The Tower of Babel of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: are we ready for one language?

Three-dimensional reconstruction technology in the preoperative workup of complex hepatic resections. Our experience on 11 consecutive cases

Three-dimensional liver modeling can be a useful tool when planning the preoperative strategy in liver surgery. The present study aims to review our case series of patients requiring complex hepatic resections for primary and secondary liver tumors, and for whom 3D models were built, to add further evidence in this direction. All consecutive patients undergoing complex liver resection were enrolled. Cross-sectional triphasic CT images were obtained for each patient. DICOM images were processed, and full virtual 3D models were generated. The additional details provided by 3D models were employed to better understand the anatomy, to define the most adequate surgical pathway, and, in case, to switch to a different surgical procedure. From January 2020 to September 2022, 11 complex hepatic resections requiring 3D reconstruction technology were performed. Eight 3D models scored ≥ 15 points in the quality control system. A detailed analysis of each case was reported. In three cases (27%) 3DVT helped to understand the anatomy and/or to detect vascular abnormalities. In six cases (54.5%) 3DVT led to a variation of the surgical planning. 3DVT may be helpful in planning preoperatively the most appropriate surgical procedure. Further large-scale, well-designed studies are needed to prove its true effectiveness in HPB surgical oncology.

Dynamic surgical anatomy using 3D reconstruction technology in complex hepato-biliary surgery with vascular involvement. Results from an international multicentric survey

INTRODUCTION

Three-dimensional liver modeling can lead to substantial changes in choosing the type and extension of liver resection. This study aimed to explore whether 3D reconstruction helps to better understand the relationship between liver tumors and neighboring vascular structures compared to standard 2D CT scan images.

METHODS

Contrast-enhanced CT scan images of 11 patients suffering from primary and secondary hepatic tumors were selected. Twenty-three experienced HBP surgeons participated to the survey. A standardized questionnaire outlining 16 different vascular structures (items) having a potential relationship with the tumor was provided. Intraoperative and histopathological findings were used as the reference standard. The proper hypothesis was that 3D accuracy is greater than 2D. As a secondary endpoint, inter-raters' agreement was explored.

RESULTS

The mean difference between 3D and 2D, was 2.6 points (SE: 0.40; 95 % CI: 1.7-3.5; p < 0.0001). After sensitivity analysis, the results favored 3D visualization as well (mean difference 1.7 points; SE: 0.32; 95 % CI: 1.0-2.5; p = 0.0004). The inter-raters' agreement was moderate for both methods (2D: W = 0.45; 3D: W = 0.44).

CONCLUSION

3D reconstruction may give a significant contribution to better understanding liver vascular anatomy and the precise relationship between the tumor and the neighboring structures.

Conversion Strategy in Left-Sided RAS/BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients with Unresectable Liver-Limited Disease: A Multicenter Cohort Study

Colorectal cancer (CRC) patients frequently develop liver metastases. Different treatment strategies are available according to the timing of appearance, the burden of metastatic disease, and the performance status of the patient. Systemic treatment (ST) represents the cornerstone of metastatic disease management. However, in select cases, combined ST and surgical resection can lead to remarkable survival outcomes. In the present multicentric cohort study, we explored the efficacy of a conversion strategy in a selected population of left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type CRC patients with liver-limited metastatic disease. Methods: The primary endpoint was to compare survival outcomes of patients undergoing ST not leading to surgery, liver resection after conversion ST, and hepatic resection with perioperative ST. Furthermore, we explored survival outcomes depending on whether the case was discussed within a multidisciplinary team. Results: Between 2012 and 2020, data from 690 patients respecting the inclusion criteria were collected. Among these, 272 patients were deemed eligible for the analysis. The conversion rate was 24.1% of cases. Fifty-six (20.6%) patients undergoing surgical resection after induction treatment (i.e., ultimately resectable) had a significant survival advantage compared to those receiving systemic treatment not leading to surgery (176 pts, 64.7%) (5-year OS 60.8% and 11.7%, respectively, Log Rank test p < 0.001; HR = 0.273; 95% CI: 0.16−0.46; p < 0.001; 5-year PFS 22.2% and 6.3%, respectively, Log Rank test p < 0.001; HR = 0.447; 95% CI: 0.32−0.63; p < 0.001). There was no difference in survival between ultimately resectable patients and those who had liver resection with perioperative systemic treatment (potentially resectable—40 pts) (5-year OS 71.1%, Log Rank test p = 0.311. HR = 0.671; 95% CI: 0.31−1.46; p = 0.314; 5-year PFS 25.7%, Log Rank test p = 0.305. HR = 0.782; 95% CI: 0.49−1.25; p = 0.306). Conclusions: In our selected population of left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type colorectal cancer patients with liver-limited disease, a conversion strategy was confirmed to provide a survival benefit. Patients not deemed surgical candidates at the time of diagnosis and patients judged resectable with perioperative systemic treatment have similar survival outcomes.

Differential histopathologic parameters in colorectal cancer liver metastases resected after triplets plus bevacizumab or cetuximab: a pooled analysis of five prospective trials

Background

Many factors, including histopathologic parameters, seem to influence the prognosis of patients undergoing resection of colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLM), although their relative weight is unclear. Histopathologic growth patterns (HGPs) of CRCLM may affect sensitivity to antiangiogenics. We aimed at evaluating differences in histopathologic parameters of response according to the use of bevacizumab or cetuximab as first-line targeted agents, and at exploring the prognostic and predictive role of HGPs.

Methods

We performed a comprehensive histopathologic characterisation of CRCLM from 159 patients who underwent secondary resection, after receiving triplets FOLFOXIRI (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) or COI (capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab (N = 103) vs cetuximab (N = 56) in five first-line no-profit clinical trials.

Results

Both major histopathologic response (tumour regression grade TRG1–2, 32 vs 14%, p = 0.013) and infarct-like necrosis (80 vs 64%, p = 0.035) were significantly higher in the bevacizumab than in the cetuximab group. Achieving major response positively affected relapse-free survival (RFS) (p = 0.012) and overall survival (OS) (p = 0.045), also in multivariable models (RFS, p = 0.008; OS, p = 0.033).

In the desmoplastic HGP (N = 28), a higher percentage of major response was reported (57 vs 17% in pushing and 22% in replacement HGP, p < 0.001) and an unsignificant advantage from cetuximab vs bevacizumab was evident in RFS (p = 0.116). In the pushing HGP (N = 66), a significant benefit from bevacizumab vs cetuximab (p = 0.017) was observed. No difference was described in the replacement HGP (N = 65, p = 0.615).

Conclusions

The histopathologic response is the only independent determinant of survival in patients resected after triplets plus a biologic. When associated with triplet chemotherapy, bevacizumab induces a higher histopathologic response rate than cetuximab. The assessment of HGPs should be further explored as a predictor of benefit from available targeted agents.