ObjectiveThe authors addressed whether a repeat hepatic operation is warranted in patients with recurrent isolated hepatic metastases. Are the results as good after second operation as after first hepatic operation? Summary Background DataFive-year survival after initial hepatic operation for colorectal metastases is approximately 33%. Because available alternative methods of treatment provide inferior results, hepatic resection for isolated colorectal metastasis currently is well accepted as the best treatment option. However, the main cause of death after liver resection for colorectal metastasis is tumor recurrence. MethodsRecords of 95 patients undergoing initial hepatic operation and 10 patients undergoing repeat operation for isolated hepatic metastases were reviewed for operative morbidity and mortality, survival, disease-free survival, and pattern of failure. The literature on repeat hepatic resection for colorectal metastases was reviewed. ResultsThe mean interval between the initial colon operation and first hepatic resection was 14 months. The mean interval between the first and second hepatic operation was 17 months. Operative mortality was 0%. At a mean follow-up of 33 ± 27 months, survival in these ten patients was 100% at 1 year and 88% ± 12% at 2 years. Disease-free survival at 1 and 3 years was 60% ± 16% and 45% ± 17%, respectively. After second hepatic operation, recurrence has been identified in 60% of patients at a mean of 24 ± 30 months (median 9 months). Two of these ten patients had a third hepatic resection. Survival and disease-free survival for the 10 patients compared favorably with the 95 patients who underwent initial hepatic resection. ConclusionsRepeat hepatic operation for recurrent colorectal metastasis to the liver yields comparable results to first hepatic operations in terms of operative mortality and morbidity, survival, disease-free survival, and pattern of recurrence. This work helps to establish that repeat hepatic operation is the most successful form of treatment for isolated recurrent colorectal metastases. 765

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

We compared results using Neoral versus Sandimmune, each in combination with steroid and azathioprine immunosuppression, in primary liver transplantation recipients. There were 15 patients in each group with similar demographic distributions. Intravenous cyclosporine was stopped at 4.3 +/- 1.9 days in the Neoral group vs 7.8 +/- 4.9 days in the Sandimmune group. (P < 0.025). Cyclosporine levels in the first 10 days were higher (mean 306 ng/ml vs 231 ng/ml) in the Neoral group than the Sandimmune group (P < 0.05). The Neoral dose was less than the Sandimmune dose (mean 5.5 ng/kg per day vs 7.9 ng/kg per day) to achieve these levels in that time period (P < 0.05). Two patients (13%) experienced three episodes of biopsy-proven rejection in the Neoral group compared to nine patients (60%) with 12 episodes of rejection in the Sandimmune group (P < 0.025). Incidences of neurological and renal complications were similar between the groups. Infections requiring treatment were also similar. Liver function, renal function, and marrow function, evaluated at days 7, 14, 21, 28, and 2, 4, 6, and 12 months post-transplant, were not different between the groups. In summary, shorter use of intravenous cyclosporine and quicker stabilization of trough cyclosporine levels was achieved with Neoral than with Sandimmune. In the early post-transplant period, higher levels with lower doses were achieved with Neoral than with Sandimmune. In our experience, the incidence of rejection was lower with Neoral than with Sandimmune. There were similar lengths of hospitalization, mortality, adverse events, retransplantation, and similar liver, renal, and marrow function up to 1 year post-transplantation. Because of this experience, we continued to use Neoral in a total of 59 primary liver transplant recipients. We have not used intravenous cyclosporine in the last 44 patients. Follow-up was a mean of 11.4 months, ranging from 1 to 27 months. The incidence of rejection was 24% in these 59 patients compared to our historical experience of 70% using Sandimmune.

No abstract

We compared results using Neoral versus Sandimmune, each in combination with steroid and azathioprine immunosuppression, in primary liver transplantation recipients. There were 15 patients in each group with similar demographic distributions. Intravenous cyclosporine was stopped at 4.3 +/- 1.9 days in the Neoral group vs 7.8 +/- 4.9 days in the Sandimmune group. (P < 0.025). Cyclosporine levels in the first 10 days were higher (mean 306 ng/ml vs 231 ng/ml) in the Neoral group than the Sandimmune group (P < 0.05). The Neoral dose was less than the Sandimmune dose (mean 5.5 ng/kg per day vs 7.9 ng/kg per day) to achieve these levels in that time period (P < 0.05). Two patients (13%) experienced three episodes of biopsy-proven rejection in the Neoral group compared to nine patients (60%) with 12 episodes of rejection in the Sandimmune group (P < 0.025). Incidences of neurological and renal complications were similar between the groups. Infections requiring treatment were also similar. Liver function, renal function, and marrow function, evaluated at days 7, 14, 21, 28, and 2, 4, 6, and 12 months post-transplant, were not different between the groups. In summary, shorter use of intravenous cyclosporine and quicker stabilization of trough cyclosporine levels was achieved with Neoral than with Sandimmune. In the early post-transplant period, higher levels with lower doses were achieved with Neoral than with Sandimmune. In our experience, the incidence of rejection was lower with Neoral than with Sandimmune. There were similar lengths of hospitalization, mortality, adverse events, retransplantation, and similar liver, renal, and marrow function up to 1 year post-transplantation. Because of this experience, we continued to use Neoral in a total of 59 primary liver transplant recipients. We have not used intravenous cyclosporine in the last 44 patients. Follow-up was a mean of 11.4 months, ranging from 1 to 27 months. The incidence of rejection was 24% in these 59 patients compared to our historical experience of 70% using Sandimmune.

No abstract