Non-Cirrhotic Portal Hypertension in a Patient With Colonic Carcinoma Treated With Oxaliplatin

A Narrative Review on Non-Cirrohotic Portal Hypertension: Not All Portal Hypertensions Mean Cirrhosis

Non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (NCPH), also known as idiopathic non-cirrhotic portal hypertension (INCPH) and porto-sinusoidal vascular disorder (PSVD), is a rare disease characterized by intrahepatic portal hypertension (IPH) in the absence of cirrhosis. The precise etiopathogenesis of IPH is an area of ongoing research. NCPH diagnosis is challenging, as there are no specific tests available to confirm the disease, and a high-quality liver biopsy, detailed clinical information, and an expert pathologist are necessary for diagnosis. Currently, the treatment of NCPH relies on the prevention of complications related to portal hypertension, following current guidelines of cirrhotic portal hypertension. No treatment has been studied that aimed to modify the natural history of the disease; however, transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt (TIPS) placement, shunt and liver transplantation are considerable symptomatic options. In this review, we discuss the heterogeneity of NCPH as well as its etiopathogenesis, clinical presentation and management issues. Starting from the assumption that portal hypertension does not always mean cirrhosis, cooperative studies are probably needed to clarify the issues of etiology and the possible genetic background of this rare disease. This knowledge might lead to better treatment and perhaps better prevention.

Comparative effectiveness of interventional therapeutic modalities for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and network meta‑analysis

It is unclear whether hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) or transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) is more efficient in the combination therapy of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Head-to-head comparisons among HAIC-related therapies are lacking. For this network meta-analysis, PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to April 1, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible if they evaluated the use or prolongation of TACE or HAIC in patients with advanced HCC and reported or collected survival data. A network meta-analysis was performed to synthesize data and make direct and indirect comparisons between treatments. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to explore the efficacy of various treatment options on overall survival (OS), odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CI were used for overall response rate (ORR), whereas risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CI were used for serious adverse events (SAEs). The analysis of 7 trials including a total of 1,073 patients found that sorafenib with HAIC-oxaliplatin improved survival (HR=0.33, 95% CI: 0.25-0.44); the ORR was also improved in patients treated with sorafenib plus HAIC-oxaliplatin and sorafenib plus PF-HAIC (OR=22.18, 95% CI: 10.69-52.56; and OR=2.72, 95% CI: 1.43-5.36, respectively). The incidence of liver injury was elevated in patients treated with sorafenib plus TACE (OR=5.93, 95% CI: 2.70-15.41). However, no differences in the incidences of other SAEs were identified among the treatment groups. The present meta-analysis provides preliminary evidence for the comparative safety and efficacy of HAIC and TACE combined with sorafenib, and indicates the dominance of HAIC-oxaliplatin in HCC interventional therapy. However, high-quality RCTs are required to further confirm the efficacy of HAIC-oxaliplatin. The present study has been registered with PROSPERO (registration no. CRD42021288497).