Search

Background: Local ablation is an important treatment for liver cancer in cases of cirrhosis. Liver failure may occur after ablation, especially in advanced liver diseases. Currently, there is no standardization for peri-interventional risk assessment. The liver maximum capacity test (LiMAx) is used to assess functional liver capacity, but there is a lack of exploration of its use in this context., Objective: The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the usefulness of peri-interventional LiMAx measurements in patients with primary or secondary liver cancer who underwent ablation treatment., Methods: A LiMAx test was performed at 24 hours pre- and postablation in 49 patients. Blood parameters were collected to determine liver function using MELD and ALBI scores. The results of the LiMAx test were related with these scores and to critical postintervention LiMAx values., Results: LiMAx values correlated strongly with MELD and ALBI scores before the intervention and reflected the change in liver function, as shown by an increase in scores after the intervention. Notably, LiMAx values decreased during the intervention. AUC analysis for patients at risk of reaching a critical liver level after the intervention showed a cutoff value of 186μg/kg/h., Conclusions: The LiMAx test may be a valuable tool in liver ablation for both peri-interventional monitoring of liver function and preintervention risk assessment.

Background and Objective: Liver function is one of the most important parameters for the outcome of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). The liver maximum capacity (LiMAx) test is a bedside test that provides a real-time option for liver function testing. The objective of this pilot study was to investigate the suitability of the LiMAX test for predicting the TACE outcome., Methods: 20 patients with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) received a LiMAx test 24 h pre and post TACE. In addition, laboratory values were collected to determine liver function and model for endstage liver disease (MELD) scores. The success of TACE was assessed 6 weeks post intervention by morphological imaging tests using modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (mRECIST)., Results: Patients with an objective response (OR = CR + PR) according to mRECIST post TACE had significantly higher values in the pre-interventional LiMAx test than patients with a non-OR (PD or SD) post TACE (r(14) = 0.62, p = 0.01). Higher pre-interventional LiMAx values therefore indicate OR. Patients with a disease control (DC = CR + PR + SD) according to mRECIST post TACE had significantly higher values in the pre-interventional LiMAx test than patients with a non-DC (PD) post TACE (r(14) = 0.65, p = 0.01). Higher pre-interventional LiMAx values therefore indicate DC. The point biserial correlations of LiMAx values pre and post TACE with the outcome OR or DC were descriptively stronger than those of MELD with OR or DC. This suggests that the LiMAx test correlates better with the treatment response than the MELD score., Conclusions: For the first time, we were able to show in our study that patients who are scheduled for TACE could benefit from a LiMAx test to be able to estimate the benefit of TACE. The higher the pre-interventional LiMAx values, the higher the benefit of TACE. On the other hand, laboratory parameters summarized in the form of the MELD score had significantly less descriptive correlation with the TACE outcome.