Impact of post-hepatectomy liver failure on morbidity and short- and long-term survival after major hepatectomy

Which factors predict tumor recurrence and survival after curative hepatectomy in hepatocellular carcinoma? Results from a European institution

BACKGROUND

High tumor recurrence and dismal survival rates after curative intended resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are still concerning. The primary goal was to assess predictive factors associated with disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in a subset of patients with HCC undergoing hepatic resection (HR).

METHODS

Between 08/2004-7/2021, HR for HCC was performed in 188 patients at our institution. Data allocation was conducted from a prospectively maintained database. The prognostic impact of clinico-pathological factors on DFS and OS was assessed by using uni- and multivariate Cox regression analyses. Survival curves were generated with the Kaplan Meier method.

RESULTS

The postoperative 1-, 3- and 5- year overall DFS and OS rates were 77.9%, 49.7%, 41% and 72.7%, 54.7%, 38.8%, respectively. Tumor diameter ≥ 45 mm [HR 1.725; (95% CI 1.091-2.727); p = 0.020], intra-abdominal abscess [HR 3.812; (95% CI 1.859-7.815); p < 0.0001], and preoperative chronic alcohol abuse [HR 1.831; (95% CI 1.102-3.042); p = 0.020] were independently predictive for DFS while diabetes mellitus [HR 1.714; (95% CI 1.147-2.561); p = 0.009), M-Stage [HR 2.656; (95% CI 1.034-6.826); p = 0.042], V-Stage [HR 1.946; (95% CI 1.299-2.915); p = 0.001, Sepsis [HR 10.999; (95% CI 5.167-23.412); p < 0.0001], and ISGLS B/C [HR 2.008; (95% CI 1.273-3.168); p = 0.003] were significant determinants of OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite high postoperative recurrence rates, an acceptable long-term survival in patients after curative HR could be achieved. The Identification of parameters related to OS and DFS improves patient-centered treatment and surveillance strategies.

Comparison of the LiMAx test vs. the APRI+ALBI score for clinical utility in preoperative risk assessment in patients undergoing liver surgery - A European multicenter study

INTRODUCTION

Posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) remains the main reason for short-term mortality after liver surgery. APRI+ALBI, aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio (APRI) combined with albumin-bilirubin grade (ALBI), score and the liver function maximum capacity test (LiMAx) are both established preoperative (preop) liver function tests. The aim of this study was to compare both tests for their predictive potential for clinically significant PHLF grade B and C (B+C).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

352 patients were included from 4 European centers. Patients had available preop APRI+ALBI scores and LiMAx results. Predictive potential for PHLF, PHLF B+C and 90-day mortality was compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and calculation of the area under the curve (AUC). Published cutoffs of ≥ -2.46 for APRI+ALBI and of <315 for LiMAx were assessed using chi-squared test.

RESULTS

APRI+ALBI showed superior predictive potential for PHLF B+C (N = 34; AUC = 0.766), PHLF grade C (N = 20; AUC = 0.782) and 90-day mortality (N = 15; AUC = 0.750). When comparing the established cutoffs of both tests, APRI+ALBI outperformed LiMAx in prediction of PHLF B+C (APRI+ALBI ≥2.46: Positive predictive value (PPV) = 19%, negative predictive value (NPV) = 97%; LiMAx <315: PPV = 3%, NPV = 90%) and 90-day mortality (APRI+ALBI ≥2.46: PPV = 12%, NPV = 99%; LiMAx <315: PPV = 0%, NPV = 94%) CONCLUSION: In our analysis, APRI+ALBI outperformed LiMAx measurement in the preop prediction of PHLF B+C and postoperative mortality, at a fraction of the costs, manual labor and invasiveness.

Outcomes of liver resection in hepatitis C virus-related intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cholangiocarcinoma is the second most common primary liver malignancy. Its incidence and mortality rates have been increasing in recent years. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a risk factor for development of cirrhosis and cholangiocarcinoma. Currently, surgical resection remains the only curative treatment option for cholangiocarcinoma. We aim to study the impact of HCV infection on outcomes of liver resection (LR) in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC).

AIM

To study the outcomes of curative resection of ICC in patients with HCV (i.e., HCV+) compared to patients without HCV (i.e., HCV-).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies to assess the outcomes of LR in ICC in HCV+ patients compared to HCV- patients in tertiary care hospitals. PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Scopus were systematically searched from inception till August 2023. Included studies were RCTs and non-RCTs on patients ≥ 18 years old with a diagnosis of ICC who underwent LR, and compared outcomes between patients with HCV+ vs HCV-. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival. Secondary outcomes include perioperative mortality, operation duration, blood loss, intrahepatic and extrahepatic recurrence.

RESULTS

Seven articles, published between 2004 and 2021, fulfilled the selection criteria. All of the studies were retrospective studies. Age, incidence of male patients, albumin, bilirubin, platelets, tumor size, incidence of multiple tumors, vascular invasion, bile duct invasion, lymph node metastases, and stage 4 disease were comparable between HCV+ and HCV- group. Alanine transaminase [MD 22.20, 95%confidence interval (CI): 13.75, 30.65, P < 0.00001] and aspartate transaminase levels (MD 27.27, 95%CI: 20.20, 34.34, P < 0.00001) were significantly higher in HCV+ group compared to HCV- group. Incidence of cirrhosis was significantly higher in HCV+ group [odds ratio (OR) 5.78, 95%CI: 1.38, 24.14, P = 0.02] compared to HCV- group. Incidence of poorly differentiated disease was significantly higher in HCV+ group (OR 2.55, 95%CI: 1.34, 4.82, P = 0.004) compared to HCV- group. Incidence of simultaneous hepatocellular carcinoma lesions was significantly higher in HCV+ group (OR 8.31, 95%CI: 2.36, 29.26, P = 0.001) compared to HCV- group. OS was significantly worse in the HCV+ group (hazard ratio 2.05, 95%CI: 1.46, 2.88, P < 0.0001) compared to HCV- group.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated significantly worse OS in HCV+ patients with ICC who underwent curative resection compared to HCV- patients.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma: The Role of Surgery in Liver Cirrhosis

Background

Liver surgery is an essential component of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment. Advances in surgical techniques and perioperative care have improved outcomes and have helped to expand surgical indications. However, liver fibrosis and cirrhosis still remain major problems for liver surgery due to the relevant impact on liver regeneration of the future liver remnant (FLR) after surgery. Especially in patients with clinically significant portal hypertension due to liver cirrhosis, surgery is limited. Despite recent efforts in developing predictive models, estimating the postoperative hepatic function remains difficult.

Summary

In this review, we focus on the role of surgery in the treatment of HCC in structurally altered livers. The importance of assessing FLR with techniques such as contrast-enhanced CT, e.g., with the help of artificial intelligence is highlighted. Moreover, strategies for increasing the FLR with approaches like portal vein embolization and liver vein deprivation prior to surgery are discussed. Patient selection, minimally invasive liver surgery including robotic techniques, and perioperative concepts like the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guidelines are identified as crucial parts of avoiding posthepatectomy liver failure.

Key Message

The need for ongoing research to optimize patient selection criteria and perioperative care and to develop innovative biomarkers for outcome prediction is emphasized.

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).

Comparing the accuracy of prediction models to detect clinically relevant post-hepatectomy liver failure early after major hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Arterial lactate measurements were recently suggested as an early predictor of clinically relevant post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). This needed to be evaluated in the subgroup of major hepatectomies only.

METHOD

This observational cohort study included consecutive elective major hepatectomies at Karolinska University Hospital from 2010 to 2018. Clinical risk factors for PHLF, perioperative arterial lactate measurements and routine lab values were included in uni- and multivariable regression analysis. Receiver operating characteristics and risk cut-offs were calculated.

RESULTS

In total, 649 patients constituted the study cohort, of which 92 developed PHLF grade B/C according to the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS). Lactate reached significantly higher intra- and postoperative levels in PHLF grades B and C compared to grade A or no liver failure (all P < 0.002). Lactate on postoperative day (POD) 1 was superior to earlier measurement time points in predicting PHLF B/C (AUC 0.75), but was outperformed by both clinical risk factors (AUC 0.81, P = 0.031) and bilirubin POD1 (AUC 0.83, P = 0.013). A multivariable logistic regression model including clinical risk factors and bilirubin POD1 had the highest AUC of 0.87 (P = 0.006), with 56.6% sensitivity and 94.7% specificity for PHLF grade B/C (cut-off ≥0.32). The model identified 46.7% of patients with 90-day mortality and had an equally good discriminatory potential for mortality as the established ISGLS criteria for PHLF grade B/C but could be applied already on POD1.

CONCLUSION

The potential of lactate to predict PHLF following major hepatectomy was inferior to a prediction model consisting of clinical risk factors and bilirubin on first post-operative day.

Surgical outcomes of gallbladder cancer: the OMEGA retrospective, multicentre, international cohort study

Background

Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is rare but aggressive. The extent of surgical intervention for different GBC stages is non-uniform, ranging from cholecystectomy alone to extended resections including major hepatectomy, resection of adjacent organs and routine extrahepatic bile duct resection (EBDR). Robust evidence here is lacking, however, and survival benefit poorly defined. This study assesses factors associated with recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS) and morbidity and mortality following GBC surgery in high income countries (HIC) and low and middle income countries (LMIC).

Methods

The multicentre, retrospective Operative Management of Gallbladder Cancer (OMEGA) cohort study included all patients who underwent GBC resection across 133 centres between 1st January 2010 and 31st December 2020. Regression analyses assessed factors associated with OS, RFS and morbidity.

Findings

On multivariable analysis of all 3676 patients, wedge resection and segment IVb/V resection failed to improve RFS (HR 1.04 [0.84-1.29], p = 0.711 and HR 1.18 [0.95-1.46], p = 0.13 respectively) or OS (HR 0.96 [0.79-1.17], p = 0.67 and HR 1.48 [1.16-1.88], p = 0.49 respectively), while major hepatectomy was associated with worse RFS (HR 1.33 [1.02-1.74], p = 0.037) and OS (HR 1.26 [1.03-1.53], p = 0.022). Furthermore, EBDR (OR 2.86 [2.3-3.52], p < 0.0010), resection of additional organs (OR 2.22 [1.62-3.02], p < 0.0010) and major hepatectomy (OR 3.81 [2.55-5.73], p < 0.0010) were all associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Compared to LMIC, patients in HIC were associated with poorer RFS (HR 1.18 [1.02-1.37], p = 0.031) but not OS (HR 1.05 [0.91-1.22], p = 0.48). Adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatments were infrequently used.

Interpretation

In this large, multicentre analysis of GBC surgical outcomes, liver resection was not conclusively associated with improved survival, and extended resections were associated with greater morbidity and mortality without oncological benefit. Aggressive upfront resections do not benefit higher stage GBC, and international collaborations are needed to develop evidence-based neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment strategies to minimise surgical morbidity and prioritise prognostic benefit.

Funding

Cambridge Hepatopancreatobiliary Department Research Fund.

Pathogenetic Mechanisms of Liver-Associated Injuries, Management, and Current Challenges in COVID-19 Patients

The global outbreak of COVID-19 possesses serious challenges and adverse impacts for patients with progression of chronic liver disease and has become a major threat to public health. COVID-19 patients have a high risk of lung injury and multiorgan dysfunction that remains a major challenge to hepatology. COVID-19 patients and those with liver injury exhibit clinical manifestations, including elevation in ALT, AST, GGT, bilirubin, TNF-α, and IL-6 and reduction in the levels of CD4 and CD8. Liver injury in COVID-19 patients is induced through multiple factors, including a direct attack of SARS-CoV-2 on liver hepatocytes, hypoxia reperfusion dysfunction, cytokine release syndrome, drug-induced hepatotoxicity caused by lopinavir and ritonavir, immune-mediated inflammation, renin-angiotensin system, and coagulopathy. Cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying liver dysfunction are not fully understood in severe COVID-19 attacks. High mortality and the development of chronic liver diseases such as cirrhosis, alcoholic liver disease, autoimmune hepatitis, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and hepatocellular carcinoma are also associated with patients with liver damage. COVID-19 patients with preexisting or developing liver disease should be managed. They often need hospitalization and medication, especially in conjunction with liver transplants. In the present review, we highlight the attack of SARS-CoV-2 on liver hepatocytes by exploring the cellular and molecular events underlying the pathophysiological mechanisms in COVID-19 patients with liver injury. We also discuss the development of chronic liver diseases during the progression of SARS-CoV-2 replication. Lastly, we explore management principles in COVID-19 patients with liver injury and liver transplantation.

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.