Resectability and Ablatability Criteria for the Treatment of Liver Only Colorectal Metastases:Multidisciplinary Consensus Document from the COLLISION Trial Group

The guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer crudely state that the best local treatment should be selected from a 'toolbox' of techniques according to patient- and treatment-related factors. We created an interdisciplinary, consensus-based algorithm with specific resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). To pursue consensus, members of the multidisciplinary COLLISION and COLDFIRE trial expert panel employed the RAND appropriateness method (RAM). Statements regarding patient, disease, tumor and treatment characteristics were categorized as appropriate, equipoise or inappropriate. Patients with ECOG≤2, ASA≤3 and Charlson comorbidity index ≤8 should be considered fit for curative-intent local therapy. When easily resectable and/or ablatable (stage IVa), (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy is not indicated. When requiring major hepatectomy (stage IVb), neo-adjuvant systemic therapy is appropriate for early metachronous disease and to reduce procedural risk. To downstage patients (stage IVc), downsizing induction systemic therapy and/or future remnant augmentation is advised. Disease can only be deemed permanently unsuitable for local therapy if downstaging failed (stage IVd). Liver resection remains the gold standard. Thermal ablation is reserved for unresectable CRLM, deep-seated resectable CRLM and can be considered when patients are in poor health. Irreversible electroporation and stereotactic body radiotherapy can be considered for unresectable perihilar and perivascular CRLM 0-5cm. This consensus document provides per-patient and per-tumor resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of CRLM. These criteria are intended to aid tumor board discussions, improve consistency when designing prospective trials and advance intersociety communications. Areas where consensus is lacking warrant future comparative studies.</p

Gutter Characteristics and Stent Compression of Self-Expanding vs Balloon-Expandable Chimney Grafts in Juxtarenal Aneurysms Models

Purpose: To assess in silicone juxtarenal aneurysm models the gutter characteristics and compression of different types of chimney graft (CG) configurations. Materials and Methods: Fifty-seven combinations of Excluder C3 or Conformable Excluder stent-grafts (23, 26, and 28.5 mm) were deployed in 2 silicone juxtarenal aneurysm models with 3 types of CGs: Viabahn self-expanding (VSE; 6 and 13 mm) or Viabahn balloon-expandable (VBX; 6, 10, and 12 mm) stent-grafts and Advanta V12 balloon-expandable stent-grafts (ABX; 6 and 12 mm). Setups were divided into 4 groups on the basis of increasing CG and main graft (MG) diameters. Two independent observers assessed gutter size and type as well as CG compression on computed tomography scans using postprocessing software. Results: In the smaller diameter combinations (6-mm CG and 23-, 26-, and 28.5-mm MGs), both VSE (p=0.006 to 0.050) and ABX (p=0.045 to 0.050) showed lower gutter areas and volumes compared with VBX. In turn, the VBX showed a nonsignificant tendency to decreased compression, especially compared to ABX. Use of the Excluder C3 showed a 6-fold increase in type A1 gutters (related to type Ia endoleak) as compared to the Conformable Excluder (p=0.018). Balloon-expandable stent-grafts (both ABX and VBX) showed a 3-fold increase in type A1 gutters in comparison with self-expanding stent-grafts (p=0.008). Conclusion: The current study suggests that use of the Conformable Excluder in combination with VSE chimney grafts is superior to the other tested CG/MG combinations in terms of gutter size, gutter type, and CG compression

Gutter Characteristics and Stent Compression of Self-Expanding vs Balloon-Expandable Chimney Grafts in Juxtarenal Aneurysm Models

Purpose: To assess in silicone juxtarenal aneurysm models the gutter characteristics and compression of different types of chimney graft (CG) configurations. Materials and Methods: Fifty-seven combinations of Excluder C3 or Conformable Excluder stent-grafts (23, 26, and 28.5 mm) were deployed in 2 silicone juxtarenal aneurysm models with 3 types of CGs: Viabahn self-expanding (VSE; 6 and 13 mm) or Viabahn balloon-expandable (VBX; 6, 10, and 12 mm) stent-grafts and Advanta V12 balloon-expandable stent-grafts (ABX; 6 and 12 mm). Setups were divided into 4 groups on the basis of increasing CG and main graft (MG) diameters. Two independent observers assessed gutter size and type as well as CG compression on computed tomography scans using postprocessing software. Results: In the smaller diameter combinations (6-mm CG and 23-, 26-, and 28.5-mm MGs), both VSE (p=0.006 to 0.050) and ABX (p=0.045 to 0.050) showed lower gutter areas and volumes compared with VBX. In turn, the VBX showed a nonsignificant tendency to decreased compression, especially compared to ABX. Use of the Excluder C3 showed a 6-fold increase in type A1 gutters (related to type Ia endoleak) as compared to the Conformable Excluder (p=0.018). Balloon-expandable stent-grafts (both ABX and VBX) showed a 3-fold increase in type A1 gutters in comparison with self-expanding stent-grafts (p=0.008). Conclusion: The current study suggests that use of the Conformable Excluder in combination with VSE chimney grafts is superior to the other tested CG/MG combinations in terms of gutter size, gutter type, and CG compression

Identification of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension on CTPAs performed for diagnosing acute pulmonary embolism depending on level of expertise

Background: Expert reading often reveals radiological signs of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) or chronic PE on computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) performed at the time of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) presentation preceding CTEPH. Little is known about the accuracy and reproducibility of CTPA reading by radiologists in training in this setting. Objectives: To evaluate 1) whether signs of CTEPH or chronic PE are routinely reported on CTPA for suspected PE; and 2) whether CTEPH-non-expert readers achieve comparable predictive accuracy to CTEPH-expert radiologists after dedicated instruction. Methods: Original reports of CTPAs demonstrating acute PE in 50 patients whom ultimately developed CTEPH, and those of 50 PE who did not, were screened for documented signs of CTEPH. All scans were re-assessed by three CTEPH-expert readers and two CTEPH-non-expert readers (blinded and independently) for predefined signs and overall presence of CTEPH. Results: Signs of chronic PE were mentioned in the original reports of 14/50 cases (28%), while CTEPH-expert radiologists had recognized 44/50 (88%). Using a standardized definition (≥3 predefined radiological signs), moderate-to-good agreement was reached between CTEPH-non-expert readers and the experts’ consensus (k-statistics 0.46; 0.61) at slightly lower sensitivities. The CTEPH-non-expert readers had moderate agreement on the presence of CTEPH (κ-statistic 0.38), but both correctly identified most cases (80% and 88%, respectively). Conclusions: Concomitant signs of CTEPH were poorly documented in daily practice, while most CTEPH patients were identified by CTEPH-non-expert readers after dedicated instruction. These findings underline the feasibility of achieving earlier CTEPH diagnosis by assessing CTPAs more attentively

Identification of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension on CTPAs performed for diagnosing acute pulmonary embolism depending on level of expertise

Background: Expert reading often reveals radiological signs of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) or chronic PE on computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) performed at the time of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) presentation preceding CTEPH. Little is known about the accuracy and reproducibility of CTPA reading by radiologists in training in this setting. Objectives: To evaluate 1) whether signs of CTEPH or chronic PE are routinely reported on CTPA for suspected PE; and 2) whether CTEPH-non-expert readers achieve comparable predictive accuracy to CTEPH-expert radiologists after dedicated instruction. Methods: Original reports of CTPAs demonstrating acute PE in 50 patients whom ultimately developed CTEPH, and those of 50 PE who did not, were screened for documented signs of CTEPH. All scans were re-assessed by three CTEPH-expert readers and two CTEPH-non-expert readers (blinded and independently) for predefined signs and overall presence of CTEPH. Results: Signs of chronic PE were mentioned in the original reports of 14/50 cases (28%), while CTEPH-expert radiologists had recognized 44/50 (88%). Using a standardized definition (≥3 predefined radiological signs), moderate-to-good agreement was reached between CTEPH-non-expert readers and the experts’ consensus (k-statistics 0.46; 0.61) at slightly lower sensitivities. The CTEPH-non-expert readers had moderate agreement on the presence of CTEPH (κ-statistic 0.38), but both correctly identified most cases (80% and 88%, respectively). Conclusions: Concomitant signs of CTEPH were poorly documented in daily practice, while most CTEPH patients were identified by CTEPH-non-expert readers after dedicated instruction. These findings underline the feasibility of achieving earlier CTEPH diagnosis by assessing CTPAs more attentively