The Impact of Modern Chemotherapy and Chemotherapy-Associated Liver Injuries (CALI) on Liver Function: Value of 99mTc-Labelled-Mebrofenin SPECT-Hepatobiliary Scintigraphy

Posthepatectomy Liver Failure in Patients with Splenomegaly Induced by Induction Chemotherapy for Colorectal Liver Metastases

PURPOSE

With advances in chemotherapy, conversion surgery is often performed for initially unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CLM). However, unexpected posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) is sometimes associated with chemotherapy-associated liver injuries following long-term chemotherapy. We aimed to identify predictive factors for PHLF after conversion surgery for initially unresectable CLM.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 774 consecutive patients who underwent initial liver resections for histologically confirmed CLMs between 2010 and 2019 at our institute. We enrolled 107 patients with initially unresectable CLMs. Clinicopathological characteristics were evaluated to determine their association with PHLF. Logistic regression analysis was performed to analyze the predictors of PHLF.

RESULTS

Among the 107 patients, PHLF occurred in 15 cases (14%). Multivariate analysis revealed that splenomegaly during preoperative chemotherapy (> 135%) was an independent risk factor for PHLF (P = 0.002; odds ratio 14.30; 95% confidence interval 2.69-76.08). In the analysis limited to the splenomegaly group, lower platelet counts, increased blood loss and operative times, and large liver resection areas (> 100 cm2) were significant risk factors for PHLF (P = 0.018, 0.043, 0.020, and 0.024, respectively). Among them, a liver resection area > 100 cm2 can be calculated preoperatively and correlate with a complex hepatectomy.

CONCLUSION

These findings could help predict PHLF after conversion surgery and induction chemotherapy for initially unresectable CLMs. Careful decisions, including detailed procedures and timing of hepatectomy, should be made before conversion hepatectomy in patients who develop splenomegaly after induction chemotherapy and require complex hepatectomies with a large liver resection area.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

A Review of Resection and Surgical Ablation for Primary and Secondary Liver Cancers

The surgical management of primary and secondary liver tumors is constantly evolving. Patient selection, particularly with regard to determining resectability, is vital to the success of programs directed toward invasive treatments of liver tumors. Particular attention should be paid toward determining whether patients are best served with surgical resection or ablative therapies. A multidisciplinary approach is necessary to provide optimal care to patients with liver malignancy.

E-AHPBA-ESSO-ESSR Innsbruck consensus guidelines for preoperative liver function assessment before hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) contributes significantly to morbidity and mortality after liver surgery. Standardized assessment of preoperative liver function is crucial to identify patients at risk. These European consensus guidelines provide guidance for preoperative patient assessment.

METHODS

A modified Delphi approach was used to achieve consensus. The expert panel consisted of hepatobiliary surgeons, radiologists, nuclear medicine specialists, and hepatologists. The guideline process was supervised by a methodologist and reviewed by a patient representative. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane library, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry. Evidence assessment and statement development followed Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology.

RESULTS

Based on 271 publications covering 4 key areas, 21 statements (at least 85 per cent agreement) were produced (median level of evidence 2- to 2+). Only a few systematic reviews (2++) and one RCT (1+) were identified. Preoperative liver function assessment should be considered before complex resections, and in patients with suspected or known underlying liver disease, or chemotherapy-associated or drug-induced liver injury. Clinical assessment and blood-based scores reflecting liver function or portal hypertension (for example albumin/bilirubin, platelet count) aid in identifying risk of PHLF. Volumetry of the future liver remnant represents the foundation for assessment, and can be combined with indocyanine green clearance or LiMAx® according to local expertise and availability. Functional MRI and liver scintigraphy are alternatives, combining FLR volume and function in one examination.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines reflect established methods to assess preoperative liver function and PHLF risk, and have uncovered evidence gaps of interest for future research.

Hepatobiliary scintigraphy to predict postoperative liver failure after major liver resection; a multicenter cohort study in 547 patients

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to analyze the predictive value of Hepatobiliary scintigraphy (HBS) for posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) after major liver resection with a comparison to assessment of liver volume in a multicenter cohort.

METHODS

Patients who underwent liver resection after HBS were included from six centers. Remnant liver volume was calculated from CT images. PHLF was scored and graded according to the grade B/C ISGLS criteria.

RESULTS

In 547 patients PHLF incidence was 10% (56/547) and 90-day mortality rate 8% (42/547). Overall predictive value of remnant liver function was 0.66 (0.58-0.74) and similar to that of remnant volume (0.63 (0.72). For biliary tumors, a function cut-off of 2.7%/min/m2 and 30% volume cut-off resulted in a PHLF rate 12% and 13%, respectively. While an 8.5%/min (4.5%/min/m2) function cut-off resulted in 7% PHLF for those with a function above the cutoff while a 40% volume cutoff still resulted in 14% PHLF rate. In the multivariable analyses for PHLF, liver function was predictive but liver volume was not.

CONCLUSION

The current study shows that preoperative liver function assessment using HBS is at least as predictive for PHLF as liver volume assessment, and likely has several advantages, particularly in the high-risk sub-group of biliary tumors.

Validation of the IMM classification in laparoscopic repeat liver resections for colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

To validate the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification as a difficulty scoring system applicable to laparoscopic repeat liver resections and identify risk-factors of unexpected difficulty.

METHODS

From a prospectively collected database between 2000 and 2019, patients undergoing laparoscopic repeat liver resections were classified according to the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification. Doubly robust estimators (weighted regressions) were used to assess the effect of factors on intra- and postoperative outcomes and allowed for strong adjustment on age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists, carcinoembryonic antigen, number, and size of lesions. Unexpected difficulty was defined as a composite indicator which included substantial blood loss and/or substantial operative time and/or conversion.

RESULTS

Of 205 laparoscopic repeat liver resections patients, 87, 25, and 93 procedures were classified as grade 1, 2, and 3 laparoscopic repeat liver resections, respectively. After doubly robust adjustment, the IMM classification was associated with blood loss (Cohen f² 0.12; P = 0.001), operative time (Cohen f² 0.07; P = .001), and length of stay (Cohen f² 0.13; P = .001), as well as with the risk of both minor and severe complications (odd ratio = 2.94; 95% confidence interval: 2.06-4.20) and the chances of achieving textbook outcome (relative risk = 0.57; 95% confidence interval: 0.41-0.81). Independently from the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification, a first major hepatectomy (relative risk = 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.29) as well as sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (relative risk = 1.24, 95% confidence interval: 1.09-1.41) were independent risk factors of unexpected difficulty. A first major resection was associated with decreased chances of textbook outcome (relative risk = 0.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.33-0.85).

CONCLUSION

The Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification is a valuable difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic repeat liver resections procedures, while previous major resection and presence of sinusoidal obstruction syndrome are likely to jeopardize the outcomes.

99mTc-mebrofenin hepatobiliary scintigraphy and volume metrics before liver preparation: correlations and discrepancies in non-cirrhotic patients

Background

Accurate identification of insufficient future liver remnant (FLR) is required to select patients for liver preparation and limit the risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). The objective of this study was to investigate the correlations and discrepancies between the most-commonly used FLR volume metrics and ^99mTc-mebrofenin hepatobiliary scintigraphy (HBS).

Methods

In 101 non-cirrhotic patients who underwent HBS before major hepatectomy, we retrospectively analyzed the correlations and discrepancies between FLR function and FLR volume metrics: actual percentage (FLRV%), standardized to body surface area (FLRV%^BSA) and weight (FLRV%^weight), and FLR to body weight ratio (FLRV-BWR).

Results

Among 67 patients with FLR function ≥2.69%/min/m², PHLF was observed in none and 13 patients according to respectively 50-50 and ISGLS criteria. FLRV%, FLRV%^BSA, FLRV%^weight and FLRV-BWR significantly correlated with FLR function (P<0.001), with Spearman's correlation coefficients of 0.680, 0.704, 0.698, and 0.711, respectively. No difference was observed between the areas under the curve of FLRV%, FLRV%^BSA, FLRV%^weight and FLR-BWR (all P=ns). Overall, the percentages of patients misclassified by FLRV%, FLRV%^BSA, FLRV%^weight (thresholds: 30%) and FLR-BWR (threshold: 0.5) versus FLR function (threshold: 2.69%/min/m²) were 23.8% (95% CI: 15.9-33.3%), 18.8% (95% CI: 11.7-27.8%), 17.8% (95% CI: 11-26.7%), and 31.7% (95% CI: 22.8-41.7%), respectively. FLR volume metrics wrongly classified 1-13.9% of patients with sufficient FLR function (i.e., ≥2.69%/min/m²), and 9.9-30.7% of patients with insufficient FLR function. FLRV-BWR was the most and the least reliable measure to identify patients with sufficient and insufficient FLR function, respectively.

Conclusions

Despite significant correlations, the discrepancy rates between FLR volume and function metrics speaks in favor of implementing ^99mTc-mebrofenin HBS in the work-up before liver preparation.