New evidence for liver venous deprivation: safety and feasibility for extended liver resections

Liver Venous Deprivation Versus Portal Vein Embolization Before Major Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Retrospective Comparison of Short- and Medium-Term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Liver venous deprivation (LVD) is a recent radiological technique performed to induce hypertrophy of the future liver remnant. Medium-term results of major hepatectomy after LVD have never been compared with the actual standard of care, portal vein embolization (PVE).

METHODS

We retrospectively compared data from 33 consecutive patients who had undergone LVD (n = 17) or PVE (n = 16) prior to a right hemi-hepatectomy or right extended hepatectomy indicated for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) between May 2015 and December 2019.

RESULTS

The 1-year and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates in the LVD group were 81.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 72-90) and 54.7% (95% CI: 46-63), respectively, against 85% (95% CI: 69-101) and 77.4% (95% CI: 54-100) in the PVE group; the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.64). The median disease-free survival (DFS) rate was also comparable: 6 months (95% CI: 4-7) in the LVD group and 12 months (95% CI: 1.5-13) in the PVE group (p = 0.29). The overall intra-operative and post-operative complication rates were similar between the two groups. The mean daily kinetic growth rate (KGR) was found to be higher after LVD than after PVE (0.2% vs. 0.1%, p = 0.05; 10 cc/day vs. 4.8 cc/day, p = 0.03), as was the mean increase in future liver remnant volume (FLR-V) (49% vs. 27%, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The LVD technique is well tolerated in patients undergoing right hemi-hepatectomy or right extended hepatectomy for CRLM. When compared with the PVE technique, the LVD technique has similar peri-operative and medium-term outcomes, but higher KGR and FLR-V increase.

Locoregional Therapy in the Management of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Is There Sufficient Evidence to Guide Current Clinical Practice?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) carries a dismal prognosis and, despite increasing incidence, still lacks effective treatments. In this scenario, locoregional therapies (LRT) are gaining interest as they may be effective at local tumor control and complementary to surgical and non-surgical approaches. In this article, we will review the evolving role of LRT performed by interventional radiologists in the management of iCCA.

RECENT FINDINGS

Accumulating retrospective evidence indicates that ablative therapies and transarterial embolizations are of benefit for iCCA with unresectable disease, demonstrating promising safety profiles and prolonged or comparable survival outcomes compared to systemic therapy and surgery. Additionally, for surgical candidates, portal ± hepatic venous embolization can improve the safety of hepatectomy by inducing preoperative hypertrophy of the non-involved liver lobe. LRTs are playing an increasingly important role in the multimodal treatment of iCCA from various perspectives with reduced toxicity relative to traditional treatments. To expand the scope of applications for LRTs in this setting, future prospective randomized studies are needed to confirm their efficacy and advantage.

Liver venous deprivation versus associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy for colo-rectal liver metastases: a comparison of early and late kinetic growth rates, and perioperative and oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

Different techniques have been developed to optimize the Future Liver Remnant (FLR). Associated liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) and liver venous deprivation (LVD) have shown the higher hypertrophy rates, but their place in clinical practice is still debated.

METHODS

Thirty-two consecutive ALPPS and LVD procedures for CRLM performed between December 2015 and December 2019 were included. This retrospective study evaluated kinetic growth rates (KGR) as primary outcome, and perioperative and oncological outcomes as secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

A total of 17 patients underwent LVD before surgery, whereas 15 underwent ALPPS. On early evaluation (7 vs 9 days, respectively), KGR did not differ between ALPPS and LVD cohort (0.8% per day vs 0.3% per day, p = 0.70; 23 cc/day vs 26 cc/day, p = 0.31). Late evaluation (21 vs 9 days) showed a KGR significantly decreased in the LVD group (0.6% per day vs 0.2% per day, p = 0.21; 20 cc/day vs 10 cc/day p = 0.02). Mean FLR-V increase was comparable in the two groups (60% vs 49%, p 0.32). Successful resection rate was 100% and 94% in LVD and ALPPS group, respectively. The hospital stay (p < 0.0001) and severe complications rate (p = 0.05) were lower after LVD. One and 3-years overall survival (OS) were 72,7% and 27,4% in the ALPSS group, versus 81,3% and 54,7% in LVD group (p = 0.10). The Median DFS was comparable between both techniques (6.1 months and 5.9 respectively, p = 0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

LVD and ALPPS shows similar KGR during the early period following preparation as well as similar survival outcomes. Hospital stay and severe complications are lower after LVD.

Liver Venous Deprivation (LVD) or Associating Liver Partition and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged Hepatectomy (ALPPS)?: A Retrospective Multicentric Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare two techniques of remnant liver hypertrophy in candidates for extended hepatectomy: radiological simultaneous portal vein (PVE) and hepatic vein embolization (HVE); namely liver venous deprivation (LVD), and ALPPS.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Recent advances in chemotherapy and surgical techniques have widened indications for extended hepatectomy, before which remnant liver augmentation is mandatory. ALPPS and LVD typically show higher hypertrophy rates than PVE, but their respective places in patient management remain unclear.

METHODS

All consecutive ALPPS and LVD procedures performed in eight French centers between 2011 and 2020 were included. The main endpoint was the successful resection rate (resection rate without 90-day mortality) analyzed according to an intention-to-treat principle. Secondary endpoints were hypertrophy rates, intra- and post-operative outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 209 patients, 124 had LVD 37 [13,1015] days before surgery, while 85 underwent ALPPS with an inter-stages period of 10 [6, 69] days. ALPPS was mostly-performed for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), LVD for CRLM and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Hypertrophy was faster for ALPPS. Successful resection rates were 72.6% for LVD ± rescue ALPPS (n=6) versus 90.6% for ALPPS (p<0.001). Operative duration, blood losses and length-of-stay were lower for LVD, while 90-day major complications and mortality were comparable. Results were globally unchanged for CRLM patients, or after excluding the early 2 years of experience (learning-curve effect).

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first one comparing LVD versus ALPPS in the largest cohort so far. Despite its retrospective design, it yields original results that may serve as the basis for a prospective study.