Resectability of bilobar liver tumours after simultaneous portal and hepatic vein embolization versus portal vein embolization alone: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many patients with bi-lobar liver tumours are not eligible for liver resection due to an insufficient future liver remnant (FLR). To reduce the risk of posthepatectomy liver failure and the primary cause of death, regenerative procedures intent to increase the FLR before surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of the available literature and outcomes on the effectiveness of simultaneous portal and hepatic vein embolization (PVE/HVE) versus portal vein embolization (PVE) alone.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase up to September 2022. The primary outcome was resectability and the secondary outcome was the FLR volume increase.

RESULTS

Eight studies comparing PVE/HVE with PVE and six retrospective PVE/HVE case series were included. Pooled resectability within the comparative studies was 75 per cent in the PVE group (n = 252) versus 87 per cent in the PVE/HVE group (n = 166, OR 1.92 (95% c.i., 1.13-3.25)) favouring PVE/HVE (P = 0.015). After PVE, FLR hypertrophy between 12 per cent and 48 per cent (after a median of 21-30 days) was observed, whereas growth between 36 per cent and 67 per cent was reported after PVE/HVE (after a median of 17-31 days). In the comparative studies, 90-day primary cause of death was similar between groups (2.5 per cent after PVE versus 2.2 per cent after PVE/HVE), but a higher 90-day primary cause of death was reported in single-arm PVE/HVE cohort studies (6.9 per cent, 12 of 175 patients).

CONCLUSION

Based on moderate/weak evidence, PVE/HVE seems to increase resectability of bi-lobar liver tumours with a comparable safety profile. Additionally, PVE/HVE resulted in faster and more pronounced hypertrophy compared with PVE alone.

Dragon 1 Protocol Manuscript: Training, Accreditation, Implementation and Safety Evaluation of Portal and Hepatic Vein Embolization (PVE/HVE) to Accelerate Future Liver Remnant (FLR) Hypertrophy

STUDY PURPOSE

The DRAGON 1 trial aims to assess training, implementation, safety and feasibility of combined portal- and hepatic-vein embolization (PVE/HVE) to accelerate future liver remnant (FLR) hypertrophy in patients with borderline resectable colorectal cancer liver metastases.

METHODS

The DRAGON 1 trial is a worldwide multicenter prospective single arm trial. The primary endpoint is a composite of the safety of PVE/HVE, 90-day mortality, and one year accrual monitoring of each participating center. Secondary endpoints include: feasibility of resection, the used PVE and HVE techniques, FLR-hypertrophy, liver function (subset of centers), overall survival, and disease-free survival. All complications after the PVE/HVE procedure are documented. Liver volumes will be measured at week 1 and if applicable at week 3 and 6 after PVE/HVE and follow-up visits will be held at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the resection.

RESULTS

Not applicable.

CONCLUSION

DRAGON 1 is a prospective trial to assess the safety and feasibility of PVE/HVE. Participating study centers will be trained, and procedures standardized using Work Instructions (WI) to prepare for the DRAGON 2 randomized controlled trial. Outcomes should reveal the accrual potential of centers, safety profile of combined PVE/HVE and the effect of FLR-hypertrophy induction by PVE/HVE in patients with CRLM and a small FLR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04272931 (February 17, 2020). Toestingonline.nl: NL71535.068.19 (September 20, 2019).

Predictive Factors for Hypertrophy of the Future Liver Remnant After Portal Vein Embolization: A Systematic Review

This systematic review was conducted to determine factors that are associated with the degree of hypertrophy of the future liver remnant following portal vein embolization. An extensive search on September 15, 2020, and subsequent literature screening resulted in the inclusion of forty-eight articles with 3368 patients in qualitative analysis, of which 18 studies were included in quantitative synthesis. Meta-analyses based on a limited number of studies showed an increase in hypertrophy response when additional embolization of segment 4 was performed (pooled difference of medians = − 3.47, 95% CI − 5.51 to − 1.43) and the use of N-butyl cyanoacrylate for portal vein embolization induced more hypertrophy than polyvinyl alcohol (pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.60, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.91). There was no indication of a difference in degree of hypertrophy between patients who received neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and those who did not receive pre-procedural systemic therapy

(pooled SMD = − 0.37, 95% CI − 1.35 to 0.61), or between male and female patients (pooled SMD = 0.19, 95% CI − 0.12 to 0.50).

The study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on April 28, 2020 (CRD42020175708).

Extended Resections for Advanced Gallbladder Cancer: Results from a Nationwide Cohort Study

Background

Extended resections (i.e., major hepatectomy and/or pancreatoduodenectomy) are rarely performed for gallbladder cancer (GBC) because outcomes remain inconclusive. Data regarding extended resections from Western centers are sparse. This Dutch, multicenter cohort study analyzed the outcomes of patients who underwent extended resections for locally advanced GBC.

Methods

Patients with GBC who underwent extended resection with curative intent between January 2000 and September 2018 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Extended resection was defined as a major hepatectomy (resection of ≥ 3 liver segments), a pancreatoduodenectomy, or both. Treatment and survival data were obtained. Postoperative morbidity, mortality, survival, and characteristics of short- and long-term survivors were assessed.

Results

The study included 33 patients. For 16 of the patients, R0 resection margins were achieved. Major postoperative complications (Clavien Dindo ≥ 3A) occurred for 19 patients, and 4 patients experienced postoperative mortality within 90 days. Recurrence occurred for 24 patients. The median overall survival (OS) was 12.8 months (95% confidence interval, 6.5–19.0 months). A 2-year survival period was achieved for 10 patients (30%) and a 5-year survival period for 5 patients (15%). Common bile duct, liver, perineural and perivascular invasion and jaundice were associated with reduced survival. All three recurrence-free patients had R0 resection margins and no liver invasion.

Conclusion

The median OS after extended resections for advanced GBC was 12.8 months in this cohort. Although postoperative morbidity and mortality were significant, long-term survival (≥ 2 years) was achieved in a subset of patients. Therefore, GBC requiring major surgery does not preclude long-term survival, and a subgroup of patients benefit from surgery.

Effect of structured use of preoperative portal vein embolization on outcomes after liver resection of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma

Background

Portal vein embolization (PVE) is performed to reduce the risk of liver failure and subsequent mortality after major liver resection. Although a cut‐off value of 2·7 per cent per min per m² has been used with hepatobiliary scintigraphy (HBS) for future remnant liver function (FRLF), patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) potentially benefit from an additional cut‐off of 8·5 per cent/min (not corrected for body surface area). Since January 2016 a more liberal approach to PVE has been adopted, including this additional cut‐off for HBS of 8·5 per cent/min. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of this approach on liver failure and mortality.

Methods

This was a single‐centre retrospective study in which consecutive patients undergoing liver resection under suspicion of PHC in 2000–2015 were compared with patients treated in 2016–2019, after implementation of the more liberal approach. Primary outcomes were postoperative liver failure (International Study Group of Liver Surgery grade B/C) and 90‐day mortality.

Results

Some 191 patients with PHC underwent liver resection. PVE was performed in 6·4 per cent (9 of 141) of the patients treated in 2000–2015 and in 32 per cent (16 of 50) of those treated in 2016–2019. The 90‐day mortality rate decreased from 16·3 per cent (23 of 141) to 2 per cent (1 of 50) (P = 0·009), together with a decrease in the rate of liver failure from 19·9 per cent (28 of 141) to 4 per cent (2 of 50) (P = 0·008). In 2016–2019, 24 patients had a FRLF greater than 8·5 per cent/min and no liver failure or death occurred, suggesting that 8·5 per cent/min is a reliable cut‐off for patients with suspected PHC.

Conclusion

The major decrease in liver failure and mortality rates in recent years and the simultaneous increased use of PVE suggests an important role for PVE in reducing adverse outcomes after surgery for PHC.

Adjuvant hepatic arterial infusion pump chemotherapy and resection versus resection alone in patients with low-risk resectable colorectal liver metastases - the multicenter randomized controlled PUMP trial

Background

Recurrences are reported in 70% of all patients after resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), in which half are confined to the liver. Adjuvant hepatic arterial infusion pump (HAIP) chemotherapy aims to reduce the risk of intrahepatic recurrence. A large retrospective propensity score analysis demonstrated that HAIP chemotherapy is particularly effective in patients with low-risk oncological features. The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) --the PUMP trial-- is to investigate the efficacy of adjuvant HAIP chemotherapy in low-risk patients with resectable CRLM.

Methods

This is an open label multicenter RCT. A total of 230 patients with resectable CRLM without extrahepatic disease will be included. Only patients with a clinical risk score (CRS) of 0 to 2 are eligible, meaning: patients are allowed to have no more than two out of five poor prognostic factors (disease-free interval less than 12 months, node-positive colorectal cancer, more than 1 CRLM, largest CRLM more than 5 cm in diameter, serum Carcinoembryonic Antigen above 200 μg/L). Patients randomized to arm A undergo complete resection of CRLM without any adjuvant treatment, which is the standard of care in the Netherlands. Patients in arm B receive an implantable pump at the time of CRLM resection and start adjuvant HAIP chemotherapy 4–12 weeks after surgery, with 6 cycles of floxuridine scheduled. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints include overall survival, hepatic PFS, safety, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Pharmacokinetics of intra-arterial administration of floxuridine will be investigated as well as predictive biomarkers for the efficacy of HAIP chemotherapy. In a side study, the accuracy of CT angiography will be compared to radionuclide scintigraphy to detect extrahepatic perfusion. We hypothesize that adjuvant HAIP chemotherapy leads to improved survival, improved quality of life, and a reduction of costs, compared to resection alone.

Discussion

If this PUMP trial demonstrates that adjuvant HAIP chemotherapy improves survival in low-risk patients, this treatment approach may be implemented in the standard of care of patients with resected CRLM since adjuvant systemic chemotherapy alone has not improved survival.

Trial registration

The PUMP trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), number: 7493. Date of registration September 23, 2018.

Histological and Molecular Subclassification of Pancreatic and Nonpancreatic Periampullary Cancers: Implications for (Neo) Adjuvant Systemic Treatment

The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has been confirmed in randomized controlled trials. For nonpancreatic periampullary cancers (NPPC) originating from the distal bile duct, duodenum, ampulla, or papilla of Vater, the role of adjuvant therapy remains largely unclear. This review describes methods for distinguishing PDAC from NPPC by means of readily available and recently developed molecular diagnostic methods. The difficulties of reliably determining the exact origin of these cancers pathologically also is discussed. The review also considers the possibility of unintentional inclusion of NPPC in the most important adjuvant trials on PDAC and the subsequent implications for interpretation of the results. The authors conclude that correct determination of the origin of periampullary cancers is essential for clinical management and should therefore be systematically incorporated into clinical practice and future studies.