Future remnant Liver optimization: preoperative assessment, volume augmentation procedures and management of PVE failure

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for huge hepatocellular carcinoma (≥ than 10 cm): a retrospective analysis from a high-volume referral center

BACKGROUND

There is still poor evidence about the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for huge (> 10 cm) hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC). The aim of this study was to assess the short- and long-term outcomes of LLR versus open liver resection (OLR) for patients with huge HCC from real-life data from consecutive patients.

METHODS

Data regarding all consecutive patients undergoing liver resection for huge HCC were retrospectively collected from a Korean referral HPB center. Primary outcomes were the postoperative results, while secondary outcomes were the oncologic survivals.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients were included in the study: 46 undergoing OLR and 17 LLR. Regarding postoperative outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences in estimated blood loss, operation time, transfusions, postoperative bile leak, ascites, severe complications, and R1 resection rates. After a median follow-up of 48.4 (95% CI 8.9-86.8) months, there were no statistically significant differences in 3 years OS (59.3 ± 8.7 months vs. 85.2 ± 9.8 months) and 5 years OS (31.1 ± 9 months vs. 73.1 ± 14.1 months), after OLR and LLR, respectively (p = 0.10). Similarly, there was not a statistically significant difference in both 3 years DFS (23.5% ± 8.1 months vs. 51.6 ± months) and 5 years DFS (15.7 ± 7.1 months vs. 38.7 ± 15.3 months), respectively (p = 0.13), despite a potential clinically significant difference.

CONCLUSION

LLR for huge HCC may be safe and effective in selected cases. Further studies with larger sample size and more appropriate design are needed to confirm these results.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of liver venous deprivation versus portal vein embolization before hepatectomy: future liver volume, postoperative outcomes, and oncological safety

Introduction

This systematic review aimed to compare liver venous deprivation (LVD) with portal vein embolization (PVE) in terms of future liver volume, postoperative outcomes, and oncological safety before major hepatectomy.

Methods

We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines 2020 and AMSTAR 2 guidelines. Comparative articles published before November 2022 were retained.

Results

The literature search identified nine eligible comparative studies. They included 557 patients, 207 in the LVD group and 350 in the PVE group. This systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that LVD was associated with higher future liver remnant (FLR) volume after embolization, percentage of FLR hypertrophy, lower failure of resection due to low FLR, faster kinetic growth, higher day 5 prothrombin time, and higher 3 years' disease-free survival. This study did not find any difference between the LVD and PVE groups in terms of complications related to embolization, FLR percentage of hypertrophy after embolization, failure of resection, 3-month mortality, overall morbidity, major complications, operative time, blood loss, bile leak, ascites, post hepatectomy liver failure, day 5 bilirubin level, hospital stay, and three years' overall survival.

Conclusion

LVD is as feasible and safe as PVE with encouraging results making some selected patients more suitable for surgery, even with a small FLR.

Systematic review registration

The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO before conducting the study (CRD42021287628).

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for multiple hepatocellular carcinoma within and beyond the Milan criteria: An Eastern-Western propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

There is still little knowledge about the outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for multiple hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC). The aim of this study was to assess the short- and long- term outcomes of LLR versus open liver resection (OLR) for patients with multiple HCC within and beyond the Milan criteria, and in both BCLC-A and -B stage.

METHODS

Data regarding all consecutive patients undergoing liver resection for multiple HCC were retrospectively collected from Asian (South Korean) and European (Italian) referral HPB centers. The cases were propensity-score matched for age, BMI, center, extent of the resection, postero-superior location of the lesion, underlying liver condition, BCLB staging and the Milan criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 203 patients were included in the study: 27% of patients had undergone hemi-hepatectomy, 26.6% atypical resections, 20.6% sectionectomy and 16.2% segmentectomy. After PSM two cohorts of 57 patients were obtained, with no significant differences in all preoperative characteristics. The length of hospital stay was significantly lower after LLR (median 7 vs. 9 days, p < .01), with no statistically significant differences in estimated blood loss, operation time, transfusions, postoperative bile leak, ascites, severe complications and R1 resection rates. After a median follow-up of 61 (±7) months, there were no significant differences between OLR and LLR in both median OS (69 vs. 59 months, p = .74, respectively) and median DFS (12 vs. 10 months, p = .48, respectively).

CONCLUSION

LLR for multiple HCC can be safe and effective in selected cases and is able to shorten median hospital stay without affecting perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes.

Clinical consensus statement: Establishing the roles of locoregional and systemic therapies for the treatment of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma in Canada

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) a leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide and approximately one-third of patients present with intermediate-stage disease. The treatment landscape of intermediate-stage HCC is rapidly evolving due to developments in local, locoregional and systemic therapies. Treatment recommendations focused on this heterogenous disease stage and that take into account the Canadian reality are lacking. To address this gap, a pan-Canadian group of experts in hepatology, transplant, surgery, radiation therapy, nuclear medicine, interventional radiology, and medical oncology came together to develop consensus recommendations on management of intermediate-stage HCC relevant to the Canadian context.

METHODS

A modified Delphi framework was used to develop consensus statements with strengths of recommendation and supporting levels of evidence graded using the AHA/ACC classification system. Tentative consensus statements were drafted based on a systematic search and expert input in a series of iterative feedback cycles and were then circulated via online survey to assess the level of agreement.

RESULTS & CONCLUSION

The pre-defined ratification threshold of 80 % agreement was reached for all statements in the areas of multidisciplinary treatment (n = 4), intra-arterial therapy (n = 14), biologics (n = 5), radiation therapy (n = 3), surgical resection and transplantation (n = 7), and percutaneous ablative therapy (n = 4). These generally reflected an expansion in treatment options due to developments in previously established or emergent techniques, introduction of new and more active therapies and increased therapeutic flexibility. These developments have allowed for greater treatment tailoring and personalization as well as a paradigm shift toward strategies with curative intent in a wider range of disease settings.

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.

Surgical Aspects of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is a rare and aggressive malignancy. It originates from the bile ducts and is the second most common primary cancer of the liver. Surgery is considered the only curative treatment of ICC, offering the best chance for long-term survival. The purpose of this article is to review the available literature on ICC, with a focus on the various aspects of the surgical care in this potentially lethal malignancy.

Selecting the Best Approach for the Treatment of Multiple Non-Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma

According to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system, the optimal strategy for patients with multiple HCC within the Milan Criteria is liver transplantation (LT). However, LT cannot be offered to all the patients due to organ shortages and long waiting lists, as well as because of the advanced disease carrying a high risk of poor outcomes. For early stages, liver resection (LR) or thermal ablation (TA) can be proposed, while trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE) still remains the treatment of choice for intermediate stages (BCLC-B). Asian guidelines and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network suggest LR for resectable multinodular HCCs, even beyond Milan criteria. In this scenario, a growing body of evidence shows better outcomes after surgical resection when compared with TACE. Trans-arterial radioembolization (TARE) and stereotaxic body radiation therapy (SBRT) can also play an important role in this setting. Furthermore, the role of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) specifically for patients with multiple HCC is still not clear. This review aims to summarize current knowledge about the best therapeutical strategy for multiple HCC while focusing on the role of minimally invasive surgery and on the most attractive future perspectives.

Portal vein embolization failure: Current strategies and future perspectives to improve liver hypertrophy before major oncological liver resection

Portal vein embolization (PVE) is currently considered the standard of care to improve the volume of an inadequate future remnant liver (FRL) and decrease the risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). PHLF remains a significant limitation in performing major liver surgery and is the main cause of mortality after resection. The degree of hypertrophy obtained after PVE is variable and depends on multiple factors. Up to 20% of patients fail to undergo the planned surgery because of either an inadequate FRL growth or tumor progression after the PVE procedure (usually 6-8 wk are needed before surgery). The management of PVE failure is still debated, with a lack of consensus regarding the best clinical strategy. Different additional techniques have been proposed, such as sequential transarterial chemoembolization followed by PVE, segment 4 PVE, intra-portal administration of stem cells, dietary supplementation, and hepatic vein embolization. The aim of this review is to summarize the up-to-date strategies to overcome such difficult situations and discuss future perspectives on improving FRL hypertrophy.

Immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A promising therapeutic option for advanced disease

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, and its incidence continues to increase. Despite improvements in both medical and surgical therapies, HCC remains associated with poor outcomes due to its high rates of recurrence and mortality. Approximately 50% of patients require systemic therapies that traditionally consist of tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Recently, however, immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized HCC management, providing new therapeutic options. Despite these major advances, the different factors involved in poor clinical responses and molecular pathways leading to resistance following use of these therapies remain unclear. Alternative strategies, such as adoptive T cell transfer, vaccination, and virotherapy, are currently under evaluation. Combinations of immunotherapies with other systemic or local treatments are also being investigated and may be the most promising opportunities for HCC treatment. The aim of this review is to provide updated information on currently available immunotherapies for HCC as well as future perspectives.

Leaping the Boundaries in Laparoscopic Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

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).