Amgad M. Moussa

Lymphatic complications are becoming increasingly identified in cancer patients. Chylous ascites, chylothorax, lymphoceles, and lymphorrhea are common in cancer patients and can occur due to traumatic injury during surgeries or infiltrative effects of the tumors themselves. Recently, some anti-neoplastic medications are also thought to result in lymphatic complications. Management options range from conservative options to minimally invasive interventions, to surgical interventions with no standardized management strategy. Imaging techniques such as dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance lymphangiography and intranodal computed tomography or fluoroscopic lymphangiography are becoming more valuable in diagnosis and treatment planning. Minimally invasive interventions are rapidly evolving and have become the first-line intervention in most cases. Current research, however, faces limitations due to study design and variability. Standardized reporting and prospective studies are needed to advance the field. This review summarizes some of the latest literature on lymphatic interventions in cancer patients and provides reporting recommendations for future studies on lymphatic interventions.

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death. Liver metastases will develop in over one-third of patients with colorectal cancer and are a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Even though surgical resection has been considered the mainstay of treatment, only approximately 20% of the patients are surgical candidates. Liver-directed locoregional therapies such as thermal ablation, Yttrium-90 transarterial radioembolization, and stereotactic body radiation therapy are pivotal in managing colorectal liver metastatic disease. Comprehensive pre- and post-intervention imaging, encompassing both anatomic and metabolic assessments, is invaluable for precise treatment planning, staging, treatment response assessment, and the prompt identification of local or distant tumor progression. This review outlines the value of imaging for colorectal liver metastatic disease and offers insights into imaging follow-up after locoregional liver-directed therapy.

Purpose To evaluate factors affecting the diagnostic yield (percent of biopsy samples leading to a pathologic diagnosis) of lesional bone biopsies in patients with hematologic malignancies. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included 206 lesional bone biopsies in 182 patients with a hematologic malignancy between January 2017 and December 2022. The parameters that were reviewed to evaluate diagnostic yield included biopsy device type (manual vs. electric-powered drill), number of biopsy cores acquired, core biopsy needle gauge, preliminary intra-procedural sample adequacy (touch preparation cytology determining if samples are adequate for final pathologic examination), lesion morphology on Computed Tomography (CT), and presence of crush artifact. Results Review of 206 lesional biopsies showed overall diagnostic yield to be 89.8% (185/206). The two statistically significant factors affecting diagnostic yield were biopsy device type and in-room adequacy. 41/42 samples obtained with the electric-powered drill and 144/164 samples obtained using a variety of manual needles were diagnostic (97.6% vs 87.8%, p = 0.03). Of the 192 samples that were assessed for sample adequacy intra-procedurally, 97/102 of the samples that were deemed adequate were diagnostic, and 77/90 of the samples where intra-procedural adequacy was not confirmed were diagnostic (95.1% vs 85.6%, p = 0.018). The remaining factors did not affect diagnostic yield. Conclusion The use of an electric-powered drill bone biopsy device and intra-procedural confirmation of sample adequacy are associated with a higher diagnostic yield of lesional bone biopsies in patients with hematologic malignancies. The presence or absence of crush artifact did not significantly affect the diagnostic yield in these patients. Level of Evidence IV.

Purpose: This study investigates whether hepatic hilar nerve blocks (HHNB) provide safe, effective analgesia in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NET) treated with transarterial embolization (TAE). Methods: The retrospective study included all NETs treated with TAE or TAE + HHNB from 1/2020 to 8/2022. Eighty-five patients (45 men), mean age 62 years, were treated in 165 sessions (TAE, n = 153; TAE + HHNB, n = 12). For HHNBs, ≤10 mL bupivacaine HCl 0.25% ± 2 mg methylprednisolone were injected under ultrasound guidance. The aims were to assess safety of HHNB and reduction in pain. Groups were compared with Pearson’s chi-squared and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Logistic regression assessed independent risk factors for pain. Results: No immediate complications from HHNBs were reported. No difference in incidence of major complications between TAE and TAE + HHNB one month post-embolization was observed (7.19% vs. 8.33%, p = 0.895). No differences in mean length of hospital stay after treatment were observed (TAE 2.2 days [95%CI: 1.74–2.56] vs. TAE + HHNB 2.8 days [95%CI: 1.43–4.26]; p = 0.174). Post-procedure pain was reported in 88.2% of TAE and 75.0% of TAE + HHNB patients (p = 0.185). HHNB recipients were more likely to use analgesic patches (25.0% vs. 5.88%; p = 0.014). No other differences in analgesic use were observed. Conclusions: HHNBs can safely be performed in patients with NETs. No difference in hospital stays or analgesic drug use was observed. Managing pain after TAE is an important goal; further study is warranted.

To compare the safety and efficacy of sclerotherapy and lymphatic embolization (LE) in the treatment of symptomatic iatrogenic lymphoceles following the placement of a percutaneous drainage catheter. This is a retrospective study of 46 patients who underwent sclerotherapy (17 patients) or LE (29 patients) for the management of symptomatic iatrogenic lymphoceles following percutaneous drain placement between January 2017 and December 2021. The demographic characteristics, time between surgery and lymphatic intervention, clinical presentation, number of procedures, drain output pre- and post-intervention, time from intervention to drain removal, and adverse events were collected and compared for both groups. The clinical success rate, defined as the successful removal of the drain after one procedure, was calculated. Adverse events were reported according to the Society of Interventional Radiology classification. A statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS, and the P value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare differences in the scale variables, and Fisher's exact test was used to compare the categorical and ordinal variables between both groups. A total of 46 patients with 49 lymphoceles met the inclusion criteria of the study. Of these patients, 17 patients (19 lymphoceles) underwent sclerotherapy, and 29 patients (30 lymphoceles) underwent LE as their initial procedures. The clinical success after one procedure was significantly higher (83% vs. 47%, P = 0.011), and the median time between the first intervention and drain removal was significantly shorter in the LE group (median duration of 6 vs. 13 days, P = 0.018) compared with the sclerotherapy group. No statistically significant difference in adverse events was noted between both groups (0.26 vs. 0.10, P = 0.11). This study found that LE had a higher clinical success rate after the first procedure and a shorter time to drain removal compared with sclerotherapy. There was no difference in the rate of adverse events between both groups. Although LE is a safe and promising technique, a prospective study is needed to further compare the efficacy of both treatment modalities.