Jakub Fichtl

May CTC technologies promote better cancer management

In the case of cancer, death is usually not due to the primary tumor itself but due to dissemination. Analysis of the circulating tumor cells (CTCs), i.e., cells responsible for a formation of metastases, should provide information useful for the management of cancer patients, fulfilling the objectives of predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine (PPPM). Despite promising results, the decisions on stage of disease and how to guide the adjuvant treatment still do not include results of CTC assessment. We want to describe two major reasons why the recent diagnostic value of CTC analysis is not sufficient for clinical use. The first reason arises from the biological nature of the tumor itself and the second reason is associated with an interdisciplinary status of CTC diagnostics in the sense that it is neither a theme purely for pathologists nor for haemato-oncologists nor clinical biochemists. We anticipate that there are at least three areas where CTCs can be useful for clinical practice. The first is monitoring of treatment efficacy of cancer patients. The second is a molecular characterization of captured CTCs for targeted treatment, and the third is a cultivation of captured CTCs for drug sensitivity testing. All of these approaches allow researchers recognize and respond to changes of phenotype of cancer cells during disease progression and introduce PPPM into clinical practice.

Prognostic importance of some clinical and therapeutic factors for the effect of portal vein embolization in patients with primarily inoperable colorectal liver metastases

Introduction Portal vein embolization (PVE) may increase the resectability of liver metastases. However, the problem of PVE is insufficient growth of the liver or tumor progression in some patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the significance of commonly available clinical factors for the result of PVE. Material and methods Portal vein embolization was performed in 38 patients with colorectal liver metastases. Effects of age, gender, time between PVE and liver resection, oncological therapy after PVE, indocyanine green retention rate test, synchronous, metachronous and extrahepatic metastases, liver volume before and after PVE, increase of liver volume after PVE and the quality of liver parenchyma before PVE on the result of PVE were evaluated. Results Liver resection was performed in 23 (62.2%) patients within 1.3 ±0.4 months after PVE. Tumor progression occurred in 9 (23.7%) patients and 6 (15.8%) patients had insufficient liver hypertrophy. Significant clinical factors of PVE failure were number of liver metastases (cut-off – 4; odds ratio – 4.7; p < 0.03), liver volume after PVE (cut-off 1000 cm3; odds ratio – 5.1; p < 0.02), growth of liver volume after PVE (cut-off 150 cm3; odds ratio – 18.7; p < 0.002), oncological therapy administered concomitantly with PVE (p < 0.003). Conclusions Negative clinical factors of resectability of colorectal cancer liver metastases after PVE included more than four liver metastases, liver volume after PVE < 1000 cm3, growth of the contralateral lobe by less than 150 cm3 and concurrent oncological therapy.

Solid Pseudopapillary Tumor of the Pancreas – Rare Neoplastic Disease in 20-Year-Old Woman

INTRODUCTION Benign cystic tumors represent only 2% of all pancreatic tumors (pancreatic cancer - PC). In contrast to malignant cystic tumors, these tumors occur typically in young women. A solid pseudopapillary tumor is a relatively rare affliction representing less than 4% of cystic PC. Although the tumor is considered benign, metastasis, especially to the spleen, has been reported in approximately 0.5-4% patients. Despite R0 resection, vascular and perineural invasion is monitored in 20% of cases. Invasion is the cause of tumor relapse in up to one third of affected patients. Characteristic features of the disease are latent clinical indicators such as signs of pain and malfunction of intestinal passage. The diagnostics is based on MR, sometimes in combination with positron emission tomography. Medical treatment is specifically surgical. CASE HISTORY Authors present a case of a 20-year-old female patient who was examined due to pain in the epigastrium, further exasperated by a voluminous expansion of the abdominal cavity. An initial ultra-sonographic examination was conducted to examine for possible nodular focal nodular hyperplasia of the liver; however, an MRI scan revealed the likelihood of a malignant tumor in the subhepatic region. During laparotomy, a tumor protruding from the head of the pancreas was discovered and removed. Histological examination showed it was a solid pseudopapillary pancreatic tumor. After a month of good post-operative progress, the patient was re-operated because of the presence of pancreatic fistula. Complete healing of the fistula was achieved after total parenteral nutrition and administration of sandostatin. At her last examination, the patient was without any problems. CONCLUSION Solid pseudopapillary pancreatic tumors are rare, mainly benign lesions. It is essential to consider them in the differential diagnostics of afflictions of the subhepatic region, especially in young women. The only generally accepted cure nowadays is surgical resection. It is necessary to monitor patients consistently considering the rather high frequency of relapse of disease despite R0 resections. In the case of surgical removal, the 5-year survival rate is near 97%. Key words: solid pseudopapillary tumor of pancreas - diagnostics - therapy The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study. The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE recommendation for biomedical papers. Submitted: 17. 4. 2018 Accepted: 13. 8. 2018.

Portal Vein Embolization (PVE) Versus PVE with Haematopoietic Stem Cell Application in Patients with Primarily Non-resectable Colorectal Liver Metastases

Background: Portal vein embolization (PVE) and PVE with autologous mesenchymal stem cell application (PVE–MSC) increases future liver remnant volume (FLRV). The aim of this study was to compare both methods from the aspect of FLRV growth, progression of colorectal liver metastases (CLM), CLM resectability and long-term results. Patients and Methods: Fifty-five patients with CLM and insufficient FLRV were included in the study. FLVR growth and CLM volume were evaluated using computed tomography. Liver resection was performed in patients with FLVR >30% of total liver volume. Results: In the PVE (N=27) group, FLRV growth was observed in 23 patients (85.2%) and in 100% of patients in the PVE–MSC (N=28) group (p<0.05). The rapidity of FLRV and CLM growth did not differ between groups. R0 resection was performed in 14 (51.8%) and 24 (85.7%) patients from the PVE and PVE–MSC (p<0.02) groups, respectively. The 3-year overall and progression-free survival rates were 85.75% and 9.3% in the PVE group and 68.7% and 17.1% in the PVE–MSC group, respectively (p<0.67 and p<0.84, respectively). Conclusion: PVE–MSC allows for more effective growth of FLRV and resectability of CLM compared to PVE. The two methods do not differ in their long-term results.

The Influence of Palliative Chemotherapy on the Quality of Life of Patients with Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND Gastric cancer is a malignant disease with a poor prognosis. The incidence of gastric cancer in the Czech Republic in 2013 was 14.34 cases per 100,000 citizens. Unfortunately, most patients are dia-gnosed with advanced stage disease and therefore undergo palliative treatment. Some patients undergo surgery and a very small percentage undergo palliative chemotherapy. The five year survival rate for those with advanced gastric cancer ranges from 5-15%. METHODS This is a prospective study of patients undergoing chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer. The aim was to assess the quality of life of those undergoing chemotherapy. RESULTS The results showed that chemotherapy reduced the quality of life for these patients. DISCUSSION Although palliative chemotherapy prolonged time to progression, it had little impact on overall survival. Conversely, chemotherapy reduced quality of life. Thus, clinicians and patients must decide whether to begin palliative chemotherapy. The final decision should be made by the patient after discussion with the treating clinician. CONCLUSION Treatment of patients with gastric cancer must be undertaken on an individual basis. Those undergoing palliative treatment must play an active role in the decision process regarding chemotherapy and assess the potential benefits and drawbacks. Because chemotherapy treatment has a detrimental effect on quality of life, the decision should be based on factors that predict the likely therapeutic effect of chemotherapy. A definitive decision can then be made as to whether chemotherapy is indicated. KEY WORDS gastric cancer - palliative chemotherapy - chemotherapy - quality of life - WHOQOL-BREFThis study was supported by grant of Internal Grant Agency of the Czech Ministry of Health No. NS14227-3.The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE recommendation for biomedical papers.Submitted: 10. 1. 2016Accepted: 8. 6. 2016.