Aim: To compare the seropositivity rate of cancer patients with noncancer controls after inactive SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and evaluate the factors affecting seropositivity. Method: Spike IgG antibod... Plain language summary Cancer patients are at high risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2 and of developing the associated disease, COVID-19, which therefore puts them in the priority group for vaccina...

Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a practical diagnostic tool for several lung pathologies. Pocket sized USG devices (PSUDs) are more affordable, accessible, practical, and learning to use them is easier than standard ultrasound devices (SUDs). Their capability in image quality have been found as comparable with standard USG machines. Studies have been showing that these devices can be useful as much as SUDs in the evaluation of heart, abdomen, vascular structures, diaphragm and optic nerve. The aim of this study is to compare PSUD with a standard ultrasound devices (SUD) in the evaluation of LUS patterns such as alveolar, interstitial syndromes and lung aeration score (LAS). Study performed in an University Hospital Pulmonary ICU. All patients older than 18 years old were included in this study. The sector probe of SUD (Vivid-Q) and PSUD (Vscan) were used for investigation of A lines, interstitial (B lines), alveolar syndromes (consolidation, hepatisation, air bronchograms) and pleural effusion. 33 patients were included in the study. When PSUD was compared with SUD in terms of total B2 count, and LAS in the right, left and both lung, there was an agreement without proportional bias according to Bland Altman test. There was also good inter class correlation coefficient value as greater than 0.8 and 0.7 between two physicians in terms of counting of total B1, B2, total B lines and calculating of total LAS for SUD and PSUD respectively. PSUDs is a reliable and valid method for evaluation of LUS patterns like SUDs.

Background and Aims: During liver transplantation, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence remains a critical challenge for patient survival. Targeted therapies, such as sorafenib and regorafenib, have been utilized to manage relapsed HCC in this unique setting. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of Sorafenib and Regorafenib in patients with HCC who experienced recurrence after liver transplantation. We focused on survival outcomes, treatment responses, and the management of side effects in this patient group. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 73 patients who experienced HCC recurrence post-liver transplantation between 2012 and 2022 across 11 oncology centers in Turkey. Patients were categorized according to Child–Pugh classification and treated with sorafenib as first-line therapy and Regorafenib in case of progression. Survival rates were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method, and risk factors were evaluated using Cox regression analysis. Results: Of the 73 patients included in the study, 62 were male (84.9%), and 11 were female (15.1%), with a mean age of 61.5 ± 10.9 years. All patients received sorafenib as first-line treatment. Among patients who experienced progression with sorafenib or discontinued treatment due to toxicity, 45.2% (n = 33) continued treatment with regorafenib. The median progression-free survival (PFS1) time with sorafenib was 5.6 months, and the one-year survival rate was 24.3%. The median progression-free survival (PFS2) time with regorafenib, which was administered as second-line treatment, was also calculated as 5.9 months. Overall survival (OS) duration was determined as 35.9 months. The most common side effects associated with both drugs included fatigue, hand and foot syndrome, and hypertension. Significantly better survival outcomes were shown in the Child–Pugh A group compared to other patients. Conclusions: These results suggest that Sorafenib and Regorafenib treatments offer a survival advantage in patients with relapsed HCC post-transplantation. However, individualized treatment strategies and close follow-up are crucial for optimizing outcomes. Further studies are needed to refine therapeutic protocols and enhance the care of this specific patient group.

Background andAims: During liver transplantation, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence remains a critical challenge for patient survival. Targeted therapies, such as Sorafenib and Regorafenib, have been utilized to manage relapsed HCC in this unique setting. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of Sorafenib and Regorafenib in patients with HCC who experienced recurrence after liver transplantation. We focused on survival outcomes, treatment responses, and the management of side effects in this patient group. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 73 patients who experienced HCC recurrence post-liver transplantation between 2012 and 2022, across 11oncology centers in Turkey. Patients were categorised according to Child-Pugh classification and treated with Sorafenib as first-line therapy and Regorafenib in case of progression. Survival rates were analysed by Kaplan-Meier method and risk factors were evaluated by Cox regression analysis. Results: Of the 73 patients included in the study, 62 were male (84,9%) and 11 were female (15,1%) with a mean age of 61,5 ± 10,9 years. All patients received sorafenib as first-line treatment. Among patients who experienced progression with sorafenib or discontinued treatment due to toxicity, 45,2% (n=33) continued treatment with regorafenib. The median progression-free survival (PFS1) time with Sorafenib was 5,6 months and the one-year survival rate was 24,3%. The median progression-free survival (PFS2) time with Regorafenib, which was administered as second-line treatment, was also calculated as 5,9 months. Overall survival (OS) duration was determined as 35,9 months. The most common side effects associated with both drugs included fatigue, hand-foot syndrome and hypertension. Significantly better survival outcomes were shown in the Child-Pugh A group compared to other patients. Conclusion: These results suggest that Sorafenib and Regorafenib treatments offer a survival advantage in patients with relapsed HCC post-transplantation. However, individualized treatment strategies and close follow-up are crucial for optimizing outcomes. Further studies are needed to refine therapeutic protocols and enhance the care of this specific patient group.