The association between KRAS and histopathological growth patterns and the impact on resection margins around vasculature and bile ducts in colorectal liver metastases

The liver is the most frequent and often the only site of distant disease in colorectal cancer and, of all treatment protocols currently in use, resection is the most likely to result in long-term cure. Within the liver, tumour proximity to major vasculature and biliary structures poses a resection challenge, requiring a balance of achieving negative margins while preserving adequate vascular circulation and biliary drainage. The focus on parenchymal sparing resections are important but just as important may be the 'biological' behaviour of the tumour. In colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), biomarkers such as the Kirsten rat sarcoma oncogene homologue (KRAS) gene and histological growth patterns (HGPs) further improve the prognostication after resection. However, to date, the association between the KRAS status and HGPs in CRLM and their impact on resection margins around major vasculature or biliary structures in terms of overall survival and recurrence rates are unclear. The aim of this review was to explore the available evidence for the association between KRAS and HGPs in CRLM and attempt to define their impact on resection margins near major structures.

The Impact of KRAS Status on the Required Surgical Margin Width for Colorectal Liver Metastasis Resection

Local recurrence after colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) resection severely affects survival; however, the required surgical margin width remains controversial. This study investigated the impact of KRAS status on surgical margin width and local recurrence rate (LRR) post-CRLM resection. Overall, 146 resected CRLMs with KRAS status (wild-type KRAS (wtKRAS): 98, KRAS mutant (mKRAS): 48) were included. The LRR for each group, R1 (margin positive) and R0 (margin negative), was analyzed by KRAS status. R0 was further stratified into Ra (margin ≥ 5 mm) and Rb (margin < 5 mm). Patients with local recurrence had significantly worse 5-year overall survival than those without local recurrence (p = 0.0036). The mKRAS LRR was significantly higher than wtKRAS LRR (p = 0.0145). R1 resection resulted in significantly higher LRRs than R0 resection for both wtKRAS and mKRAS (p = 0.0068 and p = 0.0204, respectively), and while no significant difference was observed in the Ra and Rb LRR with wtKRAS, the Rb LRR with mKRAS (33.3%) was significantly higher than Ra LRR (5.9%) (p = 0.0289). Thus, R0 resection is sufficient for CRLM with wtKRAS; however, CRLM with mKRAS requires resection with a margin of at least 5 mm to prevent local recurrence.

What Is the Current Role and What Are the Prospects of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery?

Simple Summary

Robotic liver surgery is being applied with increasing frequency. Comparable, and in specific settings superior, perioperative outcomes compared to laparoscopic liver surgery have been reported. In its current form, the most commonly mentioned advantage of robotic surgery is improved dexterity. Important obstacles to its wider implementation in daily clinical practice are the associated costs, technical difficulties, and a scarce amount of evidence. Robotic liver surgery will likely continue to evolve in parallel with technological developments that enhance the robots’ abilities.

Abstract

In parallel with the historical development of minimally invasive surgery, the laparoscopic and robotic approaches are now frequently utilized to perform major abdominal surgical procedures. Nevertheless, the role of the robotic approach in liver surgery is still controversial, and a standardized, safe technique has not been defined yet. This review aims to summarize the currently available evidence and prospects of robotic liver surgery. Minimally invasive liver surgery has been extensively associated with benefits, in terms of less blood loss, and lower complication rates, including liver-specific complications such as clinically relevant bile leakage and post hepatectomy liver failure, when compared to open liver surgery. Furthermore, comparable R0 resection rates to open liver surgery have been reported, thus, demonstrating the safety and oncological efficiency of the minimally invasive approach. However, whether robotic liver surgery has merits over laparoscopic liver surgery is still a matter of debate. In the current literature, robotic liver surgery has mainly been associated with non-inferior outcomes compared to laparoscopy, although it is suggested that the robotic approach has a shorter learning curve, lower conversion rates, and less intraoperative blood loss. Robotic surgical systems offer a more realistic image with integrated 3D systems. In addition, the improved dexterity offered by robotic surgical systems can lead to improved intra and postoperative outcomes. In the future, integrated and improved haptic feedback mechanisms, artificial intelligence, and the introduction of more liver-specific dissectors will likely be implemented, further enhancing the robots’ abilities.