BackgroundNorthern England has been experiencing a persistent rise in the number of primary liver cancers, largely driven by an increasing incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) secondary to alcohol-related liver disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Here we review the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary liver cancer services and patients in our region.ObjectiveTo assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with newly diagnosed liver cancer in our region.DesignWe prospectively audited our service for the first year of the pandemic (March 2020–February 2021), comparing mode of presentation, disease stage, treatments and outcomes to a retrospective observational consecutive cohort immediately prepandemic (March 2019–February 2020).ResultsWe observed a marked decrease in HCC referrals compared with previous years, falling from 190 confirmed new cases to 120 (37%). Symptomatic became the the most common mode of presentation, with fewer tumours detected by surveillance or incidentally (% surveillance/incidental/symptomatic; 34/42/24 prepandemic vs 27/33/40 in the pandemic, p=0.013). HCC tumour size was larger in the pandemic year (60±4.6 mm vs 48±2.6 mm, p=0.017), with a higher incidence of spontaneous tumour haemorrhage. The number of new cases of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) fell only slightly, with symptomatic presentation typical. Patients received treatment appropriate for their cancer stage, with waiting times shorter for patients with HCC and unchanged for patients with ICC. Survival was associated with stage both before and during the pandemic. 9% acquired COVID-19 infection.ConclusionThe pandemic-associated reduction in referred patients in our region was attributed to the disruption of routine healthcare. For those referred, treatments and survival were appropriate for their stage at presentation. Non-referred or missing patients are expected to present with more advanced disease, with poorer outcomes. While protective measures are necessary during the pandemic, we recommend routine healthcare services continue, with patients encouraged to engage.

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) performs poorly in the histological diagnosis of type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP). The aim of this study was to assess the performance of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) comparing reverse bevel (RB) and fork-tip (FT) needles. Patients and methods A retrospective study of prospectively maintained databases was performed. Patients with a final diagnosis of type 1 AIP who underwent EUS-FNB during diagnostic workup were included. Pathology reports were reviewed and classified as per international consensus diagnostic criteria (ICDC). The Primary outcome was EUS-FNB sensitivity in diagnosing type 1 AIP. Results Between March 2011 and December 2018, 24 patients with a final diagnosis of type 1 AIP underwent FNB. Six patients underwent biopsy with the RB needle and 18 with the FT needle. Mean age (± SD) 62.2 (± 11.4), 17 (70.8 %) male. No RB samples were diagnostic compared to 14 (78 %) FT; P = 0.001; of which 13 (72 %) were level 1. In eight (44 %) of FT cases a diagnosis was not possible without histology. Initial biopsy was diagnostic in five (62.5 %) of these cases. Including repeat biopsy, seven (87 %) had a diagnosis made by FT needle. Obliterative phlebitis (44 %) was the least frequently identified pathological feature and immunoglobulin (IgG)4 + plasma cells > 10 per high power field (78 %) the most common. Conclusion The FT needle demonstrated good performance for diagnosing type 1 AIP. The results support the preferential use of this core biopsy needle for EUS pancreatic tissue sampling.

No abstract

however, do little to improve the condition of elderly patients with severe valvular heart disease, and some will remain house bound or bedfast. Moreover, domiciliary care for these patients, who may survive for a long time in chronic heart failure, is expensive.'3 The idea that cardiac surgery is an expensive luxury dies hard, but Morgan et all' have shown that a valve replacement operation costs only 5000 more than an oesophagectomy. Oesophagectomy is considered to be a necessity, and little thought is given to the cost, even though the operative mortality is high and the long-term survival negligible. The advantages of surgical valve replacement for these elderly patients include restoration to full activity, an independent existence, and freedom from dependence on an overstretched medical and social domiciliary service. Not only are the results of surgical treatment much better than those achieved by medical management but the case for valve replacement can also be justified on economic grounds. References