Background: Patients co-infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV) and the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are at risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In sub-Saharan Africa, the overlap between high HIV and HBV prevalence may increase the incidence of HCC. This study investigated the impact of HBV/HIV co-infection on age at presentation and survival of HCC. Methods: Ethical approval was obtained to recruit, following informed written consent, patients diagnosed with HCC at oncology units at four South African hospitals. Between December 2012 and August 2015, patients newly diagnosed with HCC were recruited and provided demographic and clinical data and blood specimens. Patients were tested for HBV, hepatitis C virus (HCV) and HIV. Survival data was available for a subset of patients. Results: Of 107 HCC cases, 83 (78%) were male. Median age was 46 years (range 18 to 90 years), 68/106 (64%) were HBsAg-positive, and 22/100 (22%) were HIV infected. Among HBV surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive HCC cases, 18/66 (27%) were HIV-infected compared to 3/34 (9%) among those that were HBsAg-negative (p = 0.04). A greater proportion of HBV/HIV co-infected cases were female than HBV mono-infected (6/18, 33% vs 6/47, 13%; p = 0.005). In addition, HBV/HIV co-infected females presented at a younger mean age (36.8 years) than HBV mono-infected women (50.5 years) (p = 0.09). Median survival was 82 days among the HIV-infected HCC patients compared to 181 days among those without HIV (p = 0.15). Conclusions: HCC is an important complication in the HIV/HBV infected patient. HIV-positive patients presented with HCC at a younger age than HIV-negative patients, this effect appears to be greater in women. These data provide more evidence supporting the call to address. HCC as a cause of morbidity and mortality in the HBV/HIV co-infected patient population. (281 words).

We recently introduced a series of papers “What should be known prior to performing EUS exams.” In Part I, the authors discussed which clinical information and whether other imaging modalities are needed before embarking EUS examinations. In Part II, technical controversies on how EUS is performed were discussed from different points of view. In this article, important practical issues regarding EUS elastography will be raised and controversially discussed from very different points of view.

Direct referral of patients for EUS – instead of preprocedural consultation with the endosonographer – has become standard practice (like for other endoscopic procedures) as it is time- and cost-effective. To ensure appropriate indications and safe examinations, the endosonographer should carefully consider what information is needed before accepting the referral. This includes important clinical data regarding relevant comorbidities, the fitness of the patient to consent and undergo the procedure, and the anticoagulation status. In addition, relevant findings from other imaging methods to clarify the clinical question may be necessary. Appropriate knowledge and management of the patients’ anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy, antibiotic prophylaxis, and sedation issues can avoid unnecessary delays and unsafe procedures. Insisting on optimal preparation, appropriate indications, and clear clinical referral questions will increase the quality of the outcomes of EUS. In this paper, important practical issues regarding EUS preparations are raised and discussed from different points of view.

We recently introduced a series of articles that dealt with controversies in EUS. In Part I, the authors discussed which clinical information is necessary prior to EUS and whether other imaging modalities are required before embarking on EUS examinations. Part II focuses on technical details and controversies about the use of EUS in special situations. In this article, important practical issues regarding the application of contrast-enhanced EUS in various clinical settings are raised and controversially discussed from different points of view.