Laparoscopic Approach to Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma is Associated with an Exacerbation of Inadequate Nodal Staging

Current Status of Laparoscopic Liver Resection

The evolution of laparoscopic liver surgery, originating in the 1990s, has been marked by significant advancements and milestones, overcoming initial technical hurdles and gaining widespread acceptance within the surgical community as a precise and safe alternative to open procedures. Along this journey, numerous challenges emerged, leading to the accumulation of evidence and the development of guidelines aimed at assisting surgeons in determining the safety, suitability, and complexity of laparoscopic liver resection. This chapter provides a thorough examination of key aspects of laparoscopic liver resection, including difficulty scoring systems, criteria for patient selection, technical considerations, outcomes across different types of liver lesions, and the innovative solutions developed to address challenges, thus offering a comprehensive overview of laparoscopic liver resection, and highlighting its evolving significance in modern hepatobiliary surgery.

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.

Short-term postoperative outcomes of lymphadenectomy for cholangiocarcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal liver metastases in the modern era of liver surgery: Insights from the StuDoQ|Liver registry

INTRODUCTION

The clinical role of lymphadenectomy (LAD) as part of hepatic resection for malignancies of the liver remains unclear. In this study, we aimed to report on the use cases and postoperative outcomes of liver resection and simultaneous LAD for hepatic malignancies (HM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinicopathological data from patients who underwent surgery at 13 German centers from 2017 to 2022 (n = 3456) was extracted from the StuDoQ|Liver registry of the German Society of General and Visceral Surgery. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was performed to account for the extent of liver resection and patient demographics.

RESULTS

LAD was performed in 545 (16%) cases. The most common indication for LAD was cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), followed by colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). N+ status was found in 7 (8%), 59 (35%), and 56 cases (35%) for HCC, CCA, and CRLM, respectively (p < 0.001). The LAD rate was highest for robotic-assisted resections (28%) followed by open (26%) and laparoscopic resections (13%), whereas the number of resected lymph nodes was equivalent between the techniques (p = 0.303). LAD was associated with an increased risk of liver-specific postoperative complications, especially for patients with HCC.

CONCLUSION

In this multicenter registry study, LAD was found to be associated with an increased risk of liver-specific complications. The highest rate of LAD was observed among robotic liver resections.

Minimally Invasive Approach Provides Oncological Benefit in Patients with High Risk of Very Early Recurrence (VER) After Surgery for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA)

BACKGROUND

Surgery for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is jeopardized by significant risk of early recurrence (≤ 6 months). The aim of the present study is to analyze the oncological benefit provided by laparoscopic over open approach for iCCA in patients with high risk of very early recurrence (VER).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 532 liver resections (LR) were performed for iCCA [265 by minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and 267 with open approach, matched through a 1:1 propensity score] and stratified using the postoperative prediction model of VER. Outcomes were compared between open and laparoscopic approaches, specifically evaluating oncological benefit.

RESULTS

The percentage of patients with high risk of VER was similar (32.7% in the laparoscopic group and 35.3% in the open group, pNS). The number of retrieved nodes as well as the rate and depth of negative resection margins were comparable between laparoscopic and open. The surgery-adjuvant treatment interval was shorter in laparoscopic patients in the overall series, as well in the subgroup of high risk of VER. The rate of patients starting adjuvant treatments within 2 months from surgery was higher in laparoscopic group compared with open group. In VER high-risk group both disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly improved in MIS compared with open group (p = 0.032 and p = 0.026, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with high risk of VER, laparoscopy translates into an advantage in terms of recurrence-free survival, likely related to lower biological impact of surgery, together with a shorter interval between surgery and start of adjuvant treatments, even allowing for a higher number of patients to start adjuvant therapies within 2 months from resection.

Lymph Node Dissection in Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: a Critical and Updated Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Lymphatic spread of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is common and negatively impacts survival. However, the precise role of lymph node dissection (LND) in oncologic outcomes for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma remains to be established.

METHODS

Updated evidence on the preoperative diagnosis and prognostic value of lymph node metastasis is reviewed, as well as the potential benefit of LND in patients with iCCA.

RESULTS

The ability to accurately determine nodal status for iCCA with current imaging modalities is equivocal. LND has prognostic value for both survival and disease recurrence. However, execution rates of LND are highly varied in the literature, ranging from 26.9 to 100%. At least 6 lymph nodes should be examined from nodal stations of the hepatoduodenal ligament and hepatic artery as well as based on the location of the primary tumor. Neoadjuvant therapies may be beneficial if lymph node metastases at diagnosis are suspected. Surgeons performing a minimally invasive approach should focus on increasing LND rates and harvesting ≥ 6 lymph nodes. Lymph node negativity is required in patients with iCCA being considered for liver transplantation under investigational protocols.

CONCLUSION

Despite an upward trend in the LND rate, the reality is that only 10% of patients with iCCA receive an adequate LND. This review underscores the importance of routinely increasing the rate of adequate LND in these patients in order to achieve accurate staging, appropriately select patients for adjuvant therapy, and improve the prognosis of clinical outcomes. While prospective data is lacking, the therapeutic impact of LND remains unknown.

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.

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 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.

The focus clinical research in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), highly invasive and highly heterogeneous, has a poor prognosis. It has been confirmed that many risk factors are associated with ICC including intrahepatic lithiasis, primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), congenital abnormalities of the bile ducts, parasite infection, toxic exposures chronic liver disease (viral infection and cirrhosis) and metabolic abnormalities. In recent years, significant progress has been made in the clinical diagnosis and treatment of ICC. Advances in functional and molecular imaging techniques offer the possibility for more accurate preoperative assessment and detection of recurrence. Moreover, the combination of molecular typing and traditional clinical pathological typing provides accurate guarantee for clinical decision-making. Surgical resection is still the only radical treatment for ICC, while R0 resection, lymph node dissection, postoperative adjuvant therapy and recurrence resectomy have been confirmed to be beneficial for patients. New therapies including local therapy, molecular targeted therapy and immunotherapy are developing rapidly, which brings hopeful future for advanced ICC. The combination of traditional therapy and new therapy is the future development direction.

Lymphadenectomy and margin-negative resection for biliary tract cancer surgery in the United States-Differential technical performance by approach

BACKGROUND

As minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches to biliary tract cancers become more commonplace, understanding the adequacy of their oncologic performance is key.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database 2010-2016 was queried for patients who underwent hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHC) and T1b or more advanced gallbladder cancer (GBC). Patients were grouped by approach: open (OA), laparoscopic (LA), and robotic (RA). Margin status, rate of lymph node (LN) dissection, and yield of LN dissection were evaluated.

RESULTS

This cohort of 8612 patients, including 4034 patients with IHC (OA: 3281, LA: 675, RA: 78) and 4578 patients with GBC (OA: 1893, LA: 2588, RA: 97), MIS was used 40% of the time. R0 resection was achieved in 82% OA, 84% LA, and 91% RA, p = 0.004. Rate of LN dissection was 53% (OA: 60%, LA: 42%, RA: 51%, p < 0.001). Among patients who underwent lymphadenectomy, 6 + LN were retrieved less commonly with a LA (OA: 27%, LA: 20%, and RA: 30%, p < 0.001). High-volume MIS hepatectomy centers were more likely to perform a lymphadenectomy (odds ratio [OR]: 1.41) and a sampling of 6 + LN (OR: 1.18).

CONCLUSION

Regardless of approach, lymphadenectomy is underperformed nationwide for biliary tract tumors, particularly with LA. As the use of MIS grows for the treatment of biliary tract cancers, scrutiny of oncologic outcomes is required.

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.

Recurrent Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma - Review

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is the second-most common primary liver malignancy after hepatocellular carcinoma. While surgical resection with negative margin is the only curative treatment, ICC has very high rate of recurrence, up to 60-70% after curative resection. We reviewed the current data available on risk factors for ICC recurrence, recurrence pattern (location and timing), treatment options, and future directions. The risk factors for recurrence include elevated preoperative CA19-9, presence of liver cirrhosis, nodal metastasis, positive margins, and vascular invasion. Understanding different recurrence patterns, timing course, and risk factors for early recurrence is important to tailor postoperative surveillance and select treatment strategies including systemic or locoregional therapy. Re-resection can be considered for a selected patient population at experienced centers, and can yield long-term survival. ICC remains a dismal disease given the high likelihood of recurrence. Advances in our understanding of the genomic landscape of ICC are beginning to identify targetable alterations in ICC in subsets of patients that allow for personalized treatment.

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.

Approach to Resectable Biliary Cancers

OPINION STATEMENT

Biliary malignancies, although rare, can be some of the most challenging to manage surgically. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas are resectable if there is no evidence of metastatic disease. These tumors are managed with anatomic resection and portal lymphadenectomy when centrally located or multiple in a single lobe. Non-anatomic resection can be performed for solitary peripheral tumors with minimally invasive techniques. It is not our practice to routinely employ neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to resection of these tumors. Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy is utilized at our institution in highly selected patients in the context of an ongoing clinical trial for unresectable tumors. Hilar cholangiocarcinomas, when resectable (i.e., ipsilateral arterial involvement or lack of vascular involvement), are managed with right or left (extended) hepatectomy, caudate resection, and portal lymphadenectomy. Distal cholangiocarcinomas are managed with pancreaticoduodenectomy. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is not routinely used in our treatment algorithm of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas. Nodal involvement and positive margin (R1) resection necessitates adjuvant chemotherapy. Finally, gallbladder carcinoma is managed with radical cholecystectomy, anatomic segment IVb/V resection, and portal lymphadenectomy. Adjuvant chemotherapy is employed routinely amongst patients with T2 or higher tumors and those with positive lymph nodes.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Report of an international multicenter cohort study with propensity score matching

BACKGROUND

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is a rare disease with a poor prognosis. In patients where surgical resection is possible, outcome is influenced by perioperative morbidity and lymph node status. Laparoscopic liver resection is associated with improved clinical and oncological outcomes in primary and metastatic liver cancer compared with open liver resection, but evidence on intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is still insufficient. The primary aim of this study was to compare overall survival for a large series of patients treated for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma by open or laparoscopic approach. Secondary objectives were to compare disease-free survival, predictors of death, and recurrence.

METHODS

Patients treated with laparoscopic or open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma from 2000 to 2018 from 3 large international databases were analyzed retrospectively. Each patient in the laparoscopic resection group (case) was matched with 1 open resection control (1:1 ratio), through a propensity score calculated on clinically relevant preoperative covariates. Overall and disease-free survival were compared between the matched groups. Predictors of mortality and recurrence were analyzed with Cox regression, and the Textbook Outcomes were described.

RESULTS

During the study period, 855 patients met the inclusion criteria (open liver resection = 709, 82.9%; laparoscopic liver resection = 146, 17.1%). Two groups of 89 patients each were analyzed after propensity score matching, with no significant difference regarding pre- and postoperative variables. Overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 92%, 75%, and 63% in the laparoscopic liver resection group versus 92%, 58%, and 49% in the open liver resection group (P = .0043). Adjusted Cox regression revealed severe postoperative complications (hazard ratio: 10.5, 95% confidence interval [1.01-109] P = .049) and steatosis (hazard ratio: 13.8, 95% confidence interval [1.23-154] P = .033) as predictors of death, and transfusion (hazard ratio: 19.2, 95% confidence interval [4.04-91.4] P < .001) and severe postoperative complications (hazard ratio: 4.07, 95% confidence interval [1.15-14.4] P = .030) as predictors of recurrence.

CONCLUSION

The survival advantage of laparoscopic liver resection over open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is equivocal, given historical bias and missing data.

Laparoscopic versus open resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

The relevance of laparoscopic resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) remains debated. The aim of this study was to compare laparoscopic (LLR) and open (OLR) liver resection for ICC, with specific focus on textbook outcome and lymph node dissection (LND).

METHODS

Patients undergoing LLR or OLR for ICC were included from two French, nationwide hepatopancreatobiliary surveys undertaken between 2000 and 2017. Patients with negative margins, and without transfusion, severe complications, prolonged hospital stay, readmission or death were considered to have a textbook outcome. Patients who achieved both a textbook outcome and LND were deemed to have an adjusted textbook outcome. OLR and LLR were compared after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

In total, 548 patients with ICC (127 LLR, 421 OLR) were included. Textbook-outcome and LND completion rates were 22.1 and 48.2 per cent respectively. LLR was independently associated with a decreased rate of LND (odds ratio 0.37, 95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.69). After matching, 109 patients remained in each group. LLR was associated with a decreased rate of transfusion (7.3 versus 21.1 per cent; P = 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (median 7 versus 14 days; P = 0.001), but lower rate of LND (33.9 versus 73.4 per cent; P = 0.001). Patients who underwent LLR had lower rate of adjusted TO completion than patients who had OLR (6.5 versus 17.4 per cent; P = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach did not substantially improve quality of care of patients with resectable ICC.

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.

Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: An individual patient data survival meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We compared the outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) vs. open hepatectomy (OH) for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA).

METHODS

A systematic review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases was performed using PRISMA guidelines (end-of-search date: 08-June-2020). Individual patient data on overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were extracted. Random-effects meta-analyses, and one- and two-stage survival analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Eight retrospective cohort studies comparing LH (n = 544) vs. OH (n = 2256) were identified. LH demonstrated lower overall complication (Risk ratio [RR] = 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-0.90; p = 0.01), surgical lymphadenectomy (RR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.58-0.93; p = 0.01) and margin-positive resection (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.62-0.99; p = 0.04) rates, and higher recurrence-free rate (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.01-1.51; p = 0.04) vs. OH. In Cox regression, no difference was observed regarding OS (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.65-1.91; p = 0.70) and RFS (HR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.74-1.90; p = 0.47).

CONCLUSION

The use of LH should be considered when feasible in well-selected iCCA patients by hepatobiliary surgeons with experience in minimally-invasive surgery.

The Clinical Management of Cholangiocarcinoma in the United States and Europe: A Comprehensive and Evidence-Based Comparison of Guidelines

BACKGROUND

The incidence of cholangiocarcinoma has doubled over the last 15 years with a similar rise in mortality, which provides the impetus for standardization of evidence-based care through the establishment of guidelines.

METHODS

We compared available guidelines on the clinical management of cholangiocarcinoma in the United States and Europe, which included the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the International Liver Cancer Association (ILCA) guidelines.

RESULTS

There is discordance in the recommendation for biopsy in patients with potentially resectable cholangiocarcinoma and in the recommendation for use of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scans. Similarly, the recommendation for preoperative biliary drainage for extrahepatic and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma in the setting of jaundice is inconsistent across all four guidelines. The BILCAP (capecitabine) and ABC-02 trials (gemcitabine with cisplatin) have provided the strongest evidence for systemic therapy in the adjuvant and palliative settings, respectively, but all guidelines have refrained from setting them as standard of care, given heterogeneity in the study cohorts and ABC-02's negative intention-to-treat results.

CONCLUSIONS

Future progress in enhancing survivorship of patients with cholangiocarcinoma would likely entail improvements in diagnostic biomarkers and novel systemic therapies. Based on recent results from studies of targeted therapy, future iterations of the guidelines will likely incorporate molecular profiling.

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.

Is It Time to Consider Laparoscopic Hepatectomy for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma? A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The role of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) remains indefinite, though the utilization of this minimally invasive approach has been increasing for ICC. We herein performed a meta-analysis to investigate this issue.

METHODS

Six retrospective studies including 384 patients who had undergone LH and 2147 patients who had undergone open hepatectomy (OH) for ICC were included. The fixed-effects or random-effects models were utilized for data analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with patients who had undergone OH for ICC, patients who had undergone LH for ICC experienced more R0 resections (81.6 versus 73.8%, risk ratio (RR) = 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.14; P = 0.008) but less major hepatectomies (37.7 versus 54.2%, RR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.60-0.79; P < 0.0001), less lymph node dissections (38.0 versus 61.5%, RR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.54-0.70; P < 0.0001), and smaller tumor size resected (4.14 versus 4.94 cm, weighted mean difference = - 0.80 cm, 95% CI - 1.38 to - 0.22 cm; P = 0.007). No significant difference was observed in other perioperative results (all P > 0.05) or overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.38, 95% CI 0.63-3.02; P = 0.43).

CONCLUSIONS

LH has comparable safety, feasibility, and oncological efficacy to that of OH for ICC and has superiority in R0 resection over OH. It may be time to consider LH for ICC only if a more thorough effort on lymph node dissection is undertaken in selective patients at experienced centers.

Laparoscopic liver resection: indications, limitations, and economic aspects

Background

Minimally invasive techniques have increasingly found their way into liver surgery in recent years. A multitude of mostly retrospective analyses suggests several advantages of laparoscopic over open liver surgery. Due to the speed and variety of simultaneous technical and strategic developments, it is difficult to maintain an overview of the current status and perspectives in laparoscopic liver surgery.

Purpose

This review highlights up-to-date aspects in laparoscopic liver surgery. We discuss established indications with regard to their development over time as well as continuing limitations of applied techniques. We give an assessment based on the current literature and according to our own center experiences, not least with regard to a highly topical cost discussion.

Conclusions

While in the beginning mainly benign tumors were laparoscopically operated on, liver metastasis and hepatocellular carcinoma are now among the most frequent indications. Technical limitations remain and should be evaluated with the overall aim not to endanger quality standards in open surgery. Financial aspects cannot be neglected with the necessity of cost-covering reimbursement.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Single-Center Experience

Background: Despite recent advances in the field of laparoscopic liver surgery, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC) as an entity has been nearly exempted from the new approaches because of proposed technical difficulties in achieving lymphadenectomy (LAD) and beneficial oncologic outcomes. Materials and Methods: Clinical courses of all consecutive patients (n = 159) undergoing liver resection for iCC at the Department of Surgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin between January 2015 and October 2019 were studied. Ultimately, after applying selection criteria 27 laparoscopic liver resections were compared with 31 open liver resections. Results: Preoperative patient characteristics were similar with regard to general health and tumor characteristics. However, patients in the laparoscopic group tended to have more advanced liver fibrosis. When LAD was performed laparoscopically, a median of eight lymph nodes were resected, complying with current AJCC treatment guidelines. Patients undergoing laparoscopic resection showed lower overall morbidity contributing at least in part to a markedly decreased hospital stay. Conclusions: Herein, we report on one of the largest series of laparoscopically resected iCC, with a high proportion of major resections. Our data show laparoscopic resection to achieve noninferior outcomes to open resection despite impaired preoperative liver function.

Cholangiocarcinoma as an Indication for Liver Transplantation in the Era of Transplant Oncology

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) arises from the biliary tract epithelium and accounts for 10-15% of all hepatobiliary malignancies. Depending on anatomic location, CCA is classified as intrahepatic (iCCA), perihilar (pCCA) and distal (dCCA). The best treatment option for pCCA is liver resection and when a radical oncological surgery is obtained, 5-year survival rate are around 20-40%. In unresectable patients, following a specific protocol, liver transplantation (LT) for pCCA showed excellent long-term disease-free survival rates. Fewer data are available for iCCA in LT setting. Nevertheless, patients with very early unresectable iCCA appear to achieve excellent outcomes after LT. This review aims to evaluate existing evidence to define the current role of LT in the management of patients with CCA.

Oncological Resection for Liver Malignancies: Can the Laparoscopic Approach Provide Benefits?

: Laparoscopic surgery has become an increasingly popular alternative approach to open surgery, resulting in a paradigm shift in liver surgery. Although laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) was initially indicated for small benign and peripheral tumors, at present more than half of LLRs are performed in malignant tumors. Several studies have reported the feasibility of LLR in malignant disease and suggested various short-term benefits compared to open liver resection, including decreased blood loss and postoperative complications and a shorter hospital stay. Although these benefits are important to surgeons, patients, and providers, the main goal of surgery for malignancies is to achieve a maximum oncologic benefit.The relevance of the laparoscopic approach must be assessed in relation to the possibility of respecting basic oncological rules and the expertise of the center. Easy LLRs can be safely performed by most surgeons with minimum expertise in liver surgery and laparoscopy, and can therefore probably provide an oncological benefit. On the other hand, intermediate or difficult LLRs require technical expertise and an oncological benefit can only be achieved in expert centers. Technical standardization is the only way to obtain an oncological benefit with this type of resection, and many problems must still be solved.

The role of minimally invasive hepatectomy for hilar and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review of the literature

Despite the fact laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) for cholangiocarcinoma is still limited, this systematic review addressed surgical and oncological outcomes of LLR to treat both perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA). Five comparative and 20 noncomparative studies were found. Regarding iCCA, LLR had lower blood loss and less need for Pringle maneuver. However, open liver resections (OLR) were performed more for major hepatectomies, with better lymphadenectomy rates and higher number of harvested lymph nodes. High heterogeneity and selection bias were suggested for iCCA studies.

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

Only a few high-volume centers have reported the efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). The minimally invasive approach is still controversial for ICC, especially when dealing with large (≥5 cm) or multiple (≥2) ICCs.Patients with large and multiple ICCs who underwent LLR or open hepatectomy (OH) between January 2012 and June 2017 were included. Furthermore, 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed between the LLR group and the OH group. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the different techniques.After PSM, LLR resulted in significantly longer operation time (median 225 minutes vs 190 minutes, P = .006) and pringle maneuver time (median 50 minutes vs 32.5 minutes, P = .001). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative hospital stay between the different approaches (median 6 days vs 7 days, P = .092). The grade III/IV complication rates were comparable between the groups (5.6% vs 11.1%, P = .868). In the PSM subset, there was no significant difference in terms of overall survival (P = .645) or disease-free survival (P = .827) between patients in the LLR group and in the OH group.The present study showed that patients who underwent LLR for large or multiple ICCs could obtain similar short- and long-term outcomes compared with those who underwent OH, and lymph node dissection (LND) was technically difficult but feasible during LLR.