Survival of patients with colorectal liver metastases treated with and without preoperative chemotherapy:Nationwide propensity score-matched study

Introduction: Routine treatment with preoperative systemic chemotherapy (CTx) in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) remains controversial due to lack of consistent evidence demonstrating associated survival benefits. This study aimed to determine the effect of preoperative CTx on overall survival (OS) compared to surgery alone and to assess hospital and oncological network variation in 5-year OS. Methods: This was a population-based study of all patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM between 2014 and 2017 in the Netherlands. After 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), OS was compared between patients treated with and without preoperative CTx. Hospital and oncological network variation in 5-year OS corrected for case-mix factors was calculated using an observed/expected ratio. Results: Of 2820 patients included, 852 (30.2%) and 1968 (69.8%) patients were treated with preoperative CTx and surgery alone, respectively. After PSM, 537 patients remained in each group, median number of CRLM; 3 [IQR 2–4], median size of CRLM; 28 mm [IQR 18–44], synchronous CLRM (71.1%). Median follow-up was 80.8 months. Five-year OS rates after PSM for patients treated with and without preoperative chemotherapy were 40.2% versus 38.3% (log-rank P = 0.734). After stratification for low, medium, and high tumour burden based on the tumour burden score (TBS) OS was similar for preoperative chemotherapy vs. surgery alone (log-rank P = 0.486, P = 0.914, and P = 0.744, respectively). After correction for non-modifiable patient and tumour characteristics, no relevant hospital or oncological network variation in five-year OS was observed. Conclusion: In patients eligible for surgical resection, preoperative chemotherapy does not provide an overall survival benefit compared to surgery alone.</p

Somatostatin analogues for the prevention of pancreatic fistula after open pancreatoduodenectomy:A nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND: Somatostatin analogues (SA) are currently used to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) development. However, its use is controversial. This study investigated the effect of different SA protocols on the incidence of POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy in a nationwide population.METHODS: All patients undergoing elective open pancreatoduodenectomy were included from the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014-2017). Patients were divided into six groups: no SA, octreotide, lanreotide, pasireotide, octreotide only in high-risk (HR) patients and lanreotide only in HR patients. Primary endpoint was POPF grade B/C. The updated alternative Fistula Risk Score was used to compare POPF rates across various risk scenarios.RESULTS: 1992 patients were included. Overall POPF rate was 13.1%. Lanreotide (10.0%), octreotide-HR (9.4%) and no protocol (12.7%) POPF rates were lower compared to the other protocols (varying from 15.1 to 19.1%, p = 0.001) in crude analysis. Sub-analysis in patients with HR of POPF showed a significantly lower rate of POPF when treated with lanreotide (10.0%) compared to no protocol, octreotide and pasireotide protocol (21.6-26.9%, p = 0.006). Octreotide-HR and lanreotide-HR protocol POPF rates were comparable to lanreotide protocol, however not significantly different from the other protocols. Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated lanreotide protocol to be positively associated with a low odds-ratio (OR) for POPF (OR 0.387, 95% CI 0.180-0.834, p = 0.015). In-hospital mortality rates were not affected.CONCLUSION: Use of lanreotide in all patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy has a potential protective effect on POPF development. Protocols for HR patients only might be favorable too. However, future studies are warranted to confirm these findings.</p

Hospital variation and outcomes after repeat hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases:a nationwide cohort study

Background: Approximately 70% of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) experiences intrahepatic recurrence after initial liver resection. This study assessed outcomes and hospital variation in repeat liver resections (R-LR).Methods: This population-based study included all patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM between 2014 and 2022 in the Netherlands. Overall survival (OS) was collected for patients operated on between 2014 and 2018 by linkage to the insurance database. Results: Data of 7479 liver resections (1391 (18.6%) repeat and 6088 (81.4%) primary) were analysed. Major morbidity and mortality were not different. Factors associated with major morbidity included ASA 3+, major liver resection, extrahepatic disease, and open surgery. Five-year OS after repeat versus primary liver resection was 42.3% versus 44.8%, P = 0.37. Factors associated with worse OS included largest CRLM &gt;5 cm (aHR 1.58, 95% CI: 1.07–2.34, P = 0.023), &gt;3 CRLM (aHR 1.33, 95% CI: 1.00–1.75, P = 0.046), extrahepatic disease (aHR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.25–2.04, P = 0.001), positive tumour margins (aHR 1.42, 95% CI: 1.09–1.85, P = 0.009). Significant hospital variation in performance of R-LR was observed, median 18.9% (8.2% to 33.3%).Conclusion: Significant hospital variation was observed in performance of R-LR in the Netherlands reflecting different treatment decisions upon recurrence. On a population-based level R-LR leads to satisfactory survival.</p

Hospital variation and outcomes after repeat hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases:a nationwide cohort study

Background: Approximately 70% of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) experiences intrahepatic recurrence after initial liver resection. This study assessed outcomes and hospital variation in repeat liver resections (R-LR).Methods: This population-based study included all patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM between 2014 and 2022 in the Netherlands. Overall survival (OS) was collected for patients operated on between 2014 and 2018 by linkage to the insurance database. Results: Data of 7479 liver resections (1391 (18.6%) repeat and 6088 (81.4%) primary) were analysed. Major morbidity and mortality were not different. Factors associated with major morbidity included ASA 3+, major liver resection, extrahepatic disease, and open surgery. Five-year OS after repeat versus primary liver resection was 42.3% versus 44.8%, P = 0.37. Factors associated with worse OS included largest CRLM &gt;5 cm (aHR 1.58, 95% CI: 1.07–2.34, P = 0.023), &gt;3 CRLM (aHR 1.33, 95% CI: 1.00–1.75, P = 0.046), extrahepatic disease (aHR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.25–2.04, P = 0.001), positive tumour margins (aHR 1.42, 95% CI: 1.09–1.85, P = 0.009). Significant hospital variation in performance of R-LR was observed, median 18.9% (8.2% to 33.3%).Conclusion: Significant hospital variation was observed in performance of R-LR in the Netherlands reflecting different treatment decisions upon recurrence. On a population-based level R-LR leads to satisfactory survival.</p

Factors associated with failure to rescue after liver resection and impact on hospital variation:a nationwide population-based study

BACKGROUND: Failure to rescue (FTR) is defined as postoperative complications leading to mortality. This nationwide study aimed to assess factors associated with FTR and hospital variation in FTR after liver surgery. METHODS: All patients who underwent liver resection between 2014 and 2017 in the Netherlands were included. FTR was defined as in-hospital or 30-day mortality after complications Dindo grade ≥3a. Variables associated with FTR and nationwide hospital variation were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 4961 patients included, 3707 (74.4%) underwent liver resection for colorectal liver metastases, 379 (7.6%) for other metastases, 526 (10.6%) for hepatocellular carcinoma and 349 (7.0%) for biliary cancer. Thirty-day major morbidity was 11.5%. Overall mortality was 2.3%. FTR was 19.1%. Age 65-80 (aOR: 2.86, CI:1.01-12.0, p = 0.049), ASA 3+ (aOR:2.59, CI: 1.66-4.02, p < 0.001), liver cirrhosis (aOR:4.15, CI:1.81-9.22, p < 0.001), biliary cancer (aOR:3.47, CI: 1.73-6.96, p < 0.001), and major resection (aOR:6.46, CI: 3.91-10.9, p < 0.001) were associated with FTR. Postoperative liver failure (aOR: 26.9, CI: 14.6-51.2, p < 0.001), cardiac (aOR: 2.62, CI: 1.27-5.29, p = 0.008) and thromboembolic complications (aOR: 2.49, CI: 1.16-5.22, p = 0.017) were associated with FTR. After case-mix correction, no hospital variation in FTR was observed. CONCLUSION: FTR is influenced by patient demographics, disease and procedural burden. Prevention of postoperative liver failure, cardiac and thromboembolic complications could decrease FTR

Outcomes of liver surgery:A decade of mandatory nationwide auditing in the Netherlands

Background: In 2013, the nationwide Dutch Hepato Biliary Audit (DHBA) was initiated. The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in indications for and outcomes of liver surgery in the last decade. Methods: This nationwide study included all patients who underwent liver surgery for four indications, including colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and intrahepatic– and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA – pCCA) between 2014 and 2022. Trends in postoperative outcomes were evaluated separately for each indication using multilevel multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results: This study included 8057 procedures for CRLM, 838 for HCC, 290 for iCCA, and 300 for pCCA. Over time, these patients had higher risk profiles (more ASA-III patients and more comorbidities). Adjusted mortality decreased over time for CRLM, HCC and iCCA, respectively aOR 0.83, 95%CI 0.75–0.92, P &lt; 0.001; aOR 0.86, 95%CI 0.75–0.99, P = 0.045; aOR 0.40, 95%CI 0.20–0.73, P &lt; 0.001. Failure to rescue (FTR) also decreased for these groups, respectively aOR 0.84, 95%CI 0.76–0.93, P = 0.001; aOR 0.81, 95%CI 0.68–0.97, P = 0.024; aOR 0.29, 95%CI 0.08–0.84, P = 0.021). For iCCA severe complications (aOR 0.65 95%CI 0.43–0.99, P = 0.043) also decreased. No significant outcome differences were observed in pCCA. The number of centres performing liver resections decreased from 26 to 22 between 2014 and 2022, while median annual volumes did not change (40–49, P = 0.66). Conclusion: Over time, postoperative mortality and FTR decreased after liver surgery, despite treating higher-risk patients. The DHBA continues its focus on providing feedback and benchmark results to further enhance outcomes.</p

Practice variation and outcomes of minimally invasive minor liver resections in patients with colorectal liver metastases:a population-based study

Introduction: In 2017, the Southampton guideline stated that minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) should considered standard practice for minor liver resections. This study aimed to assess recent implementation rates of minor MILR, factors associated with performing MILR, hospital variation, and outcomes in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Methods: This population-based study included all patients who underwent minor liver resection for CRLM in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2021. Factors associated with MILR and nationwide hospital variation were assessed using multilevel multivariable logistic regression. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was applied to compare outcomes between minor MILR and minor open liver resections. Overall survival (OS) was assessed with Kaplan–Meier analysis on patients operated until 2018. Results: Of 4,488 patients included, 1,695 (37.8%) underwent MILR. PSM resulted in 1,338 patients in each group. Implementation of MILR increased to 51.2% in 2021. Factors associated with not performing MILR included treatment with preoperative chemotherapy (aOR 0.61 CI:0.50–0.75, p &lt; 0.001), treatment in a tertiary referral hospital (aOR 0.57 CI:0.50–0.67, p &lt; 0.001), and larger diameter and number of CRLM. Significant hospital variation was observed in use of MILR (7.5% to 93.0%). After case-mix correction, six hospitals performed fewer, and six hospitals performed more MILRs than expected. In the PSM cohort, MILR was associated with a decrease in blood loss (aOR 0.99 CI:0.99–0.99, p &lt; 0.01), cardiac complications (aOR 0.29, CI:0.10–0.70, p = 0.009), IC admissions (aOR 0.66, CI:0.50–0.89, p = 0.005), and shorter hospital stay (aOR CI:0.94–0.99, p &lt; 0.01). Five-year OS rates for MILR and OLR were 53.7% versus 48.6%, p = 0.21. Conclusion: Although uptake of MILR is increasing in the Netherlands, significant hospital variation remains. MILR benefits short-term outcomes, while overall survival is comparable to open liver surgery. Graphical abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.].</p

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Observational cohort studies have suggested that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with better short-term outcomes compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), such as less intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced total costs. Confounding by indication has probably influenced these findings, given that case-matched studies failed to confirm the superiority of MIDP. This accentuates the need for multicenter randomized controlled trials, which are currently lacking. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIDP compared with ODP even in an enhanced recovery setting. Methods: LEOPARD is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, superiority trial in all 17 centers of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. A total of 102 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant or malignant disease will be randomly allocated to undergo MIDP or ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. The primary outcome is time (days) to functional recovery, defined as all of the following: independently mobile at the preoperative level, sufficient pain control with oral medication alone, ability to maintain sufficient (i.e. >50%) daily required caloric intake, no intravenous fluid administration and no signs of infection. Secondary outcomes are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life and costs. Discussion: The LEOPARD trial is designed to investigate whether MIDP reduces the time to functional recovery compared with ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register, NTR5188. Registered on 9 April 201

Trends and overall survival after combined liver resection and thermal ablation of colorectal liver metastases:a nationwide population-based propensity score-matched study

Background: In colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) patients, combination of liver resection and ablation permit a more parenchymal-sparing approach. This study assessed trends in use of combined resection and ablation, outcomes, and overall survival (OS). Methods: This population-based study included all CRLM patients who underwent liver resection between 2014 and 2022. To assess OS, data was linked to two databases containing date of death for patients treated between 2014 and 2018. Hospital variation in the use of combined minor liver resection and ablation versus major liver resection alone in patients with 2–3 CRLM and ≤3 cm was assessed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to evaluate outcomes. Results: This study included 3593 patients, of whom 1336 (37.2%) underwent combined resection and ablation. Combined resection increased from 31.7% in 2014 to 47.9% in 2022. Significant hospital variation (range 5.9–53.8%) was observed in the use of combined minor liver resection and ablation. PSM resulted in 1005 patients in each group. Major morbidity was not different (11.6% vs. 5%, P = 1.00). Liver failure occurred less often after combined resection and ablation (1.9% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.017). Five-year OS rates were not different (39.3% vs. 33.9%, P = 0.145). Conclusion: Combined resection and ablation should be available and considered as an alternative to resection alone in any patient with multiple metastases.</p

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