Liver venous deprivation: a bright future for liver metastases-but what about hepatocellular carcinoma?

Image-guided percutaneous strategies to improve the resectability of HCC: Portal vein embolization, liver venous deprivation, or radiation lobectomy?

Despite considerable advances in surgical technique, many patients with hepatic malignancies are not operative candidates due to projected inadequate hepatic function following resection. Consequently, the size of the future liver remnant (FLR) is an essential consideration when predicting a patient's likelihood of liver insufficiency following hepatectomy. Since its initial description 30 years ago, portal vein embolization has become the standard of care for augmenting the size and function of the FLR preoperatively. However, new minimally invasive techniques have been developed to improve surgical candidacy, chief among them liver venous deprivation and radiation lobectomy. The purpose of this review is to discuss the status of preoperative liver augmentation prior to resection of hepatocellular carcinoma with a focus on these three techniques, highlighting the distinctions between them and suggesting directions for future investigation.

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.

Efficacy and safety of different options for liver regeneration of future liver remnant in patients with liver malignancies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several treatments induce liver hypertrophy for patients with liver malignancies but insufficient future liver remnant (FLR). Herein, the aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of existing surgical techniques using network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from databases for abstracts and full-text articles published from database inception through Feb 2022. The primary outcome was the efficacy of different procedures, including standardized FLR (sFLR) increase, time to hepatectomy, resection rate, and R0 resection margin. The secondary outcome was the safety of different treatments, including the rate of Clavien-Dindo≥3a and 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three prospective trials (PTs), and twenty-one retrospective trials (RTs), and a total number of 2075 patients were recruited in this study. NMA demonstrated that the Associating Liver Partition and Portal vein ligation for Staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) had much higher sFLR increase when compared to portal vein embolization (PVE) (55.25%, 95% CI 45.27-65.24%), or liver venous deprivation(LVD) (43.26%, 95% CI 22.05-64.47%), or two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) (30.53%, 95% CI 16.84-44.21%), or portal vein ligation (PVL) (58.42%, 95% CI 37.62-79.23%). ALPPS showed significantly shorter time to hepatectomy when compared to PVE (-32.79d, 95% CI -42.92-22.66), or LVD (-34.02d, 95% CI -47.85-20.20), or TSH (-22.85d, 95% CI -30.97-14.72), or PVL (-43.37d, 95% CI -64.11-22.62); ALPPS was considered as the highest resection rate when compared to TSH (OR=6.09; 95% CI 2.76-13.41), or PVL (OR =3.52; 95% CI 1.16-10.72), or PVE (OR =4.12; 95% CI 2.19-7.77). ALPPS had comparable resection rate with LVD (OR =2.20; 95% CI 0.83-5.86). There was no significant difference between them when considering the R0 marge rate. ALPPS had a higher Clavien-Dindo≥3a complication rate and 90-day mortality compared to other treatments, although there were no significant differences between different procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

ALPPS demonstrated a higher regeneration rate, shorter time to hepatectomy, and higher resection rate than PVL, PVE, or TSH. There was no significant difference between them when considering the R0 marge rate. However, ALPPS developed the trend of higher Clavien-Dindo≥3a complication rate and 90-day mortality compared to other treatments.

Parenchyma-Sparing Liver Resection or Regenerative Liver Surgery: Which Way to Go?

Liver resection for malignant tumors should respect oncological margins while ensuring safety and improving the quality of life, therefore tumor staging, underlying liver disease and performance status should all be attentively assessed in the decision process. The concept of parenchyma-sparing liver surgery is nowadays used as an alternative to major hepatectomies to address deeply located lesions with intricate topography by means of complex multiplanar parenchyma-sparing liver resections, preferably under the guidance of intraoperative ultrasound. Regenerative liver surgery evolved as a liver growth induction method to increase resectability by stimulating the hypertrophy of the parenchyma intended to remain after resection (referred to as future liver remnant), achievable by portal vein embolization and liver venous deprivation as interventional approaches, and portal vein ligation and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy as surgical techniques. Interestingly, although both strategies have the same conceptual origin, they eventually became caught in the never-ending parenchyma-sparing liver surgery vs. regenerative liver surgery debate. However, these strategies are both valid and must both be mastered and used to increase resectability. In our opinion, we consider parenchyma-sparing liver surgery along with techniques of complex liver resection and intraoperative ultrasound guidance the preferred strategy to treat liver tumors. In addition, liver volume-manipulating regenerative surgery should be employed when resectability needs to be extended beyond the possibilities of parenchyma-sparing liver surgery.

Transarterial Radioembolization to Impact Liver Volumetry: When and How

Inadequate volume of the future liver remnant (FLR) renders many patients with liver malignancies not amenable to surgical resection. Depending on the health of the liver and the patient in general, an FLR of 25-40% is required to avoid acute post-hepatectomy liver failure. Transarterial radioembolization (TARE) of a diseased liver lobe leads to atrophy of the embolized lobe and compensatory hypertrophy of the contralateral lobe. Although the absolute degree of FLR hypertrophy seems to be comparable to portal vein embolization, the kinetic of hypertrophy is much slower after radioembolization. However, TARE has the unique advantages of simultaneously offering local tumor control, possibly downstaging disease, and providing biological test of time. Progressions in technique and personalized dosimetry allow for more predictable ablative treatment of liver malignancies and preparation for major liver surgery. This article provides an overview of the existing literature, discusses the evidence, and considers possible criteria for patient selection.

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.

Leaping the Boundaries in Laparoscopic Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Simple Summary

Recent advances in surgical techniques and perioperative management lead to a redefinition of the actual frontiers of Laparoscopic Liver Resection (LLR) by including patients with more advanced disease. Nonetheless, because of both underlying liver conditions and technical difficulty, LLR for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) is still considered as a challenging procedure. Specific concerns exist about LLR in cirrhotic patients, posterosuperior segments, giant and multiple tumors, as well as repeat resections. This review focuses on the specific limits of this approach in HCC patients in order to put into practice all the pre- and intra-operative precautions to overcome their boundaries, making this technique the standard of care within high-volume hepatobiliary centers.

Abstract

The minimally invasive approach for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) had a slower diffusion compared to other surgical fields, mainly due to inherent peculiarities regarding the risks of uncontrollable bleeding, oncological inadequacy, and the need for both laparoscopic and liver major skills. Recently, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been associated with an improved postoperative course, including reduced postoperative decompensation, intraoperative blood losses, length of hospitalization, and unaltered oncological outcomes, leading to its adoption within international guidelines. However, LLR for HCC still faces several limitations, mainly linked to the impaired function of underlying parenchyma, tumor size and numbers, and difficult tumor position. The aim of this review is to highlight the state of the art and future perspectives of LLR for HCC, focusing on key points for overcoming currents limitations and pushing the boundaries in minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS).

TARE in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From the Right to the Left of BCLC

The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) system is the most commonly used staging system for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Western countries. BCLC aims to categorize patients into five stages with different prognoses and to allocate treatment according to these stages based on the best possible contemporary evidence. Transarterial radioembolization (TARE) has recently entered at the left of the BCLC algorithm (i.e., BCLC 0-A), mainly because of negative phase III trials in BCLC C stage. TARE has shown a steady increase in nationwide studies over the past 20 years and has even been adopted in some tertiary centers as the primary HCC treatment across all BCLC stages. We aimed to review the history of TARE in HCC, starting from advanced HCC and gradually expanding to earlier stages at the left of the BCLC system.

State-of-the-art surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most commonly diagnosed primary liver tumor with an increasing incidence worldwide. Management of patients with HCC is largely dictated by the presence of cirrhosis, disease stage, underlying liver function, and patient performance status.

PURPOSE

We provide an update on key aspects of surgical treatment options for patients with HCC. RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS: Liver resection and transplantation remain cornerstone treatment options for patients with early-stage disease and constitute the only potentially curative options for HCC. Selection of patients for surgical treatment should include a thorough evaluation of tumor characteristics and biology, as well as evidence-based use of various available treatment options to achieve optimal long-term outcomes for patients with HCC.