malignant tumors receive immediate secondary treatment, transanal resection of clinically benign, large rectal villous adenomas is safe and effective. It is an alternative to rectal resection, which exposes the patient to potentially adverse effects, and also to destructive procedures, which preclude any histologic evaluation of the tumor.

BackgroundAnal disorders are largely underestimated in general practice. Studies have shown patients conceal anal symptoms leading to late diagnosis and treatment. Management by general practitioners is poorly described. The aim of this study is to assess the prevalence of anal symptoms and their management in general practice.MethodsIn this prospective, observational, national study set in France, all adult patients consulting their general practitioner during 2 days of consultation were included. Anal symptoms, whether spontaneously revealed or not, were systematically collected and assessed. For symptomatic patients, the obstacles to anal examination were evaluated. The general practitioner’s diagnosis was collected and a proctologist visit was systematically proposed in case of anal symptoms. If the proctologist was consulted, his or her diagnosis was collected.ResultsFrom October 2014 to April 2015, 1061 patients were included by 57 general practitioners. The prevalence of anal symptoms was 15.6% (95% CI: 14–18). However, 85% of these patients did not spontaneously share their symptoms with their doctors, despite a discomfort rating of 3 out of 10 (range 1–5). Although 65% of patients agreed to an anal examination, it was not proposed in 45% of cases with anal symptoms. Performing the examination was associated with a significantly higher diagnosis rate of 76% versus 20% (p < 0.001). Proctologist and general practitioner diagnoses were consistent in 14 out of 17 cases.ConclusionsPatients’ concealed anal symptoms are significant in general practice despite the impact on quality of life. Anal examination is seldom done. Improved training of general practitioners is required to break the taboo.