Search

Background: There is still debate regarding the principal role and ideal timing of perioperative chemotherapy (CTx) for patients with upfront resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This study assesses long-term oncological outcomes in patients receiving neoadjuvant CTx only versus those receiving neoadjuvant combined with adjuvant therapy (perioperative CTx). Methods: International multicentre retrospective analysis of patients with CRLM undergoing liver resection between 2010 and 2015. Characteristics and outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM). Primary endpoints were long-term oncological outcomes, such as recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Furthermore, stratification by the tumour burden score (TBS) was applied. Results: Of 967 patients undergoing hepatectomy, 252 were analysed, with a median follow-up of 45 months. The unmatched comparison revealed a bias towards patients with neoadjuvant CTx presenting with more high-risk patients (p = 0.045) and experiencing increased postoperative complications ≥Clavien-Dindo III (20.9% vs. 8%, p = 0.003). Multivariable analysis showed that perioperative CTx was associated with significantly improved RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.579, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.420–0.800, p = 0.001) and OS (HR 0.579, 95% CI 0.403–0.834, p = 0.003). After PSM (n = 180 patients), the two groups were comparable regarding baseline characteristics. The perioperative CTx group presented with a significantly prolonged RFS (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37–0.76, p = 0.007) and OS (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38–0.87, p = 0.010) in both low and high TBS patients. Conclusions: When patients after resection of CRLM are able to tolerate additional postoperative CTx, a perioperative strategy demonstrates increased RFS and OS in comparison with neoadjuvant CTx only in both low and high-risk situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common cancers with an increasing incidence and high mortality rate worldwide. Surgical resection is still an essential curative-intent treatment for improving the prognosis of patients with HCC. Due to the concomitance of HCC with cirrhosis, chronic liver disease, alcohol consumption and its complications, clinical treatment is challenging. Despite the rational approaches to prevention that have been developed, many patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage and are not eligible for surgical treatment, for example, because of poor underlying liver function or extrahepatic disease spread. The recurrence rates after curative resection still remain high. The implementation of neoadjuvant therapy in HCC management plays an important role in preventing tumor progression, but also shows promising results in downstaging HCC to enable surgical resection. The absence of randomized controlled trials leaves uncertainty in improving outcome, and consensus guidelines are lacking. In this review article, we summarize the clinical efficacy of evolving neoadjuvant treatments for patients with intermediate or advanced stage HCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Non-operative management (NOM) is increasingly utilised in blunt abdominal trauma. The 1994 American Association of Surgery of Trauma grading (1994-AAST) is applied for clinical decision-making in many institutions. Recently, classifications incorporating contrast extravasation such as the CT severity index (CTSI) and 2018 update of the liver and spleen AAST were proposed to predict outcome and guide treatment, but validation is pending. Methods: CT images of patients admitted 2000–2016 with blunt splenic and hepatic injury were systematically re-evaluated for 1994/2018-AAST and CTSI grading. Diagnostic accuracy, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for prediction of in-hospital mortality. Correlation with treatment strategy was assessed by Cramer V statistics. Results: Seven hundred and three patients were analysed, 271 with splenic, 352 with hepatic and 80 with hepatosplenic injury. Primary NOM was applied in 83% of patients; mortality was 4.8%. Comparing prediction of mortality in mild and severe splenic injuries, the CTSI (3.1% vs. 10.3%; diagnostic accuracy = 75.4%; DOR = 3.66; p = 0.006) and 1994-AAST (3.3% vs. 10.5%; diagnostic accuracy = 77.9%; DOR = 3.45; p = 0.010) were more accurate compared with the 2018-AAST (3.4% vs. 8%; diagnostic accuracy = 68.2%; DOR = 2.50; p = 0.059). In hepatic injuries, the CTSI was superior to both AAST classifications in terms of diagnostic accuracy (88.7% vs. 77.1% and 77.3%, respectively). CTSI and 2018-AAST correlated better with the need for surgery in severe vs. mild hepatic (Cramer V = 0.464 and 0.498) and splenic injuries (Cramer V = 0.273 and 0.293) compared with 1994-AAST (Cramer V = 0.389 and 0.255; all p < 0.001). Conclusions: The 2018-AAST and CTSI are superior to the 1994-AAST in correlation with operative treatment in splenic and hepatic trauma. The CTSI outperforms the 2018-AAST in mortality prediction. Key Points: • Non-operative management of blunt abdominal trauma is increasingly applied and correct patient stratification is crucial. • CT-based scoring systems are used to assess injury severity and guide clinical decision-making, whereby the 1994 version of the American Association of Surgery of Trauma Organ Injury Scale (AAST-OIS) is currently most commonly utilised. • Including contrast media extravasation in CT-based grading improves management and outcome prediction. While the 2018-AAST classification and the CT-severity-index (CTSI) better correlate with need for surgery compared to the 1994-AAST, the CTSI is superior in outcome-prediction to the 2018-AAST. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Despite technical advances in surgical resection and postoperative management of the pancreas, surgical procedures of the pancreas are associated with a high rate of complications, resulting in a relevant morbidity and mortality. Early diagnosis and management of complications associated with pancreas surgery is mandatory, favoring a multidisciplinary approach. Methods: Interventional radiology offers minimal invasive techniques to manage post-surgical complications. These procedures are highlighted in this review, including percutaneous drainage of fluid collections, percutaneous transhepatic biliary interventions, arterial embolisation and fistula embolisation. Results: Post-surgical complications of pancreatic surgery are effectively managed by radiological procedures, offering a feasible and safe treatment with low morbidity rates. Accurate patient selection is key to an effective management of clinical situations where these interventions represent the first line approach. Conclusions: Radiologic procedures allow for minimal invasive treatment of postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery, reducing the time of hospitalization and the time of recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Introduced in the mid-1990s, minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) developed slowly over the next two decades, and its real-life benefits remained unclear. Methods: In this review, the current status and evidence on the most common types of MIPS, such as minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD), distal pancreatectomy, enucleation, and central pancreatectomy are presented. Results: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is the most frequently used procedure among these, and its indications are nowadays expanding. MIDP for benign and low-grade malignant tumors is advantageous compared to the open approach, suggesting less intraoperative blood loss, shorter hospital stay, faster functional recovery, and better quality of life. The oncological adequacy of MIDP in pancreatic cancer is unclear, as no randomized trials have been published. In contrast, MIPD is a technically challenging procedure performed in a small number of centers and in a selected group of patients. Its use remains controversial, as conflicting data have been reported in the literature. Annual volume and learning curve seem to be the key determinants of safety in MIPD. Minimally invasive pancreatic enucleation and central pancreatectomy are less common. Although one randomized trial was published on minimally invasive vs. open central pancreatectomy, current evidence on these procedures is mostly based on retrospective, single-institution series clearly affected by selection bias and small sample size. Conclusion: Well-designed prospective studies based on national registries are needed to expand knowledge on MIPS and determine its role in pancreatic surgery. To facilitate further development of MIPS, it has to integrate effectively with the outcome-improving effect of a dedicated pancreatic team. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Owing to remarkable improvements of surgical techniques and associated specialities, liver surgery has become the standard of care for hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma. Although applied with much greater safety, hepatic resections for primary liver tumours remain challenging and need to be integrated in a complex multidisciplinary treatment approach.Methods: This literature review gives an update on the recent developments regarding basics of open and laparoscopic liver surgery and surgical strategies for primary liver tumours.Results: Single-centre reports and multicentre registries mainly from Asia and Europe dominate the surgical literature on primary liver tumours, but the numbers of randomized trials are slowly increasing. Perioperative outcomes of open liver surgery for hepatocellular and cholangiocellular carcinoma have vastly improved over the last decades, accompanied by some progress in terms of oncological outcome. The laparoscopic approach is increasingly being applied in many centres, even for patients with underlying liver disease, and may result in decreased morbidity. Liver transplantation represents a cornerstone in the treatment of early hepatocellular carcinoma and is indispensable to achieve long-term survival. In contrast, resection remains the gold standard for cholangiocarcinoma in most countries, but interventional techniques are on the rise.Conclusion: Liver surgery for primary tumours is complex, with a need for high expertise in a multidisciplinary team to achieve acceptable outcomes. Technical developments and clinical stratification tools have optimized individual care, but further improvements in oncological survival will likely require enhanced pre- and postoperative systemic and local treatment options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Surgical resection is the gold standard treatment for colorectal liver metastasis, with reported five-year survival rates of 40 %. Unfortunately, despite progress in systemic therapies and surgical techniques, only 20-30 % of patients can be offered this potentially curative treatment modality. Ablative therapies have recently been suggested to treat unresectable lesions or to extend the margins of resectability. Additionally, cases of local recurrence after hepatic surgery might require alternative strategies and options for re-intervention. Microwave ablation (MWA) has recently become a matter of particular interest for such indications. We, herein, present a review of the literature published between January 1999 and June 2013 from a database search with the following keywords: microwave, ablation, liver metastases, colorectal neoplasm, resection, hepatectomy, colonic neoplasm, cancer. Furthermore, we provide insight based on our own data for 28 consecutive patients who underwent hepatic resection combined with MWA from 2005 to 2012 in a single centre. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]