Liver venous deprivation compared to portal vein embolization to induce hypertrophy of the future liver remnant before major hepatectomy: A single center experience

Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Liver Venous Deprivation and Portal Vein Embolization Before Planned Hepatectomy in Patients with Extensive Colorectal Liver Metastases and High-Risk Factors for Inadequate Regeneration

BACKGROUND

Liver venous deprivation (LVD) is known to induce better future liver remnant (FLR) hypertrophy than portal vein embolization (PVE). The role of LVD, compared with PVE, in inducing FLR hypertrophy and allowing safe hepatectomy for patients with extensive colorectal liver metastases (CLM) and high-risk factors for inadequate hypertrophy remains unclear.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LVD (n = 22) were matched to patients undergoing PVE (n = 279) in a 1:3 ratio based on propensity scores, prior to planned hepatectomy for CLM at a single center (1998-2023). The propensity scores accounted for high-risk factors for inadequate hypertrophy, namely pre-procedure standardized FLR (sFLR), body mass index, number of systemic therapy cycles, an extension of PVE to segment IV portal vein branches, prior resection, and chemotherapy-associated liver injury.

RESULTS

The matched cohort included 78 patients (LVD, n = 22; PVE, n = 56). Baseline characteristics were comparable. The number of tumors in the whole liver was similar but more LVD patients had five or more tumors in the left liver (32% vs. 11%; p = 0.024). Post-procedure sFLR was similar but LVD patients had a significantly higher degree of hypertrophy (16% vs. 11%; p = 0.017) and kinetic growth rate (3.9 vs. 2.4% per week; p = 0.006). More LVD patients underwent extended right hepatectomy (93% vs. 55%; p = 0.008). Only one patient had postoperative hepatic insufficiency after PVE, and no patients died within 90 days of hepatectomy.

CONCLUSION

In patients with extensive CLM and high-risk factors, LVD is associated with better FLR hypertrophy compared with PVE and allows for safely performing curative-intent extended major hepatectomy.

Simultaneous Liver Venous Deprivation Following Hepatic Arterial Chemoembolization Before Major Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A New Methods to Achieve Hypertrophy Liver Remnant

Purpose

Liver venous deprivation (LVD; simultaneous portal vein embolization and hepatic vein embolization) has been the latest surgical strategy for rapid future liver remnant (FLR) hypertrophy. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of simultaneous LVD following hepatic arterial chemoembolization (TACE-LVD) before major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Patients and Methods

A retrospective analysis of the outcomes of 23 HCC patients who underwent TACE-LVD at our center between October 2019 and October 2023 was conducted. An assessment of postoperative complications, FLR volume, liver function, and tumor response was performed.

Results

All patients successfully underwent TACE-LVD. No other serious complications occurred except in 1 patient who underwent puncture drainage due to excessive pleural effusion. Following TACE-LVD, transaminase levels peak two days before rapidly decreasing and return to preoperative levels within one week. The ratio of FLR to standardized liver volume increased from 35.9% (interquartile range [IQR], 8.6) to 46.4% (IQR, 8.2), with a mean degree of hypertrophy and kinetic growth rate of 13.2% (IQR, 5.4) and 4.4% (IQR, 1.8) per week, respectively. At the first assessment after TACE-LVD, most patients exhibited sufficient FLR for hepatectomy, except for 4 patients with cirrhosis. The modified response evaluation criteria for solid tumor assessment revealed a disease control rate of 95.7%, with only 1 patient (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C) developing intrahepatic disease progression.

Conclusion

TACE-LVD seems to be a feasible, safe, and effective strategy for rapid FLR hypertrophy. Moreover, TACE-LVD may be a therapeutic choice if insufficient FLR hypertrophy precludes resection. This strategy warrants further exploration.

Debate: Improvements in Systemic Therapies for Liver Metastases Will Increase the Role of Locoregional Treatments

The benefit of resection of liver metastases depends on primary diseases. Neuroendocrine tumors are associated with favorable prognosis after resection of liver metastases. Gastric cancer has worse tumor biology, and resection of gastric liver metastases should be performed in selected patients. A multidisciplinary approach is well established for colorectal liver metastases (CLMs). Resection remains the only curative treatment of CLM. Chemotherapy and molecular-targeted therapy have improved survival in unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer. Understanding of the following two strategies, conversion therapy and two-stage hepatectomy, are important to make this patient group to be candidates for curative-intent surgery.

Management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a review for clinicians

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is an aggressive liver malignancy that arises from second-order biliary epithelial cells. Its incidence is gradually increasing worldwide. Well-known risk factors have been described, although in many cases, they are not identifiable. Treatment options are continuously expanding, but the prognosis of iCCA remains dismal. R0 liver resection remains the only curative treatment, but only a limited number of patients can benefit from it. Frequently, major hepatectomies are needed to completely remove the tumour. This could contraindicate surgery or increase postoperative morbidity in patients with chronic liver disease and small remnant liver volume. In cases of anticipated inadequate future liver remnant, regenerative techniques may be used to expand resectability. The role and extent of lymphadenectomy in iCCA are still matters of debate. Improvements in iCCA diagnosis and better understanding of genetic profiles might lead to optimized surgical approaches and drug therapies. The role of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies is broadening, gaining more and more acceptance in clinical practice. Combining surgery with locoregional therapies and novel drugs, such as checkpoint-inhibitors and molecular-targeted molecules, might improve treatment options and survival rates. Liver transplantation, after very poor initial results, is now receiving attention for the treatment of patients with unresectable very early iCCA (i.e. <2 cm) in cirrhotic livers, showing survival outcomes comparable to those of hepatocellular carcinoma. Ongoing prospective protocols are testing the efficacy of liver transplantation for patients with unresectable, advanced tumours confined to the liver, with sustained response to neoadjuvant treatment. In such a continuously changing landscape, the aim of our work is to review the state-of-the-art in the surgical and medical treatment of iCCA.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUES TO INCREASE RESECTABILITY IN LIVER METASTASIS

The development of surgical techniques, chemotherapy, biological agents, and multidisciplinary approaches have made patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases eligible for surgery. Many strategies have been developed to allow patients for surgical resection (percutaneous portal vein embolization, liver venous deprivation, parenchyma-sparing liver surgery, reverse strategy, associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy, and liver transplantation), the only form of disease control and curative treatment.

Optimal treatment strategies for borderline resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) are divided into "initially resectable" and "initially unresectable." The terminology "borderline resectable" continues to be elusive without any common consensus or definition. This narrative review aims to decode the conundrum of "borderline resectable CRLM (BR-CRLM)" and to discuss optimal treatment strategies.

METHODS

A comprehensive review was performed using Medline/PubMed and Web of Science databases with a search period ending on January 1, 2024. Using PubMed, the terms "CRLM," "BR-CRLM," and "management of BR-CRLM" were searched.

RESULTS

The 2016 European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines defined the term "resectability" in CRLM using the "technical (surgical) criteria" and the "oncologically criteria." These 2 criteria form the basis of defining BR-CRLM. Thus, BR-CRLM can be either technically easy but with unfavorable oncologically criteria or technically difficult with favorable oncologically criteria. Although defining BR-CRLM by incorporating both these criteria seems to be the most logical way forward, there is currently a lot of heterogeneity in the literature. It is generally agreed upon that some form of chemotherapy needs to be administered in BR-CRLM before embarking on surgery. Conversion chemotherapy is used in patients with BR-CRLM in which there is a possibility of resection after effective downsizing. Along with improved effective chemotherapy, great strides have been made in pushing the limits of surgery to achieve resectability in this subset of patients.

CONCLUSION

Advanced surgical techniques and locoregional liver-directed therapies coupled with perioperative chemotherapy with or without targeted therapy have made long-term survival benefit, a reality in patients with BR-CRLM. Thus, the time has come to recognize "BR-CRLM" as a distinct entity.

Histological and radiological analysis of simultaneous dual hepatic vein embolization for right-sided major hepatectomy

PURPOSE

Simultaneous dual hepatic vein embolization (DHVE) has been proposed for safe right-sided hepatectomy, with good results for liver hypertrophy and function. However, the histological and radiological findings of DHVE have not been thoroughly investigated.

METHODS

This study included 14 patients who underwent DHVE before right-sided major hepatectomy. DHVE was performed if the future liver remnant was < 35% or borderline, but with concomitant vascular resection. The liver function was assessed using the signal intensity on Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI. A histological evaluation of the area of DHVE and portal vein embolization (PVE) were performed.

RESULTS

The median pre- and post-functional liver remnants were 363 ml and 498 ml, respectively (p < 0.001). The median growth rate was 48.6%, and there was no post-hepatectomy liver failure in the patients who underwent DHVE. The signal intensity ratio in the area of DHVE was lower than that in the areas of PVE and the remnant liver (p < 0.01). The degree of congestion and necrosis was greater in the area of DHVE than in the area of PVE alone (p < 0.01 and p = 0.04, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed good liver hypertrophy after DHVE and histological and radiological changes in the area of DHVE. Our findings provide a compelling rationale for further investigation of the mechanism of liver hypertrophy in DHVE.

Initial experience with Double-vein Embolization in Hungary

Introduction

In recent years several new techniques have emerged to induce hypertrophy of the future liver remnant prior to major hepatectomies. We aimed to summarize our initial experience with Double-vein Embolization as the first center in Hungary.

Methods

Between March 2023 and August 2024 a total of 16 Double-vein Embolization procedures were performed in Semmelweis University. Future liver remnant volume was calculated based on computed tomography scans obtained within 4 weeks prior and 2-3 weeks after the procedure. Tc-99m mebrofenin hepatobiliary scintigraphy results were available for 12/16 patients.

Results

Technical success rate was 100 %. No major complication was observed. Successful resection rate was 93.8 %. One patient died due to post-hepatectomy liver failure. Future liver remnant volume and ratio increased significantly after the procedure compared to baseline (433.1 ± 163.8 cm3 vs. 603.5 ± 201.8 cm3, p < 0.0001 and 27.2 ± 6.5 % vs. 37 ± 8.8 %, p < 0.0001, respectively). Future liver remnant clearance improved significantly 1 and 2 weeks after the procedure (1.68 ± 0.58 %/min/m2 vs. 2.44 ± 0.64 %/min/m2 and 2.39 ± 0.31 %/min/m2, respectively). Mean function gain was 50.6 % after one week and 60.1% after two weeks, respectively.

Discussion

Volumetric and functional outcomes in the present study are comparable with results reported in the literature. Our findings provide further evidence that Double-vein Embolization is a safe procedure that offers sufficient volumetric and functional gain in most candidates for liver resection. However, further studies are needed to define the exact place of this new technique in clinical practice.

Comprehensive Review of Future Liver Remnant (FLR) Assessment and Hypertrophy Techniques Before Major Hepatectomy: How to Assess and Manage the FLR

BACKGROUND

The regenerative capacities of the liver and improvements in surgical techniques have expanded the possibilities of resectability. Liver resection is often the only curative treatment for primary and secondary malignancies, despite the risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). This serious complication (with a 50% mortality rate) can be avoided by better assessment of liver volume and function of the future liver remnant (FLR).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to understand and assess clinical, biological, and imaging predictors of PHLF risk, as well as the various hypertrophy techniques, to achieve an adequate FLR before hepatectomy.

METHOD

We reviewed the state of the art in liver regeneration and FLR hypertrophy techniques.

RESULTS

The use of new biological scores (such as the aspartate aminotransferase/platelet ratio index + albumin-bilirubin [APRI+ALBI] score), concurrent utilization of 99mTc-mebrofenin scintigraphy (HBS), or dynamic hepatocyte contrast-enhanced MRI (DHCE-MRI) for liver volumetry helps predict the risk of PHLF. Besides portal vein embolization, there are other FLR optimization techniques that have their indications in case of risk of failure (e.g., associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy, liver venous deprivation) or in specific situations (transarterial radioembolization).

CONCLUSION

There is a need to standardize volumetry and function measurement techniques, as well as FLR hypertrophy techniques, to limit the risk of PHLF.

Comparison of liver venous deprivation with portal vein embolization alone in patients undergoing major liver resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The clinical efficacy and safety between liver venous deprivation (LVD) and portal vein embolization (PVE) prior to major hepatectomy is still unclear.

METHODS

Studies comparing LVD and PVE were obtained by systemically searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library Central databases through 22 December 2023.

RESULTS

Ten studies including 588 patients were reviewed. Compared with PVE group, LVD group exhibited an increased liver resection rate (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.13-3.15; P = 0.01), a faster KGR (MD, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.31-2.42; P = 0.01), and a shorter time to hepatectomy (MD, -6.66; 95% CI, -8.03 to -5.30; P < 0.0001). The pooled results showed that post-embolization complications (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.66-2.74), overall postoperative complications (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.68-1.75), severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.43-1.14), and 90-day mortality (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.13-1.09) were not significantly different in both groups. LVD group had significantly lower post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) than PVE group (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.91; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

LVD outperforms PVE regarding liver resection rate and future liver remnant (FLR) hypertrophy and shows comparable safety to PVE. In addition, LVD allowed for major hepatectomy with lower incidence of PHLF.

CIRSE Standards of Practice on Portal Vein Embolization and Double Vein Embolization/Liver Venous Deprivation

This CIRSE Standards of Practice document is aimed at interventional radiologists and provides best practices for performing liver regeneration therapies prior to major hepatectomies, including portal vein embolization, double vein embolization and liver venous deprivation. It has been developed by an expert writing group under the guidance of the CIRSE Standards of Practice Committee. It encompasses all clinical and technical details required to perform liver regeneration therapies, revising the indications, contra-indications, outcome measures assessed, technique and expected outcomes.

Image-guided percutaneous strategies to improve the resectability of HCC: Portal vein embolization, liver venous deprivation, or radiation lobectomy?

Despite considerable advances in surgical technique, many patients with hepatic malignancies are not operative candidates due to projected inadequate hepatic function following resection. Consequently, the size of the future liver remnant (FLR) is an essential consideration when predicting a patient's likelihood of liver insufficiency following hepatectomy. Since its initial description 30 years ago, portal vein embolization has become the standard of care for augmenting the size and function of the FLR preoperatively. However, new minimally invasive techniques have been developed to improve surgical candidacy, chief among them liver venous deprivation and radiation lobectomy. The purpose of this review is to discuss the status of preoperative liver augmentation prior to resection of hepatocellular carcinoma with a focus on these three techniques, highlighting the distinctions between them and suggesting directions for future investigation.

New trends in surgery for colorectal liver metastasis

By presenting the most up-to-date findings and incorporating the latest evidence, this article seeks to present a comprehensive guide for navigating the complexities inherent in the management of colorectal liver metastasis. It aims to serve as a valuable resource offering clinicians and healthcare professionals an understanding of the diverse modalities and approaches available for treating this challenging and multifaceted disease. In an era of rapidly evolving medical knowledge, this article examines the latest insights to make informed decisions in the realm of colorectal liver metastasis management. The article does not only highlight the up-to-date knowledge but also provides the evidence for existing therapeutic strategies. This practical tool provides evidence-based recommendations to clinicians, thereby contributing to the ongoing advancement of effective treatment strategies for this challenging disease.

Correlation between the liver transection line localization and future liver remnant hypertrophy in associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy

Background and aims

Colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) represent the most prevalent form of secondary liver tumors, and insufficient future liver remnant (FLR) often leads to unresectability. To tackle this challenge, various methods for stimulating liver hypertrophy have been developed including portal vein embolization (PVE), associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) and the newest one, liver venous deprivation (LVD). ALPPS was thoroughly studied over the last decade and it has been shown to induce rapid and intensive FLR hypertrophy. The objective of this study was to assess whether the localization of the liver transection line during the initial stage of ALPPS correlates with the degree of FLR hypertrophy.

Methods

A retrospective, multicentric study was conducted, and we analyzed all consecutive patients with CRLMs who underwent ALPPS over the eight-year period. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the type of resection-right trisectionectomy (ERH) or right hemihepatectomy (RH) respectively. The degree of hypertrophy (DH), its correlation with FLR and postoperative outcomes were assessed.

Results

The cohort consisted of 136 patients (72 in the ERH group and 64 in the RH group). Baseline characteristics, hypertrophy interval, and total liver volume showed no significant differences between the groups. DH was greater in the ERH group (83.2% vs. 62.5%, p = 0.025). A strong negative correlation was observed between FLR volume and DH in both groups. Postoperative outcomes and one-year survival were comparable between the groups.

Conclusions

FLR hypertrophy is influenced by the localization of the liver transection line in ALPPS. Furthermore, correlation analysis indicated that a smaller estimated FLR is associated with greater DH. No statistical difference in outcomes was noted between the groups.

Transfemoral hepatic vein catheterization reduces procedure time in double vein embolization

BACKGROUND

Double vein embolization with simultaneous embolization of the portal and hepatic vein aims to grow the future liver remnant in preparation for major hepatectomy. Transvenous hepatic vein embolization is usually done via a transjugular access. The purpose of this study is to describe the transfemoral approach as an alternative option and to discuss potential advantages.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients undergoing hepatic vein embolization via a transjugular (n = 10) or transfemoral access (n = 13) were evaluated retrospectively. In all cases the portal vein embolization was done first. All procedures were technically successful. There were no peri-interventional complications. Only two patients were not able to proceed to surgery. Standardized future liver remnant hypertrophy was non-inferior with the transfemoral approach compared to the transjugular route. Procedure time was significantly shorter in the transfemoral access group (40 ± 13 min) compared to the transjugular group (67 ± 13 min, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Transfemoral hepatic vein embolization is feasible, safe, and faster due to easier catheterization, improved stability, and simpler patient preparation. These findings will need to be validated in larger studies.

Liver volumetry and liver-regenerative interventions: history, rationale, and emerging tools

BACKGROUND

Postoperative hepatic insufficiency (PHI) is the most feared complication after hepatectomy. Volume of the future liver remnant (FLR) is one objectively measurable indicator to identify patients at risk of PHI. In this review, we summarized the development and rationale for the use of liver volumetry and liver-regenerative interventions and highlighted emerging tools that could yield new advancements in liver volumetry.

METHODS

A review of MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted to identify literature related to liver volumetry. The references of relevant articles were reviewed to identify additional publications.

RESULTS

Liver volumetry based on radiologic imaging was developed in the 1980s to identify patients at risk of PHI and later used in the 1990s to evaluate grafts for living donor living transplantation. The field evolved in the 2000s by the introduction of standardized FLR based on the hepatic metabolic demands and in the 2010s by the introduction of the degree of hypertrophy and kinetic growth rate as measures of the FLR regenerative and functional capacity. Several liver-regenerative interventions, most notably portal vein embolization, are used to increase resectability and reduce the risk of PHI. In parallel with the increase in automation and machine assistance to physicians, many semi- and fully automated tools are being developed to facilitate liver volumetry.

CONCLUSION

Liver volumetry is the most reliable tool to detect patients at risk of PHI. Advances in imaging analysis technologies, newly developed functional measures, and liver-regenerative interventions have been improving our ability to perform safe hepatectomy.

Efficacy and perioperative safety of different future liver remnant modulation techniques: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In daily clinical practice, different future liver remnant (FLR) modulation techniques are increasingly used to allow a liver resection in patients with insufficient FLR volume. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and perioperative safety of portal vein ligation (PVL), portal vein embolization (PVE), liver venous deprivation (LVD) and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS).

METHODS

A literature search for studies comparing liver resections following different FLR modulation techniques was performed in MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central, and pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Overall, 23 studies comprising 1557 patients were included. LVD achieved the greatest increase in FLR (17.32 %, 95% CI 2.49-32.15), while ALPPS was most effective in preventing dropout before the completion hepatectomy (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15-0.55). PVL tended to be associated with a longer time to completion hepatectomy (MD 5.78 days, 95% CI -0.67-12.23). Liver failure occurred less frequently after LVD, compared to PVE (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.14-0.87) and ALPPS (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09-0.85).

DISCUSSION

ALPPS and LVD seem superior to PVE and PVL in terms of achieved FLR increase and subsequent treatment completion. LVD was associated with lower rates of post hepatectomy liver failure, compared to both PVE and ALPPS. A summary of the protocol has been prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022321474).

A systematic review and meta-analysis of liver venous deprivation versus portal vein embolization before hepatectomy: future liver volume, postoperative outcomes, and oncological safety

Introduction

This systematic review aimed to compare liver venous deprivation (LVD) with portal vein embolization (PVE) in terms of future liver volume, postoperative outcomes, and oncological safety before major hepatectomy.

Methods

We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines 2020 and AMSTAR 2 guidelines. Comparative articles published before November 2022 were retained.

Results

The literature search identified nine eligible comparative studies. They included 557 patients, 207 in the LVD group and 350 in the PVE group. This systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that LVD was associated with higher future liver remnant (FLR) volume after embolization, percentage of FLR hypertrophy, lower failure of resection due to low FLR, faster kinetic growth, higher day 5 prothrombin time, and higher 3 years' disease-free survival. This study did not find any difference between the LVD and PVE groups in terms of complications related to embolization, FLR percentage of hypertrophy after embolization, failure of resection, 3-month mortality, overall morbidity, major complications, operative time, blood loss, bile leak, ascites, post hepatectomy liver failure, day 5 bilirubin level, hospital stay, and three years' overall survival.

Conclusion

LVD is as feasible and safe as PVE with encouraging results making some selected patients more suitable for surgery, even with a small FLR.

Systematic review registration

The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO before conducting the study (CRD42021287628).

Extended Ligation of the Hepatic Vein May Yield a Similar Effect to Liver Venous Deprivation in a Rat Model

AIMS

To validate the hypothesis that hepatic vein ligation (HVL) alone may produce similar results to liver venous deprivation (LVD or HVL + portal vein ligation [PVL]).

METHODS

Rats were assigned to five groups, namely, the control group; the R group in which the right median hepatic vein (RMHV) was ligated; the M group in which the middle median hepatic vein (MMHV) was ligated; the RM group in which both the RMHV and MMHV were ligated (R + MMHVL, extended ligation of the hepatic veins); and the LVD group in which both the right median portal vein and the RMHV were ligated. The liver hypertrophy effect and liver enzymes were determined. Methylene blue staining and retrograde pressurized perfusion assays were performed to investigate the hemodynamic changes.

RESULTS

The RM and LVD groups exhibited similar significant hypertrophy in the future liver remnants when compared to that of the control group, and almost no additional hypertrophy effect was observed in the R and M groups. There was a remarkable elevation in serum transaminase levels in both groups. The methylene blue staining experiment indicated that pressure-dependent collaterals formed between the contiguous drainage areas, and the R + MMHVL procedure blocked the outflow of the right median lobe.

CONCLUSION

Extended ligation of the hepatic vein (R + MMHVL) resulted in a similar hypertrophy effect and hepatic damage to those of LVD (HVL + PVL) treatment in a rat model, and intrahepatic venovenous collaterals play key roles.

Tc-99m mebrofenin hepatobiliary scintigraphy to assess future liver remnant function before major liver surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Assessment of liver function is paramount before hepatectomy. This study aimed to assess future liver remnant function (FLR-F) using hepatobiliary scintigraphy (HBS) and to compare it to FLR volume (FLR-V) in the prediction of posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). The impact of volume and function gains were also assessed in patients undergoing portal vein embolization (PVE) or liver venous deprivation (LVD).

METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing major hepatectomy between 02/2018 and 09/2021 with preoperative HBS were included. FLR-V was expressed as percentage of total liver volume and analyzed using preoperative computed tomography. FLR-V and FLR-F gains after embolization were expressed in percentage. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to compare both methods in predicting PHLF.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients were included. PVE and LVD were performed in 4 (11%) and 28 patients (78%), respectively. Overall, PHLF occurred in eight patients (22%). FLR-F gain after embolization showed significant ability to predict PHLF (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.789), with cut-off value of 150% showing a sensitivity of 1.00, a specificity of 0.42, and a negative predictive value of 1.00.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative HBS shows a high sensitivity to predict PHLF when HBS is performed twice to measure the function gain after venous embolization.

Single-Center Retrospective Study Comparing Double Vein Embolization via a Trans-Jugular Approach with Liver Venous Deprivation via a Trans-Hepatic Approach

PURPOSE

To compare safety, technical and clinical outcomes of double vein embolization (DVE) via a trans-jugular approach with liver venous deprivation (LVD) via a trans-hepatic approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-center retrospective analysis was conducted on patients undergoing simultaneous portal and hepatic veins embolization in view of a major hepatectomy (June 2019-November 2022). Hepatic vein embolization was performed either by transjugular plug (DVE) or by transhepatic plug followed by glue injection (LVD). Inclusion criteria were availability of pre-procedural CT scan, and availability of CT scans acquired 10 days and 25 days post-procedure. Comparative data included complication rate, fluoroscopy time, dose area product (DAP), Future Liver Remnant volume and function increase (FLR-V and FLR-F increase, respectively) and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients (n = 14 DVE; n = 22 LVD) were included. No baseline significant differences were observed among the two groups. One grade-3 complication (2.8%) was observed in the LVD group; one case of technical failure (2.8%) was observed in the DVE group. Fluoroscopy time and DAP were similar between DVE and LVD (29 ± 17.7 vs. 25 ± 8.2 min, p = 0.97; 105.1 ± 63.5 vs. 143.4 ± 79.5 Gy·cm2, p = 0.15). No differences arose at either time-point in FLR-V increase (46.7 ± 23.1% vs. 48.2 ± 28.2%, 52.9 ± 30.9% vs. 53.2 ± 29%, respectively, p = 0.9). FLR-F increase also did not differ significantly (62.8 ± 55.2 vs. 67.4 ± 57.5, p = 0.9). No differences in drop-out rate from surgery were observed. (28.6% vs. 27.3%, p = 0.93). One case of grade-B post-hepatectomy liver failure (2.8%) was observed in the LVD group.

CONCLUSION

LVD via transhepatic approach and DVE via transjugular approach seem equally safe and effective. Level of Evidence Level 3, Retrospective Cohort Study.

Essential updates 2021/2022: Update in surgical strategy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma

Resection is the only potential curative treatment for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC); however, complete resection is often technically challenging due to the anatomical location. Various innovative approaches and procedures were invented to circumvent this limitation but the rates of postoperative morbidity (20%-78%) and mortality (2%-15%) are still high. In patients diagnosed with resectable PHC, deliberate and coordinated preoperative workup and optimization of the patient and future liver remnant are crucial. Biliary drainage is recommended to relieve obstructive jaundice and optimize the clinical condition before liver resection. Biliary drainage for PHC can be performed either by endoscopic biliary drainage or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. To date there is no consensus about which method is preferred. The volumetric assessment of the future remnant liver volume and optimization mainly using portal vein embolization is the gold standard in the management of the risk to develop post hepatectomy liver failure. The improvement of systemic chemotherapy has contributed to prolong the survival not only in patients with unresectable PHC but also in patients undergoing curative surgery. In this article, we review the literature and discuss the current surgical treatment of PHC.

Comparing Liver Venous Deprivation and Portal Vein Embolization for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: Is It Time to Shift the Focus to Hepatic Functional Reserve Rather than Hypertrophy?

Purpose: Among liver hypertrophy technics, liver venous deprivation (LVD) has been recently introduced as an effective procedure to combine simultaneous portal inflow and hepatic outflow abrogation, raising growing clinical interest. The aim of this study is to investigate the role of LVD for preoperative optimization of future liver remnant (FLR) in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC), especially when compared with portal vein embolization (PVE). Methods: Between January 2013 and July 2022, all patients diagnosed with PHC and scheduled for preoperative optimization of FTR, through radiological hypertrophy techniques, prior to liver resection, were included. FTR volumetric assessment was evaluated at two distinct timepoints to track the progression of both early (T1, 10 days post-procedural) and late (T2, 21 days post-procedural) efficacy indicators. Post-procedural outcomes, including functional and volumetric analyses, were compared between the LVD and the PVE cohorts. Results: A total of 12 patients underwent LVD while 19 underwent PVE. No significant differences in either post-procedural or post-operative complications were found. Post-procedural FLR function, calculated with (99m) Tc-Mebrofenin hepatobiliary scintigraphy, and kinetic growth rate, at both timepoints, were greater in the LVD cohort (3.12 ± 0.55%/min/m2 vs. 2.46 ± 0.64%/min/m2, p = 0.041; 27.32 ± 16.86%/week (T1) vs. 15.71 ± 9.82%/week (T1) p < 0.001; 17.19 ± 9.88%/week (T2) vs. 9.89 ± 14.62%/week (T2) p = 0.034) when compared with the PVE cohort. Post-procedural FTR volumes were similar for both hypertrophy techniques. Conclusions: LVD is an effective procedure to effectively optimize FLR before liver resection for PHC. The faster growth rate combined with the improved FLR function, when compared to PVE alone, could maximize surgical outcomes by lowering post-hepatectomy liver failure rates.

A Sticky Situation: Glue Migration during Hepatic Vein Embolization

The addition of hepatic venous embolization to portal venous embolization to achieve ipsilateral liver venous deprivation before major hepatectomy has been suggested to increase the extent of hypertrophy of the future liver remnant. The presented case discusses a hepatic vein embolization procedure complicated by the unintended migration of a glue cast used to achieve hepatic venous occlusion and subsequent management with endovascular retrieval of the glue cast from the inferior vena cava. The emerging role of hepatic venous embolization and associated complications are also discussed.

Safety and Efficacy of Liver Venous Deprivation Following Transarterial Chemoembolization Before Major Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of liver venous deprivation (LVD) following transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Methods

Between January 2021 and December 2022, HCC patients indicated for hepatectomy with initial insufficient future liver remnant (FLR) underwent LVD after TACE to induce preoperative liver hypertrophy.

Results

Twenty-seven HCC patients with a median age of 55 years underwent LVD. No TACE or LVD procedure-associated complications occurred, except for 1 case presenting with grade A liver failure after LVD (then recovered after 7 days). The FLR volume was 29.3% (interquartile range [IQR] = 7.5) and 48.9% (IQR = 8.6) of the total liver volume before and after LVD, respectively (p < 0.001). The degree of hypertrophy and FLR hypertrophy rate were 14.8% (IQR = 8.4) and 55.2% (IQR = 36.7), respectively. All 27 patients demonstrated sufficient FLR after LVD (24 patients at three weeks post-LVD, one at six weeks, and two at ten weeks), but only 21 patients accepted surgery. Postoperative histopathology showed 16 patients with cirrhosis and five with mild fibrosis (F1, F2). One patient presented with severe intraoperative bleeding due to damage of left hepatic vein and developed grade C liver failure, then died on day 32 postoperation.

Conclusion

LVD following TACE seems to be a safe, effective, and feasible method of inducing significant FLR regeneration in HCC, even in well-selected cirrhotic livers. Comparative studies with a large patient population and multicenter data are needed for further evaluation.

Optimizing the selection of technically unresectable colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

The prediction of conversion surgery in patients with technically unresectable colorectal liver metastases has not been generalized or well-established. We developed a predictive model for conversion surgery and assessed the long-term outcomes of patients with technically unresectable colorectal liver metastases.

METHODS

In this single-center, retrospective study, we analyzed the perioperative parameters and outcomes of 892 consecutive patients (2014-2021). Conversion surgery was indicated when the chemotherapy response allowed the complete resection of colorectal liver metastases with negative margins and adequate remnant liver volume.

RESULTS

Of the 892 patients, 122 had technically unresectable colorectal liver metastases; 61 underwent conversion surgery (conversion surgery group) and 61 did not (nonconversion surgery group). The median overall survival was significantly higher in the conversion surgery group than in the nonconversion surgery group (5.6 vs 1.8 years, P < .001). After univariate and multivariate analyses, the predictive model for conversion surgery was constructed using 4 predictive factors: Rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog status (mutant, +2 points), tumor number (≥15, +1), hepatic vein contact (≥2 hepatic veins, +1), and the presence of preservable sections (absence of preservable sections, +2). The area under the curve for conversion surgery was 0.889. Patients were graded according to the scores (A [0-2], B [3-4], and C [5-6]), and the conversion rates were 91.5% (A), 32.6% (B), and 10.3% (C) (P < .001). Grade A patients (median survival time, 5.7 years) had significantly better overall survival than grade B and C patients (median survival time, 2.2 and 1.6 years, respectively; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent conversion surgery for technically unresectable colorectal liver metastases had better prognoses, and our novel predictive model was useful in predicting conversion surgery and prognosis.

Liver Venous Deprivation Versus Portal Vein Embolization Before Major Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Retrospective Comparison of Short- and Medium-Term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Liver venous deprivation (LVD) is a recent radiological technique performed to induce hypertrophy of the future liver remnant. Medium-term results of major hepatectomy after LVD have never been compared with the actual standard of care, portal vein embolization (PVE).

METHODS

We retrospectively compared data from 33 consecutive patients who had undergone LVD (n = 17) or PVE (n = 16) prior to a right hemi-hepatectomy or right extended hepatectomy indicated for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) between May 2015 and December 2019.

RESULTS

The 1-year and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates in the LVD group were 81.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 72-90) and 54.7% (95% CI: 46-63), respectively, against 85% (95% CI: 69-101) and 77.4% (95% CI: 54-100) in the PVE group; the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.64). The median disease-free survival (DFS) rate was also comparable: 6 months (95% CI: 4-7) in the LVD group and 12 months (95% CI: 1.5-13) in the PVE group (p = 0.29). The overall intra-operative and post-operative complication rates were similar between the two groups. The mean daily kinetic growth rate (KGR) was found to be higher after LVD than after PVE (0.2% vs. 0.1%, p = 0.05; 10 cc/day vs. 4.8 cc/day, p = 0.03), as was the mean increase in future liver remnant volume (FLR-V) (49% vs. 27%, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The LVD technique is well tolerated in patients undergoing right hemi-hepatectomy or right extended hepatectomy for CRLM. When compared with the PVE technique, the LVD technique has similar peri-operative and medium-term outcomes, but higher KGR and FLR-V increase.

Portal Vein Embolization: Rationale, Techniques, and Outcomes to Maximize Remnant Liver Hypertrophy with a Focus on Contemporary Strategies

Hepatectomy remains the gold standard for curative therapy for patients with limited primary or metastatic hepatic tumors as it offers the best survival rates. In recent years, the indication for partial hepatectomy has evolved away from what will be removed from the patient to the volume and function of the future liver remnant (FLR), i.e., what will remain. With this regard, liver regeneration strategies have become paramount in transforming patients who previously had poor prognoses into ones who, after major hepatic resection with negative margins, have had their risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure minimized. Preoperative portal vein embolization (PVE) via the purposeful occlusion of select portal vein branches to promote contralateral hepatic lobar hypertrophy has become the accepted standard for liver regeneration. Advances in embolic materials, selection of treatment approaches, and PVE with hepatic venous deprivation or concurrent transcatheter arterial embolization/radioembolization are all active areas of research. To date, the optimal combination of embolic material to maximize FLR growth is not yet known. Knowledge of hepatic segmentation and portal venous anatomy is essential before performing PVE. In addition, the indications for PVE, the methods for assessing hepatic lobar hypertrophy, and the possible complications of PVE need to be fully understood before undertaking the procedure. The goal of this article is to discuss the rationale, indications, techniques, and outcomes of PVE before major hepatectomy.

A prospective study of sequential hepatic vein embolization after portal vein embolization in patients scheduled for right-sided major hepatectomy: Results of feasibility and surgical strategy using functional liver assessment

BACKGROUND

Hepatic vein embolization (HVE) added to portal vein embolization (PVE) can further increase future remnant liver volume (FRLV) compared with PVE alone. This study was aimed to evaluate feasibility of sequential HVE in a prospective trial and to verify surgical strategy using functional FRLV (fFRLV).

METHODS

Hepatic vein embolization was prospectively indicated for post-PVE patients scheduled for right-sided major hepatectomy if the resection limit of fFRLV using EOB-magnetic resonance imaging was not satisfied. The resection limit was fFRLV: 615 mL/m² for predicting post-hepatectomy liver failure. Patients who underwent sequential PVE-HVE (n = 12) were compared with those who underwent PVE alone (n = 31).

RESULTS

All patients underwent HVE with no severe complications. Median fFRLV increased from 396 (range: 251-581) to 634 (range: 422-740) mL/m² by sequential PVE-HVE. From PVE to HVE, both of FRLV (P < .001) and fFRLV (P = .005) significantly increased. The increased width of fFRLV was larger than that of FRLV after performing HVE. Median growth rate was 71.3 (range: 33.3-80.3) %, which was higher than that of PVE alone (27.0%, range: 6.0-78.0). All-cohort resection rate was 88.3%. Strategy of using fFRLV for the resection limit and performing HVE in patients with insufficient functional volume resulted in no liver failure in all patients who underwent hepatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Sequential HVE after PVE is feasible and safe, and HVE induced possibility of further liver growth and its functional improvement. Our surgical strategy using fFRLV may be justified.

Efficacy and safety of different options for liver regeneration of future liver remnant in patients with liver malignancies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several treatments induce liver hypertrophy for patients with liver malignancies but insufficient future liver remnant (FLR). Herein, the aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of existing surgical techniques using network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from databases for abstracts and full-text articles published from database inception through Feb 2022. The primary outcome was the efficacy of different procedures, including standardized FLR (sFLR) increase, time to hepatectomy, resection rate, and R0 resection margin. The secondary outcome was the safety of different treatments, including the rate of Clavien-Dindo≥3a and 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three prospective trials (PTs), and twenty-one retrospective trials (RTs), and a total number of 2075 patients were recruited in this study. NMA demonstrated that the Associating Liver Partition and Portal vein ligation for Staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) had much higher sFLR increase when compared to portal vein embolization (PVE) (55.25%, 95% CI 45.27-65.24%), or liver venous deprivation(LVD) (43.26%, 95% CI 22.05-64.47%), or two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) (30.53%, 95% CI 16.84-44.21%), or portal vein ligation (PVL) (58.42%, 95% CI 37.62-79.23%). ALPPS showed significantly shorter time to hepatectomy when compared to PVE (-32.79d, 95% CI -42.92-22.66), or LVD (-34.02d, 95% CI -47.85-20.20), or TSH (-22.85d, 95% CI -30.97-14.72), or PVL (-43.37d, 95% CI -64.11-22.62); ALPPS was considered as the highest resection rate when compared to TSH (OR=6.09; 95% CI 2.76-13.41), or PVL (OR =3.52; 95% CI 1.16-10.72), or PVE (OR =4.12; 95% CI 2.19-7.77). ALPPS had comparable resection rate with LVD (OR =2.20; 95% CI 0.83-5.86). There was no significant difference between them when considering the R0 marge rate. ALPPS had a higher Clavien-Dindo≥3a complication rate and 90-day mortality compared to other treatments, although there were no significant differences between different procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

ALPPS demonstrated a higher regeneration rate, shorter time to hepatectomy, and higher resection rate than PVL, PVE, or TSH. There was no significant difference between them when considering the R0 marge rate. However, ALPPS developed the trend of higher Clavien-Dindo≥3a complication rate and 90-day mortality compared to other treatments.

Locoregional Therapy in the Management of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Is There Sufficient Evidence to Guide Current Clinical Practice?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) carries a dismal prognosis and, despite increasing incidence, still lacks effective treatments. In this scenario, locoregional therapies (LRT) are gaining interest as they may be effective at local tumor control and complementary to surgical and non-surgical approaches. In this article, we will review the evolving role of LRT performed by interventional radiologists in the management of iCCA.

RECENT FINDINGS

Accumulating retrospective evidence indicates that ablative therapies and transarterial embolizations are of benefit for iCCA with unresectable disease, demonstrating promising safety profiles and prolonged or comparable survival outcomes compared to systemic therapy and surgery. Additionally, for surgical candidates, portal ± hepatic venous embolization can improve the safety of hepatectomy by inducing preoperative hypertrophy of the non-involved liver lobe. LRTs are playing an increasingly important role in the multimodal treatment of iCCA from various perspectives with reduced toxicity relative to traditional treatments. To expand the scope of applications for LRTs in this setting, future prospective randomized studies are needed to confirm their efficacy and advantage.

Portal vein embolization failure: Current strategies and future perspectives to improve liver hypertrophy before major oncological liver resection

Portal vein embolization (PVE) is currently considered the standard of care to improve the volume of an inadequate future remnant liver (FRL) and decrease the risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). PHLF remains a significant limitation in performing major liver surgery and is the main cause of mortality after resection. The degree of hypertrophy obtained after PVE is variable and depends on multiple factors. Up to 20% of patients fail to undergo the planned surgery because of either an inadequate FRL growth or tumor progression after the PVE procedure (usually 6-8 wk are needed before surgery). The management of PVE failure is still debated, with a lack of consensus regarding the best clinical strategy. Different additional techniques have been proposed, such as sequential transarterial chemoembolization followed by PVE, segment 4 PVE, intra-portal administration of stem cells, dietary supplementation, and hepatic vein embolization. The aim of this review is to summarize the up-to-date strategies to overcome such difficult situations and discuss future perspectives on improving FRL hypertrophy.

Current evidence on posthepatectomy liver failure: comprehensive review

INTRODUCTION

Despite important advances in many areas of hepatobiliary surgical practice during the past decades, posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) still represents an important clinical challenge for the hepatobiliary surgeon. The aim of this review is to present the current body of evidence regarding different aspects of PHLF.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted to identify relevant articles for each topic of PHLF covered in this review. The literature search was performed using Medical Subject Heading terms on PubMed for articles on PHLF in English until May 2022.

RESULTS

Uniform reporting on PHLF is lacking due to the use of various definitions in the literature. There is no consensus on optimal preoperative assessment before major hepatectomy to avoid PHLF, although many try to estimate future liver remnant function. Once PHLF occurs, there is still no effective treatment, except liver transplantation, where the reported experience is limited.

DISCUSSION

Strict adherence to one definition is advised when reporting data on PHLF. The use of the International Study Group of Liver Surgery criteria of PHLF is recommended. There is still no widespread established method for future liver remnant function assessment. Liver transplantation is currently the only effective way to treat severe, intractable PHLF, but for many indications, this treatment is not available in most countries.

Portal vein embolization versus dual vein embolization for management of the future liver remnant in patients undergoing major hepatectomy: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to compare progression to surgery, extent of liver hypertrophy, and postoperative outcomes in patients planned for major hepatectomy following either portal vein embolization (PVE) or dual vein embolization (DVE) for management of an inadequate future liver remnant (FLR).

METHODS

An electronic search was performed of MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed databases using both medical subject headings (MeSH) and truncated word searches. Articles comparing PVE with DVE up to January 2022 were included. Articles comparing sequential DVE were excluded. ORs, risk ratios, and mean difference (MD) were calculated using fixed and random-effects models for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eight retrospective studies including 523 patients were included in the study. Baseline characteristics between the groups, specifically, age, sex, BMI, indication for resection, and baseline FLR (ml and per cent) were comparable. The percentage increase in hypertrophy was larger in the DVE group, 66 per cent in the DVE group versus 27 per cent in the PVE group, MD 39.07 (9.09, 69.05) (P = 0.010). Significantly fewer patients failed to progress to surgery in the DVE group than the PVE group, 13 per cent versus 25 per cent respectively OR 0.53 (0.31, 0.90) (P = 0.020). Rates of post-hepatectomy liver failure 13 per cent versus 22 per cent (P = 0.130) and major complications 20 per cent versus 28 per cent (Clavien-Dindo more than IIIa) (P = 0.280) were lower. Perioperative mortality was lower with DVE, 1 per cent versus 10 per cent (P = 0.010).

CONCLUSION

DVE seems to produce a greater degree of hypertrophy of the FLR than PVE alone which translates into more patients progressing to surgery. Higher quality studies are needed to confirm these results.

Parenchyma-Sparing Liver Resection or Regenerative Liver Surgery: Which Way to Go?

Liver resection for malignant tumors should respect oncological margins while ensuring safety and improving the quality of life, therefore tumor staging, underlying liver disease and performance status should all be attentively assessed in the decision process. The concept of parenchyma-sparing liver surgery is nowadays used as an alternative to major hepatectomies to address deeply located lesions with intricate topography by means of complex multiplanar parenchyma-sparing liver resections, preferably under the guidance of intraoperative ultrasound. Regenerative liver surgery evolved as a liver growth induction method to increase resectability by stimulating the hypertrophy of the parenchyma intended to remain after resection (referred to as future liver remnant), achievable by portal vein embolization and liver venous deprivation as interventional approaches, and portal vein ligation and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy as surgical techniques. Interestingly, although both strategies have the same conceptual origin, they eventually became caught in the never-ending parenchyma-sparing liver surgery vs. regenerative liver surgery debate. However, these strategies are both valid and must both be mastered and used to increase resectability. In our opinion, we consider parenchyma-sparing liver surgery along with techniques of complex liver resection and intraoperative ultrasound guidance the preferred strategy to treat liver tumors. In addition, liver volume-manipulating regenerative surgery should be employed when resectability needs to be extended beyond the possibilities of parenchyma-sparing liver surgery.

Promoting Surgical Resection through Future Liver Remnant Hypertrophy

An inadequate future liver remnant (FLR) can preclude curative-intent surgical resection for patients with primary or secondary hepatic malignancies. For patients with normal baseline liver function and without risk factors, an FLR of 20% is needed to maintain postsurgical hepatic function. However, the FLR requirement is higher for patients who are exposed to systemic chemotherapy (FLR, >30%) or have cirrhosis (FLR, >40%). Interventional radiologic and surgical methods to achieve FLR hypertrophy are evolving, including portal vein ligation, portal vein embolization, radiation lobectomy, hepatic venous deprivation, and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy. Each technique offers particular advantages and disadvantages. Knowledge of these procedures can help clinicians to choose the suitable technique for each patient. The authors review the techniques used to develop FLR hypertrophy, focusing on technical considerations, outcomes, and the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ^©RSNA, 2022.

Simultaneous portal and hepatic vein embolization is better than portal embolization or ALPPS for hypertrophy of future liver remnant before major hepatectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) is the Achilles' heel of hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases. The most commonly used procedure to generate hypertrophy of the functional liver remnant (FLR) is portal vein embolization (PVE), which does not always lead to successful hypertrophy. Associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) has been proposed to overcome the limitations of PVE. Liver venous deprivation (LVD), a technique that includes simultaneous portal and hepatic vein embolization, has also been proposed as an alternative to ALPPS. The present study aimed to conduct a systematic review as the first network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of the three regenerative techniques.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search for literature was conducted using the electronic databases Embase, PubMed (MEDLINE), Google Scholar and Cochrane.

RESULTS

The time to operation was significantly shorter in the ALPPS cohort than in the PVE and LVD cohorts by 27 and 22 days, respectively. Intraoperative parameters of blood loss and the Pringle maneuver demonstrated non-significant differences between the PVE and LVD cohorts. There was evidence of a significantly higher FLR hypertrophy rate in the ALPPS cohort when compared to the PVE cohort, but non-significant differences were observed when compared to the LVD cohort. Notably, the LVD cohort demonstrated a significantly better FLR/body weight (BW) ratio compared to both the ALPPS and PVE cohorts. Both the PVE and LVD cohorts demonstrated significantly lower major morbidity rates compared to the ALPPS cohort. The LVD cohort also demonstrated a significantly lower 90-day mortality rate compared to both the PVE and ALPPS cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

LVD in adequately selected patients may induce adequate and profound FLR hypertrophy before major hepatectomy. Present evidence demonstrated significantly lower major morbidity and mortality rates in the LVD cohort than in the ALPPS and PVE cohorts.

Current trends in regenerative liver surgery: Novel clinical strategies and experimental approaches

Liver resections are performed to cure patients with hepatobiliary malignancies and metastases to the liver. However, only a small proportion of patients is resectable, largely because only up to 70% of liver tissue is expendable in a resection. If larger resections are performed, there is a risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure. Regenerative liver surgery addresses this limitation by increasing the future liver remnant to an appropriate size before resection. Since the 1980s, this surgery has evolved from portal vein embolization (PVE) to a multiplicity of methods. This review presents an overview of the available methods and their advantages and disadvantages. The first use of PVE was in patients with large hepatocellular carcinomas. The increase in liver volume induced by PVE equals that of portal vein ligation, but both result only in a moderate volume increase. While awaiting sufficient liver growth, 20%–40% of patients fail to achieve resection, mostly due to the progression of disease. The MD Anderson Cancer Centre group improved the PVE methodology by adding segment 4 embolization (“high-quality PVE”) and demonstrated that oncological results were better than non-surgical approaches in this previously unresectable patient population. In 2012, a novel method of liver regeneration was proposed and called Associating Liver Partition and Portal vein ligation for Staged hepatectomy (ALPPS). ALPPS accelerated liver regeneration by a factor of 2–3 and increased the resection rate to 95%–100%. However, ALPPS fell short of expectations due to a high mortality rate and a limited utility only in highly selected patients. Accelerated liver regeneration, however, was there to stay. This is evident in the multiplicity of ALPPS modifications like radiofrequency or partial ALPPS. Overall, rapid liver regeneration allowed an expansion of resectability with increased perioperative risk. But, a standardized low-risk approach to rapid hypertrophy has been missing and the techniques used and in use depend on local expertise and preference. Recently, however, simultaneous portal and hepatic vein embolization (PVE/HVE) appears to offer both rapid hypertrophy and no increased clinical risk. While prospective randomized comparisons are underway, PVE/HVE has the potential to become the future gold standard.

Summary of key guidelines for locoregional treatment of HCC in Asia, Europe, South and North America

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common cancer worldwide accounting for over 800,000 new cases in 2018, with the highest incidence in Asia and Africa where hepatitis B is the most common risk factor. In Europe, Japan, and the United States, hepatitis C chronic alcohol abuse and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease are more common risk factors. Five-year survival is low, less than 20% worldwide. HCC is a particularly challenging disease to treat because therapeutic options and prognosis must also consider hepatitis or cirrhosis independent of the malignancy. Locoregional therapies (LRT) including ablation, arterially directed therapy and external beam radiation are the preferred treatments for patients with good performance status, unresectable disease limited to the liver and preserved liver function. In practice, patients with portal vein tumor thrombus and limited extrahepatic disease may also be considered candidates for LRT. There are several guidelines developed by expert panels provide recommendations on treating this challenging disease including the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer, European Association for the Study of the Liver, European Society for Medical Oncology, American Association for the Study of the Liver Diseases, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. The purpose of this paper is to review the guidelines as they are applied clinically in regions with high incidence of HCC.

Liver Venous Deprivation (LVD) Versus Portal Vein Embolization (PVE) Alone Prior to Extended Hepatectomy: A Matched Pair Analysis

BACKGROUND

To investigate whether liver venous deprivation (LVD) as simultaneous, portal vein (PVE) and right hepatic vein embolization offers advantages in terms of hypertrophy induction before extended hepatectomy in non-cirrhotic liver.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between June 2018 and August 2019, 20 patients were recruited for a prospective, non-randomized study to investigate the efficacy of LVD. After screening of 134 patients treated using PVE alone from January 2015 to August 2019, 14 directly matched pairs regarding tumor entity (cholangiocarcinoma, CC and colorectal carcinoma, CRC) and hypertrophy time (defined as time from embolization to follow-up imaging) were identified. In both treatment groups, the same experienced reader (> 5 years experience) performed imaging-based measurement of the volumes of liver segments of the future liver remnant (FLR) prior to embolization and after the standard clinical hypertrophy interval (~ 30 days), before surgery. Percentage growth of segments was calculated and compared.

RESULTS

After matched follow-up periods (mean of 30.5 days), there were no statistically significant differences in relative hypertrophy of FLRs. Mean ± standard deviation relative hypertrophy rates for LVD/PVE were 59 ± 29.6%/54.1 ± 27.6% (p = 0.637) for segments II + III and 48.2 ± 22.2%/44.9 ± 28.9% (p = 0.719) for segments II-IV, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LVD had no significant advantages over the standard method (PVE alone) in terms of hypertrophy induction of the FLR before extended hepatectomy in this study population.

Advances in the surgical treatment of liver cancer

Liver resection is the standard curative treatment for liver cancer. Advances in surgical techniques over the last 30 years, including the preoperative assessment of the future liver remnant, have improved the safety of liver resection. In addition, advances in nonsurgical multidisciplinary treatment have increased the opportunities for tumor downstaging. Consequently, the indications for resection of more advanced liver cancer have expanded. Laparoscopic and robot-assisted liver resections have also gradually become more widespread. These techniques should be performed in stages, depending on the difficulty of the procedure. Advances in preoperative simulation and intraoperative navigation technology may have also lowered the threshold for their performance and may have promoted their widespread use. New insights and experiences gained from laparoscopic surgery may be applicable in open surgery. Liver transplantation, which is usually indicated for patients with poor liver function, has also become safer with advances in perioperative management. The indications for liver transplantation in liver cancer are also expanding. Although the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has forced the postponement of liver resection and transplantation procedures, liver surgeons should appropriately tailor the surgical plan to the individual patient as part of multidisciplinary treatment. This review may provide an entry point for future clinical research by identifying currently unresolved issues regarding liver cancer, and particularly hepatocellular carcinoma.

Combining Laparoscopic Liver Partitioning and Simultaneous Portohepatic Venous Deprivation for Rapid Liver Hypertrophy

Future liver remnant (FLR) volume is an important indicator of the risk of posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) and limits the feasibility of major hepatectomies. A case series of 5 patients treated with a novel approach is presented. Laparoscopic liver partitioning was combined with subsequent liver venous deprivation (embolization of both the portal and the hepatic veins). Baseline average FLR was 28.8%. All procedures were successfully performed without major complications. Mean 1-, 2- and 4-week hypertrophy of the FLR were 35%, 40.3%, and 46.4%, respectively. Four patients underwent planned surgery after a mean interval of 28 days. Of these, 2 patients achieved sufficient FLR volume and function after 2 weeks and underwent surgery before the 4-week volumetric analysis. One patient did not undergo surgery because of intraoperative diagnosis of peritoneal metastases. No cases of PHLF were observed at 5-day follow-up.

Imaging-guided interventions modulating portal venous flow: evidence and controversies

Portal hypertension is defined by an increase in the portosystemic venous gradient. In most cases, increased resistance to portal blood flow is the initial cause of elevated portal pressure. More than 90% of cases of portal hypertension are estimated to be due to advanced chronic liver disease or cirrhosis. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts, a non-pharmacological treatment for portal hypertension, involve the placement of a stent between the portal vein and the hepatic vein or inferior vena cava which helps bypass hepatic resistance. Portal hypertension may also be a result of extrahepatic portal vein thrombosis or compression. In these cases, percutaneous portal vein recanalisation restores portal trunk patency, thus preventing portal hypertension-related complications. Any portal blood flow impairment leads to progressive parenchymal atrophy and triggers hepatic regeneration in preserved areas. This provides the rationale for using portal vein embolisation to modulate hepatic volume in preparation for extended hepatic resection. The aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive evidence-based review of the rationale for, and outcomes associated with, the main imaging-guided interventions targeting the portal vein, as well as to discuss the main controversies around such approaches.

To Systematically Evaluate and Analyze the Efficacy and Safety of Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization (TACE) in the Treatment of Primary Liver Cancer

The efficacy and safety of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) are systematically evaluated in the treatment of primary liver cancer, which provides a reference for clinical practice and more in-depth research. Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, VIP, and WanFang Data, supplemented by other searches, collected all randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing TACE combined with TACE alone for HCC. The meta-analysis, after selecting the literature, extracting data, and evaluating the methodological quality of the included studies following the inclusion criteria, was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. There was statistical difference in 3-year survival rate of TACE combined with heat treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (OR = 1.72,95%CI (1.22,2.41), P=0.002, I2 = 0%, and Z = 3.12), total effective rate (OR = 1.91,95%CI (1.31,2.78), P=0.0008, I2 = 0%, and Z = 3.37), quality-of-life improvement rate (OR = 2.29,95%CI (1.62,3.23), P < 0.00001, I2 = 83%, and Z = 3.37), and complication rate (OR = 2.29,95%CI (1.62,3.23), P < 0.00001, I2 = 83%, and Z = 3.37). Compared with TACE alone, TACE combined with hyperthermia can significantly improve the survival rate and recent efficacy of patients, improve the quality of life, and have a trend to reduce the incidence of toxicity. However, its long-term efficacy and more comprehensive safety need to be verified by more sample and high-quality RCT.

Percutaneous liver venous deprivation: outcomes in heavily pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

To evaluate liver venous deprivation (LVD) outcomes in patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) heavily pretreated with systemic and hepatic arterial infusion pump (HAIP) chemotherapies that had an anticipated insufficient future liver remnant (FLR) hypertrophy after portal vein embolization (PVE).

METHODS

PVE was performed with liquid embolics using a transsplenic or ipsilateral transhepatic approach. Simultaneously and via a trans-jugular approach, the right hepatic vein was embolized with vascular plugs. Liver volumetry was assessed on computed tomography before and 3-6 weeks after LVD.

RESULTS

Twelve consecutive CRLM patients that underwent LVD before right hepatectomy or trisectionectomy were included, all previously treated with systemic chemotherapy for a mean of 11.9 months. Six patients had additional HAIP. After embolization, FLR ratio increased from 28.7% ± 5.9 to 42.2% ± 9.0 (P < 0.01). Mean kinetic growth rate (KGR) was 3.56%/week ± 2.3, with a degree of hypertrophy (DH) of 13.8% ± 7.1. In the HAIP subgroup, mean KGR and DH were respectively 3.58%/week ± 2.8 and 14.3% ± 8.7. No severe complications occurred. Ten patients reached surgery after 39 days ± 7.5.

CONCLUSION

In heavily pretreated patients, LVD safely stimulated a rapid and effective FLR hypertrophy, with a resultant high rate of resection.