Pioneering Robotic Liver Surgery in Germany: First Experiences with Liver Malignancies

Background Minimally invasive liver surgery is growing worldwide with obvious benefits for the treated patients. These procedures maybe improved by robotic techniques, which add several innovative features. In Germany, we were the first surgical department implementing robotic assisted minimally invasive liver resections. Material and methods Between June 2013 and March 2015, we performed robotic based minimally invasive liver resections in nine patients with malignant liver disease. Five off these patients suffered from primary and four from secondary liver malignancies. We retrospectively analyzed the perioperative variables of these patients and the oncological follow up. Results Mean age of the patients was 63 years (range 45–71). One patient suffered from intrahepatic cholangiocellular, four from hepatocellular carcinoma, and four patients from colorectal liver metastases. In six patients, left lateral liver resection, in two cases single segment resection, and in one case minimally invasive guided liver ablation were performed. Five patients underwent previous abdominal surgery. Mean operation time was 312 min (range 115–458 min). Mean weight of the liver specimens was 182 g (range 62–260 g) and mean estimated blood loss was 251 ml (range 10–650 ml). The mean tumor size was 4.4 cm (range 3.5–5.5 cm). In all cases, R0 status was confirmed with a mean margin of 0.6 cm (range 0.1–1.5 cm). One patient developed small bowel fistula on postoperative day 5, which could be treated conservatively. No patient died. Mean hospital stay of the patients was 6 days (range 3–10 days). During a mean follow up of 12 months (range 1–21 months), two patients developed tumor recurrence. Conclusion Robotic-based liver surgery is feasible in patients with primary and secondary liver malignancies. To achieve perioperative parameters comparable to open settings, the learning curve must be passed. Minor liver resections are good candidates to start this technique. But the huge benefits of robotic-based liver resections should be expected in extended procedures beyond minor liver resections with the currently available technology

Identification of Predictive Markers for Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation in Rectal Carcinomas by Proteomic Isotope Coded Protein Label (ICPL) Analysis

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) is an established procedure in stage union internationale contre le cancer (UICC) II/III rectal carcinomas. Around 53% of the tumours present with good tumor regression after nCRT, and 8%-15% are complete responders. Reliable selection markers would allow the identification of poor or non-responders prior to therapy. Tumor biopsies were harvested from 20 patients with rectal carcinomas, and stored in liquid nitrogen prior to therapy after obtaining patients’ informed consent (Erlangen-No.3784). Patients received standardized nCRT with 5-Fluoruracil (nCRT I) or 5-Fluoruracil ± Oxaliplatin (nCRT II) according to the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 protocol. After surgery, regression grading (Dworak) of the tumors was performed during histopathological examination of the specimens. Tumors were classified as poor (Dworak 1 + 2) or good (Dworak 3 + 4) responders. Laser capture microdissection (LCM) for tumor enrichment was performed on preoperative biopsies. Differences in expressed proteins between poor and good responders to nCRT I and II were identified by proteomic analysis (Isotope Coded Protein Label, ICPL™) and selected markers were validated by immunohistochemistry. Tumors of 10 patients were classified as histopathologically poor (Dworak 1 or 2) and the other 10 tumor samples as histopathologically good (Dworak 3 or 4) responders to nCRT after surgery. Sufficient material in good quality was harvested for ICPL analysis by LCM from all biopsies. We identified 140 differentially regulated proteins regarding the selection criteria and the response to nCRT. Fourteen of these proteins were synchronously up-regulated at least 1.5-fold after nCRT I or nCRT II (e.g., FLNB, TKT, PKM2, SERINB1, IGHG2). Thirty-five proteins showed a complete reciprocal regulation (up or down) after nCRT I or nCRT II and the rest was regulated either according to nCRT I or II. The protein expression of regulated proteins such as PLEC1, TKT, HADHA and TAGLN was validated successfully by immunohistochemistry. ICPL is a valid method to identify differentially expressed proteins in rectal carcinoma tissue between poor vs. good responders to nCRT. The identified protein markers may act as selection criteria for nCRT in the future, but our preliminary findings must be reproduced and validated in a prospective cohort