Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection for patients with large or multiple intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas: A propensity score based case-matched analysis from a single institute

Laparoscopic liver resection as a treatment option for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) remains controversial in the treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). The aim of the present study is to investigate the outcomes of LLR for ICC compared to open liver resection (OLR). We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent surgery for ICC between January 2013 and February 2020. OLR and LLR were compared after propensity score matching (PSM). Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared between the matched groups. During the study period, 219 patients met the inclusion criteria (OLR = 170 patients, 77.6%; LLR = 49 patients, 22.4%). Two groups of 43 patients each were analyzed after PSM. The 5-year RFS and OS were 44.6% and 47.9% in the OLR group and 50.9% and 39.8% in the LLR group, respectively. Hospital stay and intensive care unit care were significantly shorter and lower in the LLR group than in the OLR group, respectively. Total postoperative complications and complication rates for those Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher were similar between the OLR group and the LLR group. Multiple tumors and lymph node metastases were predisposing factors for tumor recurrence and death in multivariate analysis. The present study suggests that LLR should be considered in selective ICC because of short hospitalization and similar oncologic outcome and overall survival.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for liver malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies

OBJECTIVE

How different surgical procedures, including the robotic-assisted liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), can affect the prognosis of patients with liver malignancies is unclear. Thus, in this study, we compared the effects of RLR and LLR on the surgical and oncological outcomes in patients with liver malignancies through propensity score-matched cohort studies.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched using Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords from inception until May 31, 2023. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. The mean difference with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was used for analysis of continuous variables; the risk ratio with 95% CI was used for dichotomous variables; and the hazard ratio with 95% CI was used for survival-related variables. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Five high-quality cohort studies with 986 patients were included (370 and 616 cases for RLR and LLR, respectively). In terms of surgical outcomes, there were no significant differences in the operation time, conversion rate to open surgery, overall complication rate, major complication rate, and length of hospital stay between the RLR and LLR groups. In terms of oncological outcomes, there were no significant differences in the 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Surgical and oncological outcomes are comparable between RLR and LLR on patients with liver malignancies. Therefore, the benefits of applying RLR in patients with liver malignancies need to be further explored.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review of propensity score-matched studies

Outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) versus open LR (OLR) for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICCA) are heterogeneous. We aimed to compare LLR and OLR for ICCA based on propensity-score-matched (PSM) studies. Two reviewers independently searched the online databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) for PSM studies that compared LLR and OLR for ICCA. The Ottawa-Newcastle Quality Assessment Scale with a cutoff of ≥ 7 was used to define higher-quality literature. Only 'high-quality' PSM analyses of the English language that met all our inclusion criteria were considered. A total of ten PSM trials were included in the analyses. Compared with OLR, although the lymph node dissection (LND) (RR = 0.67) and major hepatectomy rates were lower in the LLR group (RR = 0.87), higher R0 resections (RR = 1.05) and lower major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III) (RR = 0.72) were also observed in the LLR group. In addition, patients in the LLR group showed less estimated blood loss (MD = - 185.52 ml) and shorter hospital stays as well (MD = - 2.75 days). Further analysis found the overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.91), disease-free survival (DFS) (HR = 0.95), and recurrence-free survival (HR = 0.80) for patients with ICCA after LLR were all comparable to those of OLR. LLR for selected ICCA patients may be technically safe and feasible, providing short-term benefits and achieving oncological efficacy without compromising the long-term survival of the patients.

Association of Laparoscopic Surgery with Improved Perioperative and Survival Outcomes in Patients with Resectable Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis from Propensity-Score Matched Studies

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have associated laparoscopic surgery with better overall survival (OS) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). The potential benefits of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) over open liver resection (OLR) have not been demonstrated in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC).

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases was performed to search studies comparing OS and perioperative outcome for patients with resectable iCC. Propensity-score matched (PSM) studies published from database inception to May 1, 2022 were eligible. A frequentist, patient-level, one-stage meta-analysis was performed to analyze the differences in OS between LLR and OLR. Second, intraoperative, postoperative, and oncological outcomes were compared between the two approaches by using a random-effects DerSimonian-Laird model.

RESULTS

Six PSM studies involving data from 1.042 patients (530 OLR vs. 512 LLR) were included. LLR in patients with resectable iCC was found to significantly decrease the hazard of death (stratified hazard ratio [HR]: 0.795 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.638-0.992]) compared with OLR. Moreover, LLR appears to be significantly associated with a decrease in intraoperative bleeding (- 161.47 ml [95% CI - 237.26 to - 85.69 ml]) and transfusion (OR = 0.41 [95% CI 0.26-0.69]), as well as with a shorter hospital stay (- 3.16 days [95% CI - 4.98 to - 1.34]) and a lower rate of major (Clavien-Dindo ≥III) complications (OR = 0.60 [95% CI 0.39-0.93]).

CONCLUSIONS

This large meta-analysis of PSM studies shows that LLR in patients with resectable iCC is associated with improved perioperative outcomes and, being conservative, yields similar OS outcomes compared with OLR.

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is controversial in treating intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LLR for the treatment of ICC and explored the independent factors affecting the long-term prognosis of ICC.

METHODS

We included 170 patients undergoing hepatectomy for ICC from December 2010 to December 2021 and divided them into LLR group and open liver resection (OLR) group. We used propensity score matching (PSM) analysis to reduce the impact of data bias and confounding variables and then compared the short-term and long-term prognosis of LLR and OLR in treating ICC; Cox proportional hazards regression model was adopted to explore the independent factors affecting the long-term prognosis of ICC.

RESULTS

A total of 105 patients (70 in the LLR group and 35 in the OLR group) were included after 2:1 PSM analysis. There was no difference in demographic characteristics and preoperative indexes between the two groups. The perioperative results of the OLR group were worse than those of the LLR group, that is, the intraoperative blood transfusion rate (24 (68.6) vs 21 (30.0)), blood loss (500 (200-1500) vs 200 (100-525)), and the morbidity of major postoperative complications (9 (25.7) vs 6 (8.5)) in the OLR group were worse than those in LLR group. LLR could enable patients to obtain an equivalent long-term prognosis compared to OLR. The Cox proportional hazards regression model exhibited that no matter before or after PSM, preoperative serum CA12-5 and postoperative hospital stay were independent factors affecting overall survival, while only lymph node metastasis independently influenced recurrence-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with ICC treated by OLR, the LLR group obtained superior perioperative period outcomes. In the long run, LLR could enable ICC patients to receive an equivalent long-term prognosis compared to OLR. In addition, ICC patients with preoperative abnormal CA12-5, lymph node metastasis, and more extended postoperative hospital stay might suffer from a worse long-term prognosis. However, these conclusions still need multicenter extensive sample prospective research to demonstrate.

Major complications and mortality after resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of morbidity and mortality after hepatic resection often lacks stratification by extent of resection or diagnosis. Although a liver resection for different indications may have technical similarities, postoperative outcomes differ. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the risk of major complications and mortality after resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

METHODS

Meta-analysis was performed to assess postoperative mortality (in-hospital, 30-, and 90-day) and major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III).

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies that reported on 19,503 patients were included. Pooled in-hospital, 30-day, and 90-day mortality were 5.9% (95% confidence interval 4.1-8.4); 4.6% (95% confidence interval 4.0-5.2); and 6.1% (95% confidence interval 5.0-7.3), respectively. Pooled proportion of major complications was 22.2% (95% confidence interval 17.7-27.5) for all resections. The pooled 90-day mortality was 3.1% (95% confidence interval 1.8-5.2) for a minor resection, 7.4% (95% confidence interval 5.9-9.3) for all major resections, and 11.4% (95% confidence interval 6.9-18.7) for extended resections (P = .001). Major complications were 38.8% (95% confidence interval 29.5-49) after a major hepatectomy compared to 11.3% (95% confidence interval 5.0-24.0) after a minor hepatectomy (P = .001). Asian studies had a pooled 90-day mortality of 4.4% (95% confidence interval 3.3-5.9) compared to 6.8% (95% confidence interval 5.6-8.2) for Western studies (P = .02). Cohorts with patients included before 2000 had a pooled 90-day mortality of 5.9% (95% confidence interval 4.8-7.3) compared to 6.8% (95% confidence interval 5.1-9.1) after 2000 (P = .44).

CONCLUSION

When informing patients or comparing outcomes across hospitals, postoperative mortality rates after liver resection should be reported for 90-days with consideration of the diagnosis and the extent of liver resection.

Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) versus open hepatectomy (OH) on the short-term and long-term outcomes of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) through a meta-analysis of studies using propensity score-matched cohorts.

METHODS

The literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases until August 31, 2022. Meta-analysis of surgical (major morbidity, the length of hospital stay, 90-day postoperative mortality), oncological (R0 resection rate, lymph node dissection rate) and survival outcomes (1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival) was performed using a random effects model. Data were summarized as relative risks (RR), mean difference (MD) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

Six case-matched studies with 1054 patients were included (LH 518; OH 536). Major morbidity was significantly lower (RR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.37-0.88, P = 0.01) and the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter (MD = -2.44, 95% CI = -4.19 to -0.69, P = 0.006) in the LH group than in the OH group, but there was no significant difference in 90-day postoperative mortality between the 2 groups. There were no significant differences in R0 resection rate, lymph node dissection rate, 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival or disease-free survival between the LH and OH groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LH has better surgical outcomes and comparable oncological outcomes and survival outcomes than does OH on ICC. Therefore, laparoscopy is at least not inferior to open surgery for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

Laparoscopic or open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Background

Although laparoscopic hepatectomy has been widely used in the treatment of benign and malignant liver diseases, its applicability in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy (Lap-ICC) and open hepatectomy (Open-ICC) in ICC patients.

Methods

The PubMed, Web of science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and other databases were searched for the relevant literature. The research data were extracted according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Results

Seventeen studies, including 3975 ICC patients, were selected for the meta-analysis. Compared to Open-ICC, Lap-ICC had lower rates of lymph node dissection (OR=0.44, P=0.01) and metastasis (OR=0.58, P=0.03), along with less intraoperative bleeding (MD=-128.43 ml, P<0.01) lower blood transfusion rate (OR=0.43, P<0.01), shorter hospital stay (MD=-2.75 day, P<0.01), higher R0 resection rate (OR=1.60, P<0.01), and lower tumor recurrence rate (OR=0.67, P=0.01). However, there was no difference between the two groups in terms of operation time, number of lymph node dissection, incision margin distance, overall complications rate, severe complications rate, and the 1-, 3- and 5-year DFS and OS rates.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is partially superior to open hepatectomy in terms of less bleeding, shorter hospital stay and higher R0 resection rate, while the long-term efficacy of the two approaches is similar.

Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in patients aged 60 and older: a retrospective cohort study

Objective laparoscopic surgical excision is the recommended treatment for liver cancers, yet its benefits in patients aged 60 and older remain poorly understood. Thus, this study evaluated the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy for patients aged 60 and older with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC).MethodsAfter screening, 107 patients who underwent hepatectomy for ICC were enrolled and grouped into either laparoscopic (LH) or open hepatectomy (OH) groups. Baseline characteristics, pathological findings, and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. Independent prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were identified using univariate and multivariate analyses.ResultsAmong baseline characteristics and pathological findings, only pre-operative albumin was higher in the LH group. The LH group had more favorable short-term outcomes such as incision length, level of postoperative total bilirubin, and length of postoperative stays than the OH group. The postoperative complication, lymph node dissection and R0 resection rate, and long-term outcomes including OS and DFS were not significantly different between the two groups. Cancer Antigen-19-9(CA-19-9) and pathological differentiation were independent prognostic factors for OS, whereas CA-19-9 and neutrophil count were independent prognostic factors for DFS.ConclusionLH is safe, reliable, and feasible for treatment of ICC patients aged 60 and older as it had better short-term clinical outcomes than OH and achieved long-term prognoses that were comparable to those of OH.

Optimization of a laparoscopic procedure for advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma based on the concept of "waiting time": a preliminary report

INTRODUCTION

Clinicians increasingly perform laparoscopic surgery for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). However, this surgery can be difficult in patients with advanced-stage ICC because of the complicated procedures and difficulty in achieving high-quality results. We compared the effects of a three-step optimized procedure with a traditional procedure for patients with advanced-stage ICC.

METHODS

Forty-two patients with advanced-stage ICC who received optimized laparoscopic hemihepatectomy with lymph node dissection (LND, optimized group) and 84 propensity score-matched patients who received traditional laparoscopic hemihepatectomy plus LND (traditional group) were analyzed. Surgical quality, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared.

RESULTS

The optimized group had a lower surgical bleeding score (P = 0.038) and a higher surgeon satisfaction score (P = 0.001). Blood loss during hepatectomy was less in the optimized group (190 vs. 295 mL, P < 0.001). The optimized group had more harvested LNs (12.0 vs. 8.0, P < 0.001) and more positive LNs (8.0 vs. 5.0, P < 0.001), and a similar rate of adequate LND (88.1% vs. 77.4%, P = 0.149). The optimized group had longer median DFS (9.0 vs. 7.0 months, P = 0.018) and median OS (15.0 vs. 13.0 months, P = 0.046). In addition, the optimized group also had a shorter total operation time (P = 0.001), shorter liver resection time (P = 0.001), shorter LND time (P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001), and lower incidence of total morbidities (14.3% vs. 36.9%, P = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Our optimization of a three-step laparoscopic procedure for advanced ICC was feasible, improved the quality of liver resection and LND, prolonged survival, and led to better intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multicenter propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopy in the treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) remains unclear. This multicenter study examined the outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for ICC.

METHODS

Patients with ICC who had undergone laparoscopic or open liver resection between 2012 and 2019 at four European expert centers were included in the study. Laparoscopic and open approaches were compared in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes. Propensity score matching was used for minimizing treatment selection bias and adjusting for confounders (age, ASA grade, tumor size, location, number of tumors and underlying liver disease).

RESULTS

Of 136 patients, 50 (36.7%) underwent laparoscopic resection, whereas 86 (63.3%) had open surgery. Median tumor size was larger (73.6 vs 55.1 mm, p = 0.01) and the incidence of bi-lobar tumors was higher (36.6 vs 6%, p < 0.01) in patients undergoing open surgery. After propensity score matching baseline characteristics were comparable although open surgery was associated with a larger fraction of major liver resections (74 vs 38%, p < 0.01), lymphadenectomy (60 vs 20%, p < 0.01) and longer operative time (294 vs 209 min, p < 0.01). Tumor characteristics were similar. Laparoscopic resection resulted in less complications (30 vs 52%, p = 0.025), fewer reoperations (4 vs 16%, p = 0.046) and shorter hospital stay (5 vs 8 days, p < 0.01). No differences were found in terms of recurrence, recurrence-free and overall survival.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic resection seems to be associated with improved short-term and with similar long-term outcomes compared with open surgery in patients with ICC. However, possible selection criteria for laparoscopic surgery are yet to be defined.

Laparoscopic vs. open anatomical hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is a highly malignant and invasive cancer originating from biliary epithelial cells. The current study was designed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes of laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

Methods

After screening, 95 patients who underwent anatomical hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma at our center were enrolled and divided into two groups according to the surgical approach; the baseline characteristics, pathological findings, surgical outcomes, and long-term outcomes were compared. Moreover, univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).

Results

There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics or pathological findings between the two groups. Regarding short-term outcomes, the intraoperative blood loss, incision length, and length of postoperative hospital stay were more favorable in the laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy group than the open anatomical hepatectomy group (P < 0.05). The two groups differed significantly in the extent of liver resection, with a lower lymph node dissection rate and lymph node yield in the laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy group (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the postoperative complication rate was similar in the two groups (P > 0.05). The median postoperative follow-up times were 10.7 and 13.8 months in the laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy and open anatomical hepatectomy groups, respectively. Regarding the long-term follow-up results, OS and DFS were similar in the two groups (P > 0.05). On multivariate analysis, the independent prognostic factors for OS were CA-199, CEA, HGB, tumor diameter, and T stage, and those for DFS were CA-199 (P < 0.05), and T stage (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is safe and feasible when performed by experienced surgeons. Compared with open anatomical hepatectomy, laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy provides better short-term outcomes and a comparable long-term prognosis.

Laparoscopic Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Imaging for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Indocyanine green fluorescence (ICG) is one of the first fluorophore that found a clinical application in medicine. In the liver, ICG fluorescence is due to the preserved uptake but impaired washout of the dye from hepatocellular cells into the bile ducts. Therefore, some hepatobiliary surgeons proposed the technique of intravenous ICG injection before surgery for the detection of superficial hepatocarcinomas (HCCs) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs). Little evidence exists regarding the use of ICG to identify other hepatic tumors, such as intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). We report two patients affected by ICC who underwent laparoscopic liver resection with lymphadenectomy, the ICG staining was routinely performed not only to evaluate the site of the hepatic lesions but also to guide the extension of liver resection.

METHODS

It was injected intravenously a single dose of ICG dye (0.5 mg/kg) during liver function tests 5 days before scheduled surgery. All patients underwent laparoscopic staging with both laparoscopic ultrasound and ICG fluorescence imaging.

RESULTS

It was identified two different patter of ICG imaging: rim and segmental fluorescence for mass forming and mixed ICC subtype respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Identification of the ICC subtype before definitive histological examination may have an impact on the surgical plan.

Minimally invasive surgical treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is the second most common primary liver cancer and is characterized by an aggressive behavior and a dismal prognosis. Radical surgical resection represents the only potentially curative treatment. Despite the increasing acceptance of laparoscopic liver resection for surgical treatment of malignant liver diseases, its use for ICC is not commonly performed. In fact, to achieve surgical free margins a major resection and/or vascular and/or biliary reconstructions is often needed, as well as an associated lymph node dissection.

AIM

To review and summarize the current evidences on the minimally invasive resection of ICC.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature based on the criteria predetermined by the investigators was performed from the 1^st of January 2009 up to the 1^st of January 2021 in 4 databases (PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases). All retrospective and prospective studies reporting on the comparative outcomes of open vs minimally invasive treatment of ICC were included. An evaluation of manuscripts quality was achieved using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

After a systematic search 9 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Among the all 3012 included patients, 2450 were operated by an open approach and 562 by a minimally invasive (laparoscopic) approach. Baseline characteristics, tumor characteristics, surgical outcomes and oncological outcomes were collected and analyzed, highlighting values with a statistical significant difference between patients treated with open or laparoscopic approach. Shorter hospital stay and lower intraoperative blood losses were reported by some Authors in minimally invasive surgery, on the contrary, in the open group there was a higher number of lymphadenectomies and a higher percentage of major hepatectomies.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive resection of ICC has some short-term benefits and it is safe and feasible only in selected centers with a high experience in laparoscopic approach for liver surgery. Minimally invasive surgery, actually, was considered mainly in patients with a tumor with a diameter < 5 cm, without invasion of main biliary duct or main vessel and no vascular or biliary reconstructions were planned. Further studies are needed to elucidate its impact on long term oncologic outcomes.

Surgical management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) incidence continues to rise worldwide, and overall survival remains poor. Complete surgical resection remains the only opportunity for cure in patients with ICC yet only one-third of patients present with resectable disease.

AREAS COVERED

While the low incidence rate of ICC hinders accrual of patients to large, randomized control trials, larger database and long-term institutional studies provide evidence to guide surgical management of ICC. These studies demonstrate feasibility, safety, and efficacy of aggressive surgical management in appropriately selected patients with ICC. Recent advances in the management of ICC, with a focus on surgical considerations, are reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

Historically, little progress has been made in the management of ICC with stagnant mortality rates and poor long-term outcomes. However, regionalization of care to centers with experienced multidisciplinary teams, advances in minimally invasive surgical techniques, discovery and development of targeted and immunotherapy agents, and combination locoregional and systemic therapies offer signs of progress in the management of ICC.

Challenges and Opportunities for Treating Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is one of the rarest and most aggressive types of cancer. The symptoms of ICC patients can be vague, leading to late diagnosis and dismal prognosis. In this review, we investigated the treatment options for ICC, as well as ways to overcome challenges in identifying and treating this disease. Imaging remains the gold standard to diagnose ICC. Patients are staged based on the tumor, nodes and metastases (TNM) staging system. Patients eligible for surgical resection should undergo surgery with curative intent with the goal of microscopically disease-free margins (R0 resection) along with lymphadenectomy. Minimal invasive surgery (MIS) and liver transplantation have recently been offered as possible ways to improve disease outcomes. ICC recurrence is relatively common and, thus, most patients will need to be treated with systemic therapy. Several clinical trials have recently investigated the use of neoadjuvant (NT) and adjuvant therapies for ICC. NT may offer an opportunity to downsize larger tumors and provide patients, initially ineligible for surgery, with an opportunity for resection. NT may also treat occult micro-metastatic disease, as well as define tumor biology prior to surgical resection, thereby decreasing the risk for early postoperative recurrence. Adjuvant systemic therapy may improve outcomes of patients with ICC following surgery. Ongoing clinical trials are investigating new targeted therapies that hold the hope of improving long-term outcomes of patients with ICC.

Selection criteria for minimally invasive resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma-a word of caution: a propensity score matched analysis using the national cancer database

BACKGROUND

While minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) vs. open approach (OLR) has been shown to be safe, the perioperative and oncologic safety for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) specifically, necessitating often complex hepatectomy and extended lymphadenectomy, remains ill-defined.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with ICC undergoing liver resection from 2010 to 2016. After 1:1 Propensity Score Matching (PSM), Kruskal-Wallis and χ² tests were applied to compare short-term outcomes. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and Cox multivariable regression were performed.

RESULTS

988 patients met inclusion criteria: 140 (14.2%) MILR and 848 (85.8%) OLR resulting in 115 patients MILR and OLR after 1:1 PSM with c-index of 0.733. MILR had lower unplanned 30-day readmission [OR 0.075, P = 0.014] and positive margin rates [OR 0.361, P = 0.011] and shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) [OR 0.941, P = 0.026], but worse lymph node yield [1.52 vs 2.07, P = 0.001]. No difference was found for 30/90-day mortality. Moreover, multivariate analysis revealed that MILR was associated with poorer overall survival compared to OLR [HR 2.454, P = 0.001]. Subgroup analysis revealed that survival differences from approach were dependent on major hepatectomy, tumor size > 4 cm, or negative margins.

CONCLUSION

MILR vs. OLR is associated with worse lymphadenectomy and survival in patients with ICC greater than 4 cm requiring major hepatectomy. Hence, MILR major hepatectomy for ICC should only be approached selectively and if surgeons are able to perform an appropriate lymphadenectomy.

Laparoscopic Surgery for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Focus on Oncological Outcomes

Background: The aim of the present study was to analyze the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) in a series, collected in a tertiary referral center with a high annual volume of laparoscopic activity. Methods: Between January 2004 and June 2020, 446 liver resections (LR) were performed for iCCA: of these, 179 were performed by laparoscopic surgery (LS) and 267 with the open approach. The two groups were matched through a 1:1 propensity score using covariates representative of patient and disease characteristics. The study and control groups were compared, with specific attention given to oncological outcomes (rate of R0, depth of resection margins, overall and disease-free survival, rate, and site of recurrence). Results: The number of retrieved nodes, rate, and depth of negative resection margins were comparable between the two groups. The interval time between surgery and subsequent adjuvant treatments was significantly shorter in LS patients. No differences were shown even in the comparison between the LS and the open group in terms of median disease-free and overall survival. Moreover, the disease recurrence rate was comparable between the LS and the open groups (45.2% versus 56.7%), and the recurrence pattern was similar. Conclusions: The minimally invasive approach for iCCA was once again confirmed to be associated with advantages in terms of intraoperative and short-term outcomes, but was also proven to be oncologically non-inferior to the open counterpart. In the present study, overall and disease-free survival were found to be similar between the two approaches.

Is laparoscopic liver resection safe for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma? A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of laparoscopic liver resection for curative surgery of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is not well established. Herein, we perform a meta-analysis to compare the differences between laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for ICC.

METHODS

Multiple electronic databases were searched and 8 relevant studies containing 552 patients treated by LLR and 2320 treated by OLR were identified. The fixed effects and a random-effects model were used to perform a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with OLR, LLR for ICC was associated with less blood transfusion (7.14% versus 17.11%; OR: 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.71; P < 0.05), higher R0 resection (85.63% versus 74.69%; OR: 1.48; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.95; P < 0.05), shorter length of stay (LOS) (SMD: -0.40; 95% CI -0.80 to 0.00; P = 0.05), less overall morbidities (20% versus 32.69%; OR: 0.50; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.78; P < 0.05), and less death due to tumor recurrence (22.39% versus 35.48%; OR: 0.50; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.86; P <0.05); but LLR was associated with smaller ICC, fewer major hepatectomies, less lymph node (LN) dissection rate, and inferior 5-year overall survival (OS) (P < 0.05). Duration of operation, blood loss, average LN retrieved, LN metastasis, major morbidities, mortality, tumor recurrence, 3-year OS and disease free survival (DFS), and 5-year DFS were comparable (P >0.05).

CONCLUSION

LLR for ICC is in the initial phase of exploration. More evidence is necessary to validate LLR for ICC.

Hepatectomy is associated with survival in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: An observational study by instrumental variable analysis

Liver resection (LR) is a major treatment modality in select patients with stage I-III Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), yet many studies demonstrated low rates of resection. The aim of the present study is to evaluate whether increasing resection rates would result in an increase in average survival in patients with stage I-III ICC.Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 18 registry database for 2004 through 2015 was retrieved for the present study. Propensity score matching was performed to eliminate possible bias. In addition, instrumental variable (IV) analysis was utilized to adjust for both measured and unmeasured confounders.Among 2341 patients with clinical stage I-III ICC, we identified 1577 (67.4%) and 764 (32.6%) patients who received no treatment or LR, respectively. In the multivariable adjusted cohort, a clear prognostic advantage of LR was observed in overall survival (OS) (P < .001) and disease-specific survival (DSS) (P < .001) compared to patients who received no treatment. Estimates based on the IV analysis indicated that patients treated with LR had a significantly longer OS (P < .001) and DSS (P < .001) after adjusting confounding factors. In IV analyses stratified by American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor stage, we found that the better survival effects of LR on OS and DSS were consistent across all subgroups.Our outcomes indicated that LR was associated with a survival benefit for marginal patients with stage I-III ICC.

Surgical Treatment of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Current and Emerging Principles

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is a rare, aggressive cancer of the biliary tract. It often presents with locally advanced or metastatic disease, but for patients with early-stage disease, surgical resection with negative margins and portahepatis lymphadenectomy is the standard of care. Recent advancements in ICC include refinement of staging, improvement in liver-directed therapies, clarification of the role of adjuvant therapy based on new randomized controlled trials, and advances in minimally invasive liver surgery. In addition, improvements in neoadjuvant strategies and surgical techniques have enabled expanded surgical indications and reduced surgical morbidity and mortality. However, recurrence rates remain high and more effective systemic therapies are still necessary to improve recurrence-free and overall survival. In this review, we focus on current and emerging surgical principals for the management of ICC including preoperative evaluation, current indications for surgery, strategies for future liver remnant augmentation, technical principles, and the role of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is a rare and aggressive hepatic malignancy. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted aiming to compare outcomes between laparoscopic (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for patients with iCCA. A systematic literature search of Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases was performed. A total of 8 studies comprising 2872 patients, who underwent LLR or OLR for iCCA, were included in our meta-analysis. LLR patients had smaller tumors [mean difference (MD): - 1.17 cm, 95% confidence intervals (CI) - 1.77 to - 0.57, p = 0.0001], underwent major resections less frequently [risk ratio (RR): 0.75, 95% CI 0.67-0.83, p < 0.00001] and R0 resections more frequently (RR: 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.09, p = 0.01), while lymphadenectomy was less common in the laparoscopic group (RR: 0.73, 95% CI 0.58-0.92, p = 0.007). The LLR group presented reduced blood loss (MD: - 270.16 ml, 95% CI - 381.53 to - 32.79, p = 0.002), need for transfusion (RR: 0.39, 95% CI 0.21-0.73, p = 0.003), overall morbidity (RR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.4-0.83, p = 0.003) and hospital stay (MD: - 3.48 days, 95% CI: - 6.94 to - 0.02, p = 0.05) compared to the OLR group. No differences were shown in operative time (MD: 1.6 min, 95% CI - 34.17-37.37, p = 0.93), major morbidity (RR: 0.65, 95% CI 0.38-1.11, p = 0.12), mortality (RR: 1.42, 95% CI 0.13-15.07, p = 0.77), overall (HR: 0.9, 95% CI 0.59-1.38, p = 0.63) and relapse-free survival (HR: 0.77, 95% CI 0.5-1.16, p = 0.21) between the two groups. LLR seems to benefit patients with iCCA in terms of short-term outcomes, whilst long-term outcomes are comparable among the two approaches.