A nationwide assessment of hepatocellular adenoma resection:Indications and pathological discordance

Hepatocellular adenomas (HCAs) are benign liver tumors associated with bleeding or malignant transformation. Data on the indication for surgery are scarce. We analyzed indications and outcome of patients operated for HCAs 50 mm (52%), suspicion of (pre)malignancy (28%), and (previous) bleeding (5.1%). No difference was observed in HCA-subtype distribution between small and large tumors. Ninety-six (43%) patients had a postoperative change in diagnosis. Independent risk factors for change in diagnosis were tumor size <50 mm (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.4; p < 0.01), male sex (aOR, 3.7; p = 0.03), and lack of hepatobiliary contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) (aOR, 1.8; p = 0.04). Resection for small (suspected) HCAs was mainly indicated by suspicion of (pre)malignancy, whereas for large (suspected) HCAs, tumor size was the most prevalent indication. Male sex, tumor size <50 mm, and lack of hepatobiliary CE-MRI were independent risk factors for postoperative change in tumor diagnosis

ICG-Fluorescence Imaging for Margin Assessment during Minimally Invasive Colorectal Liver Metastasis Resection

Importance: Unintended tumor-positive resection margins occur frequently during minimally invasive surgery for colorectal liver metastases and potentially negatively influence oncologic outcomes. Objective: To assess whether indocyanine green (ICG)-fluorescence-guided surgery is associated with achieving a higher radical resection rate in minimally invasive colorectal liver metastasis surgery and to assess the accuracy of ICG fluorescence for predicting the resection margin status. Design, Setting, and Participants: The MIMIC (Minimally Invasive, Indocyanine-Guided Metastasectomy in Patients With Colorectal Liver Metastases) trial was designed as a prospective single-arm multicenter cohort study in 8 Dutch liver surgery centers. Patients were scheduled to undergo minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) resections of colorectal liver metastases between September 1, 2018, and June 30, 2021. Exposures: All patients received a single intravenous bolus of 10 mg of ICG 24 hours prior to surgery. During surgery, ICG-fluorescence imaging was used as an adjunct to ultrasonography and regular laparoscopy to guide and assess the resection margin in real time. The ICG-fluorescence imaging was performed during and after liver parenchymal transection to enable real-time assessment of the tumor margin. Absence of ICG fluorescence was favorable both during transection and in the tumor bed directly after resection. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was the radical (R0) resection rate, defined by the percentage of colorectal liver metastases resected with at least a 1 mm distance between the tumor and resection plane. Secondary outcomes were the accuracy of ICG fluorescence in detecting margin-positive (R1; &lt;1 mm margin) resections and the change in surgical management. Results: In total, 225 patients were enrolled, of whom 201 (116 [57.7%] male; median age, 65 [IQR, 57-72] years) with 316 histologically proven colorectal liver metastases were included in the final analysis. The overall R0 resection rate was 92.4%. Re-resection of ICG-fluorescent tissue in the resection cavity was associated with a 5.0% increase in the R0 percentage (from 87.4% to 92.4%; P &lt;.001). The sensitivity and specificity for real-time resection margin assessment were 60% and 90%, respectively (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.751; 95% CI, 0.668-0.833), with a positive predictive value of 54% and a negative predictive value of 92%. After training and proctoring of the first procedures, participating centers that were new to the technique had a comparable false-positive rate for predicting R1 resections during the first 10 procedures (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.44-4.24). The ICG-fluorescence imaging was associated with changes in intraoperative surgical management in 56 (27.9%) of the patients. Conclusions and Relevance: In this multicenter prospective cohort study, ICG-fluorescence imaging was associated with an increased rate of tumor margin-negative resection and changes in surgical management in more than one-quarter of the patients. The absence of ICG fluorescence during liver parenchymal transection predicted an R0 resection with 92% accuracy. These results suggest that use of ICG fluorescence may provide real-time feedback of the tumor margin and a higher rate of complete oncologic resection.</p

The orange-III study: the use of preoperative laxatives prior to liver surgery in an enhanced recovery programme, a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the effect of preoperative macrogol on gastrointestinal recovery and functional recovery after liver surgery combined with an enhanced recovery programme in a randomized controlled setting. METHODS: Patients were randomized to either 1 sachet of macrogol a day, one week prior to surgery versus no preoperative laxatives. Postoperative management for all patients was within an enhanced recovery programme. The primary outcome was recovery of gastrointestinal function, defined as Time to First Defecation. Secondary outcomes included Time to Functional Recovery. RESULTS: Between August 2012 and September 2016, 82 patients planned for liver resection were included in the study, 39 in the intervention group and 43 in the control group. Median Time to First Defecation was 4.0 days in the intervention group (IQR 2.8-5.0) and 4.0 days in the control group (IQR 2.9-5.0), P = 0.487. Median Time to Functional Recovery was day 6 (IQR 4.0-8.0) in the intervention group and day 5 (IQR 4.0-7.5) in the control group, P = 0.752. No significant differences were seen in complication rate, reinterventions or mortality. CONCLUSION: This randomized controlled trial showed no advantages of 1 sachet of macrogol preoperatively combined with an enhanced recovery programme, for patients undergoing liver surgery

To drain or not to drain: a cumulative meta-analysis of the use of routine abdominal drains after pancreatic resection

Contains fulltext : 117870.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)BACKGROUND: To warrant the adoption or rejection of health care interventions in daily practice, it is important to establish the point at which the available evidence is considered sufficiently conclusive. This process must avoid bias resulting from multiple testing and take account of heterogeneity across studies. The present paper addresses the issue of whether the available evidence may be considered sufficiently conclusive to continue or discontinue the current practice of postoperative abdominal drainage after pancreatic resection. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of randomized and non-randomized studies comparing outcomes after routine intra-abdominal drainage with those after no drainage after pancreatic resection. Studies were retrieved from the PubMed, Cochrane Central Trial Register and EMBASE databases and meta-analysed cumulatively, adjusting for multiple testing and heterogeneity using the iterated logarithm method. RESULTS: Three reports, describing, respectively, one randomized and two non-randomized studies with a comparative design, met the inclusion criteria predefined for primary studies reporting on drain management and complications after pancreatic resection. These studies included 89, 179 and 226 patients, respectively. The absolute differences in rates of postoperative complications in these studies were -6.4%, -9.5% and -6.3%, respectively, in favour of the no-drain groups. The cumulative risk difference in major complications, adjusted for multiple testing and heterogeneity, was -7.8%, with a 95% confidence interval of -20.2% to 4.7% (P = 0.214). CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of abdominal drains after pancreatic resection may result in a higher risk for major complications, but the evidence is inconclusive

Nerve fibers in the tumor microenvironment in neurotropic cancer : pancreatic cancer and cholangiocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) are both deadly cancers and they share many biological features besides their close anatomical location. One of the main histological features is neurotropism, which results in frequent perineural invasion. The underlying mechanism of cancer cells favoring growth by and through the nerve fibers is not fully understood. In this review, we provide knowledge of these cancers with frequent perineural invasion. We discuss nerve fiber crosstalk with the main different components of the tumor microenvironment (TME), the immune cells, and the fibroblasts. Also, we discuss the crosstalk between the nerve fibers and the cancer. We highlight the shared signaling pathways of the mechanisms behind perineural invasion in PDAC and CCA. Hereby we have focussed on signaling neurotransmitters and neuropeptides which may be a target for future therapies. Furthermore, we have summarized retrospective results of the previous literature about nerve fibers in PDAC and CCA patients. We provide our point of view in the potential for nerve fibers to be used as powerful biomarker for prognosis, as a tool to stratify patients for therapy or as a target in a (combination) therapy. Taking the presence of nerves into account can potentially change the field of personalized care in these neurotropic cancers

Study protocol for a multicentre nationwide prospective cohort study to investigate the natural course and clinical outcome in benign liver tumours and cysts in the Netherlands: the BELIVER study

Introduction Benign liver tumours and cysts (BLTCs) comprise a heterogeneous group of cystic and solid lesions, including hepatic haemangioma, focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatocellular adenoma. Some BLTCs, for example, (large) hepatocellular adenoma, are at risk of complications. Incidence of malignant degeneration or haemorrhage is low in most other BLTCs. Nevertheless, the diagnosis BLTC may carry a substantial burden and patients may be symptomatic, necessitating treatment. The indications for interventions remain matter of debate. The primary study aim is to investigate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of patients with BLTCs, with special regards to the influence of invasive treatment as compared with the natural course of the disease. Methods and analysis A nationwide observational cohort study of patients with BLTC will be performed between October 2021 and October 2026, the minimal follow-up will be 2 years. During surveillance, a questionnaire regarding symptoms and their impact will be sent to participants on a biannual basis and more often in case of invasive intervention. The questionnaire was previously developed based on PROs considered relevant to patients with BLTCs and their caregivers. Most questionnaires will be administered by computerised adaptive testing through the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. Data, such as treatment outcomes, will be extracted from electronic patient files. Multivariable analysis will be performed to identify patient and tumour characteristics associated with significant improvement in PROs or a complicated postoperative course. Ethics and dissemination The study was assessed by the Medical Ethics Committee of the University Medical Center Groningen and the Amsterdam UMC. Local consultants will provide information and informed consent will be asked of all patients. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Study registration NL8231 - 10 December 2019; Netherlands Trial Register

Study protocol for a multicentre nationwide prospective cohort study to investigate the natural course and clinical outcome in benign liver tumours and cysts in the Netherlands: the BELIVER study

Introduction Benign liver tumours and cysts (BLTCs) comprise a heterogeneous group of cystic and solid lesions, including hepatic haemangioma, focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatocellular adenoma. Some BLTCs, for example, (large) hepatocellular adenoma, are at risk of complications. Incidence of malignant degeneration or haemorrhage is low in most other BLTCs. Nevertheless, the diagnosis BLTC may carry a substantial burden and patients may be symptomatic, necessitating treatment. The indications for interventions remain matter of debate. The primary study aim is to investigate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of patients with BLTCs, with special regards to the influence of invasive treatment as compared with the natural course of the disease. Methods and analysis A nationwide observational cohort study of patients with BLTC will be performed between October 2021 and October 2026, the minimal follow-up will be 2 years. During surveillance, a questionnaire regarding symptoms and their impact will be sent to participants on a biannual basis and more often in case of invasive intervention. The questionnaire was previously developed based on PROs considered relevant to patients with BLTCs and their caregivers. Most questionnaires will be administered by computerised adaptive testing through the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. Data, such as treatment outcomes, will be extracted from electronic patient files. Multivariable analysis will be performed to identify patient and tumour characteristics associated with significant improvement in PROs or a complicated postoperative course. Ethics and dissemination The study was assessed by the Medical Ethics Committee of the University Medical Center Groningen and the Amsterdam UMC. Local consultants will provide information and informed consent will be asked of all patients. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Study registration NL8231 - 10 December 2019; Netherlands Trial Register

Impact of enhanced recovery protocols after pancreatoduodenectomy: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND This individual-patient data meta-analysis investigated the effects of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols compared with conventional care on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched systematically for articles reporting outcomes of ERAS after pancreatoduodenectomy published up to August 2020. Comparative studies were included. Main outcomes were postoperative functional recovery elements, postoperative morbidity, duration of hospital stay, and readmission. RESULTS Individual-patient data were obtained from 17 of 31 eligible studies comprising 3108 patients. Time to liquid (mean difference (MD) -3.23 (95 per cent c.i. -4.62 to -1.85) days; P < 0.001) and solid (-3.84 (-5.09 to -2.60) days; P < 0.001) intake, time to passage of first stool (MD -1.38 (-1.82 to -0.94) days; P < 0.001) and time to removal of the nasogastric tube (3.03 (-4.87 to -1.18) days; P = 0.001) were reduced with ERAS. ERAS was associated with lower overall morbidity (risk difference (RD) -0.04, 95 per cent c.i. -0.08 to -0.01; P = 0.015), less delayed gastric emptying (RD -0.11, -0.22 to -0.01; P = 0.039) and a shorter duration of hospital stay (MD -2.33 (-2.98 to -1.69) days; P < 0.001) without a higher readmission rate. CONCLUSION ERAS improved postoperative outcome after pancreatoduodenectomy. Implementation should be encouraged

Prophylactic abdominal drainage after distal pancreatectomy (PANDORINA):an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial

Background: Prophylactic passive abdominal drainage is standard practice after distal pancreatectomy. This approach aims to mitigate the consequences of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) but its added value, especially in patients at low risk of POPF, is currently being debated. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of a no-drain policy in patients after distal pancreatectomy. Methods: In this international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older undergoing open or minimally invasive elective distal pancreatectomy for all indications in 12 centres in the Netherlands and Italy. We excluded patients with an American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status of 4–5 or WHO performance status of 3–4, added by amendment following the death of a patient with ASA 4 due to a pre-existing cardiac condition. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) intraoperatively by permuted blocks (size four to eight) to either no drain or prophylactic passive drain placement, stratified by annual centre volume (&lt;40 or ≥40 distal pancreatectomies) and low risk or high risk of grade B or C POPF. High-risk was defined as a pancreatic duct of more than 3 mm in diameter, a pancreatic thickness at the neck of more than 19 mm, or both, based on the Distal Pancreatectomy Fistula Risk Score. Other patients were considered low-risk. The primary outcome was the rate of major morbidity (Clavien–Dindo score ≥III), and the most relevant secondary outcome was grade B or C POPF, grading per the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. Outcomes were assessed up to 90 days postoperatively and analysed in the intention-to-treat population and per-protocol population, which only included patients who received the allocated treatment. A prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8% was compared with the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI (Wald) of unadjusted risk difference to assess non-inferiority. This trial is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry, NL9116. Findings: Between Oct 3, 2020, and April 28, 2023, 376 patients were screened for eligibility and 282 patients were randomly assigned to the no-drain group (n=138; 75 [54%] women and 63 [46%] men) or the drain group (n=144; 73 [51%] women and 71 [49%] men). Seven patients in the no-drain group received a drain intraoperatively; consequently, the per-protocol population included 131 patients in the no-drain group and 144 patients in the drain group. The rate of major morbidity was non-inferior in the no-drain group compared with the drain group in the intention-to-treat analysis (21 [15%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference –4·9 percentage points [95% CI –13·8 to 4·0]; p non-inferiority=0·0022) and the per-protocol analysis (21 [16%] vs 29 [20%]; risk difference –4·1 percentage points [–13·2 to 5·0]; p non-inferiority=0·0045). Grade B or C POPF was observed in 16 (12%) patients in the no-drain group and in 39 (27%) patients in the drain group (risk difference –15·5 percentage points [95% CI –24·5 to –6·5]; p non-inferiority&lt;0·0001) in the intention-to-treat analysis. Three patients in the no-drain group died within 90 days; the cause of death in two was not considered related to the trial. The third death was a patient with an ASA score of 4 who died after sepsis and a watershed cerebral infarction at second admission, leading to multiple organ failure. No patients in the drain group died within 90 days. Interpretation: A no-drain policy is safe in terms of major morbidity and reduced the detection of grade B or C POPF, and should be the new standard approach in eligible patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy. Funding: Ethicon UK (Johnson &amp; Johnson Medical, Edinburgh, UK).</p

A nationwide assessment of hepatocellular adenoma resection: Indications and pathological discordance

Hepatocellular adenomas (HCAs) are benign liver tumors associated with bleeding or malignant transformation. Data on the indication for surgery are scarce. We analyzed indications and outcome of patients operated for HCAs 50 mm (52%), suspicion of (pre)malignancy (28%), and (previous) bleeding (5.1%). No difference was observed in HCA-subtype distribution between small and large tumors. Ninety-six (43%) patients had a postoperative change in diagnosis. Independent risk factors for change in diagnosis were tumor size <50 mm (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.4; p < 0.01), male sex (aOR, 3.7; p = 0.03), and lack of hepatobiliary contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) (aOR, 1.8; p = 0.04). Resection for small (suspected) HCAs was mainly indicated by suspicion of (pre)malignancy, whereas for large (suspected) HCAs, tumor size was the most prevalent indication. Male sex, tumor size <50 mm, and lack of hepatobiliary CE-MRI were independent risk factors for postoperative change in tumor diagnosis