Digital twins to personalize medicine

Personalized medicine requires the integration and processing of vast amounts of data. Here, we propose a solution to this challenge that is based on constructing Digital Twins. These are high-resolution models of individual patients that are computationally treated with thousands of drugs to find the drug that is optimal for the patient

To Alfred Deakin

To access publisher full text version of this article. Please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links fieldBACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) was first performed in Iceland in 1997. Since then, all procedures for presumed benign lesions of the adrenals have been performed laparoscopically in a single center. Compared with conventional adrenalectomy, LA appears to achieve superior results in terms of recovery, hospital stay, and morbidity. This study aimed to evaluate the results of LA in Iceland. METHODS: The hospital records of all patients who underwent LA in Iceland from 1997 through 2005 were reviewed. The preoperative diagnosis was documented, as well as the pathologic diagnosis, operative details, complications, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: In 49 operations, 53 adrenal glands were removed from 48 patients (37 women and 11 men). The mean patient age was 53.6 years (range, 24.4-78.8 years). The left adrenal was removed from 29 patients, the right adrenal from 14 patients, and both adrenals from 5 patients. The most common indications and diagnoses included 17 nonsecreting tumors (12 adenomas, 3 hyperplasias, 1 complex adrenal cyst, and 1 hemangioma), 12 aldosteronomas (10 aldosteronomas and 2 nodular hyperplasias), and 10 pheochromocytomas (9 confirmed, 1 adrenal hyperplasia). Other indications and diagnoses were less common. The mean operative time was 168 min (range, 87-370 min) for unilateral operations and 412 min (range, 345-480 min) for bilateral operations. The mean blood loss was 117 ml (range, 0-650 ml) for unilateral operations and 200 ml (range, 0-350 ml) for bilateral operations. The complications were mild pancreatitis (n = 1), urinary tract infection (n = 1), atelectasis (n = 1), mild congestive heart failure (n = 2), and transient corneal abrasion (n = 1). No conversion to open procedure was needed. The mean tumor size was 3.5 cm (range, 1.5-6.2 cm), and the mean postoperative hospital stay was 2.6 days (range, 1-6 days). CONCLUSION: The results of laparoscopic adrenalectomies in Iceland for benign lesions of the adrenals are comparable with published results from large referral centers

Liver resection is beneficial for patients with colorectal liver metastases and extrahepatic disease

Background: Liver metastases are the most common cause of death for patients with colorectal cancer and affect up to half of the patients. Liver resection is an established method that can potentially be curative. For patients with extrahepatic disease (EHD), the role of liver surgery is less established. Methods: This is a retrospective study based on data from the national quality registry SweLiv. Data were obtained between 2009 and 2015. SweLiv is a validated registry and has been in use since 2009, with coverage above 95%. Patients with liver metastases and EHD were analyzed and cross-checked against the national death cause registry for survival analysis. Results: During the study period, 2,174 patients underwent surgery for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), and 277 patients with EHD were treated with resection or ablation. The estimated median survival time for the entire cohort from liver resection/ablation was 40 months (95% CI, 32-47). The survival time for patients treated with liver resection was 45 months compared to 26 months for patients treated with ablation (95% CI 38-53, 18-33, P=0.001). A subgroup analysis of resected patients revealed that the group with pulmonary metastases had a significantly longer estimated median survival (50 months; 95 % CI, 39-60) than the group with lymph node metastases (32 months; 95% CI, 7-58) or peritoneal carcinomatosis (28 months; 95% CI, 14-41) (P=0.022 and 0.012, respectively). Other negative prognostic factors were major liver resection and nonradical liver resection. Conclusions: For patients with liver metastases and limited EHD, liver resection results in prolonged survival compared to what can be expected from chemotherapy alone

Future Liver Remnant (FLR) Increase in Patients with Colorectal Liver Metastases Is Highest the First Week After Portal Vein Occlusion : FLR Increase in Patients with CRLM Is Highest the First Week After PVO

Background Portal vein occlusion (PVO) is an established method to increase the volume of the future liver remnant (FLR). The main reasons for not proceeding to radical hepatectomy are lack of volume increase and tumor progression due to a wait-time interval of up to 8weeks. The hypothesis was that the increase in FLR volume is not linear and is largest during the first weeks. Methods Patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) and standardized future liver remnant (sFLR) <30% treated with PVO were prospectively included. All patients had at least one CT evaluation before radical hepatectomy. Results Forty-eight patients were included. During the first week after PVO, the kinetic growth rate (KGR) was 5.4 (±4), compared to 1.5 (±2) between the first and second CT (p<0.05). For patients reaching adequate FLR and therefore treated with radical hepatectomy, the KGR was 7 (±4) the first week, compared to 4.3 (±2) for patients who failed to reach a sufficient volume (p=0.4). During the interval between the first and second CT, the KGR was 2.2 (±2), respectively (±0.1) (p=0.017). Discussion The increase in liver volume after PVO is largest during the first week. As KGR decreases over time, it is important to shorten the interval between PVO and the first volume evaluation; this may aid in decision-making and reduce unnecessary waiting time

Development and internal validation of the Comprehensive ALPPS Preoperative Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score: is the patient suitable for Associating Liver Partition and Portal vein ligation for Staged hepatectomy (ALPPS)?

Background Preoperative patient selection in Associating Liver Partition and Portal vein ligation for Staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) is not always reliable with currently available scores, particularly in patients with primary liver tumor. This study aims to (I) to determine whether comorbidities and patients characteristics are a risk factor in ALPPS and (II) to create a score predicting 90-day mortality preoperatively. Methods Thirteen high-volume centers participated in this retrospective multicentric study. A risk analysis based on patient characteristics, underlying disease and procedure type was performed to identify risk factors and model the Comprehensive ALPPS Preoperative Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score. A nonparametric receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to estimate the predictive ability of our score against the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), the age-adjusted CCI (aCCI), the ALPPS risk score before Stage 1 (ALPPS-RS1) and Stage 2 (ALPPS-RS2). The model was internally validated applying bootstrapping. Results A total of 451 patients were included. Mortality was 14.4%. The CAPRA score is calculated based on the following formula: (0.1 × age) - (2 × BSA) + 1 (in the presence of primary liver tumor) + 1 (in the presence of severe cardiovascular disease) + 2 (in the presence of moderate or severe diabetes) + 2 (in the presence of renal disease) + 2 (if classic ALPPS is planned). The predictive ability was 0.837 for the CAPRA score, 0.443 for CCI, 0.519 for aCCI, 0.693 for ALPPS-RS1 and 0.807 for ALPPS-RS2. After 1,000 cycles of bootstrapping the C statistic was 0.793. The accuracy plot revealed a cut-off for optimal prediction of postoperative mortality of 4.70. Conclusions Comorbidities play an important role in ALPPS and should be carefully considered when planning the procedure. By assessing the patient's preoperative condition in relation to ALPPS, the CAPRA score has a very good ability to predict postoperative mortality

Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy in Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: An International, Retrospective, Cohort Study

BackgroundRobot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is increasingly used as an alternative to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer but comparative multicenter studies confirming the safety and efficacy of RDP are lacking.MethodsAn international, multicenter, retrospective, cohort study, including consecutive patients undergoing RDP and LDP for resectable pancreatic cancer in 33 experienced centers from 11 countries (2010-2019). The primary outcome was R0-resection. Secondary outcomes included lymph node yield, major complications, conversion rate, and overall survival.ResultsIn total, 542 patients after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included: 103 RDP (19%) and 439 LDP (81%). The R0-resection rate was comparable (75.7% RDP vs. 69.3% LDP, p = 0.404). RDP was associated with longer operative time (290 vs. 240 min, p < 0.001), more vascular resections (7.6% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.030), lower conversion rate (4.9% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.001), more major complications (26.2% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.019), improved lymph node yield (18 vs. 16, p = 0.021), and longer hospital stay (10 vs. 8 days, p = 0.001). The 90-day mortality (1.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.268) and overall survival (median 28 vs. 31 months, p = 0.599) did not differ significantly between RDP and LDP, respectively.ConclusionsIn selected patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, RDP and LDP provide a comparable R0-resection rate and overall survival in experienced centers. Although the lymph node yield and conversion rate appeared favorable after RDP, LDP was associated with shorter operating time, less major complications, and shorter hospital stay. The specific benefits associated with each approach should be confirmed by multicenter, randomized trials

Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy in Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: An International, Retrospective, Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is increasingly used as an alternative to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer but comparative multicenter studies confirming the safety and efficacy of RDP are lacking. METHODS: An international, multicenter, retrospective, cohort study, including consecutive patients undergoing RDP and LDP for resectable pancreatic cancer in 33 experienced centers from 11 countries (2010-2019). The primary outcome was R0-resection. Secondary outcomes included lymph node yield, major complications, conversion rate, and overall survival. RESULTS: In total, 542 patients after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included: 103 RDP (19%) and 439 LDP (81%). The R0-resection rate was comparable (75.7% RDP vs. 69.3% LDP, p = 0.404). RDP was associated with longer operative time (290 vs. 240 min, p < 0.001), more vascular resections (7.6% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.030), lower conversion rate (4.9% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.001), more major complications (26.2% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.019), improved lymph node yield (18 vs. 16, p = 0.021), and longer hospital stay (10 vs. 8 days, p = 0.001). The 90-day mortality (1.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.268) and overall survival (median 28 vs. 31 months, p = 0.599) did not differ significantly between RDP and LDP, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, RDP and LDP provide a comparable R0-resection rate and overall survival in experienced centers. Although the lymph node yield and conversion rate appeared favorable after RDP, LDP was associated with shorter operating time, less major complications, and shorter hospital stay. The specific benefits associated with each approach should be confirmed by multicenter, randomized trials

Use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery in the European E-MIPS registry

BACKGROUND: The European registry for minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (E-MIPS) collects data on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS in low- and high-volume centers across Europe. METHODS: Analysis of the first year (2019) of the E-MIPS registry, including minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). Primary outcome was 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 959 patients from 54 centers in 15 countries were included, 558 patients underwent MIDP and 401 patients MIPD. Median volume of MIDP was 10 (7-20) and 9 (2-20) for MIPD. Median use of MIDP was 56.0% (IQR 39.0-77.3%) and median use of MIPD 27.7% (IQR 9.7-45.3%). MIDP was mostly performed laparoscopic (401/558, 71.9%) and MIPD mostly robotic (234/401, 58.3%). MIPD was performed in 50/54 (89.3%) centers, of which 15/50 (30.0%) performed ≥20 MIPD annually. This was 30/54 (55.6%) centers and 13/30 (43%) centers for MIPD respectively. Conversion rate was 10.9% for MIDP and 8.4% for MIPD. Overall 90 day mortality was 1.1% (n = 6) for MIDP and 3.7% (n = 15) for MIPD. CONCLUSION: Within the E-MIPS registry, MIDP is performed in about half of all patients, mostly using laparoscopy. MIPD is performed in about a quarter of patients, slightly more often using the robotic approach. A minority of centers met the Miami guideline volume criteria for MIPD