BackgroundMalignant obstructive jaundice is a common problem in the clinic. Currently, the generally applied treatment methods are percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD). Nevertheless, there has not been a uniform conclusion published on either efficacy of the two types of drainage or the incidence rate of complications. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing endoscopic versus percutaneous biliary drainage in malignant obstructive jaundice, to determine whether there is any difference between percutaneous and endoscopic biliary drainage, with respect to efficacy and incidence rate of overall complications.MethodsThe enrolled studies contain a total of three randomized controlled trials and eleven retrospective studies, which together encompass 2246 patients with PTBD and 8100 patients with EBD.ResultsOur analysis indicates that there is no difference between PTBD and EBD with regard to therapeutic success rate (%), overall complication (%), intraperitoneal bile leak, 30-day mortality, sepsis, or duodenal perforation (%). Cholangitis and pancreatitis after PTBD were lower than after EBD, with odds ratios (OR) of 0.48 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.31 to 0.74) and 0.16 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.52), respectively. Incidences of bleeding and tube dislocation for PTBD were higher than EBD, OR of 1.81 (95% CI, 1.35 to 2.44) and 3.41 (95% CI, 1.10 to 10.60).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis indicates certain advantages for both PTBD and EBD. In the clinical practice, it is advised to choose specifically either PTBD or EBD, based on location of obstruction, purpose of drainage (as a preoperative procedure or a palliative treatment) and level of experience in biliary drainage at individual treatment centers.

PurposeTo evaluate efficacy and safety of anti-PD1 therapy with nivolumab for treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).MethodsFrom Jan 2016 to Jan 2017, eleven cases of HCC (average age of 51.8-year), 4 at stage B and 7 at stage C, according to Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging, were treated with nivolumab. There were 4 patients with lung metastasis, 1 with portal vein tumor thrombus, 1 with abdominal metastasis and 1 with bone metastasis. The protocol was nivolumab, 3 mg/kg, on day 1, q3w. All patients were treated for more than 4 cycles. During anti-PD1 treatment period, 6 patients also received sorafenib and 1 patient received cytokine-induced killer cell therapy. Objective response and clinical adverse events were evaluated retrospectively.ResultsPatients underwent a total of 80 cycles of nivolumab therapy, ranging between 4 and 18 cycles per patient. Nivolumab was associated with a disease control rate of 81.8%, with an objective response of 63.6% (Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors). No adverse effects related to nivolumab were noted.ConclusionOur experience shows that nivolumab could achieve acceptable outcome in HCC patients and may serve as an optional treatment, especially for patients who failed to gain a benefit from routine treatments.

No abstract

No abstract