Liver resection and transplantation for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

The incidence of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is increasing worldwide. Although several advances have been made in the past decades to better understand this complex malignancy and to develop new treatment strategies, the prognosis of iCCA remains dismal. Liver resection (LR) is the mainstay of treatment but only a minority of patients are amenable to surgery. In most cases, patients with iCCA will require a major hepatectomy for complete resection of the tumour. This may be contraindicated or increase the surgical burden in patients with chronic liver disease and small remnant liver volume. Lymphadenectomy with a minimal harvest of 6 lymph nodes is considered adequate, as microscopic nodal metastases have been shown in more than 40% of patients. Current 5-year overall survival following LR is in the range of 25%\u201340%. For locally advanced disease not amenable to upfront LR, neoadjuvant locoregional therapies may be used with the aim of converting these patients to resectability or even to transplantation in well-selected cases. Recent studies have shown that liver transplantation (LT) might be a treatment option for patients with unresectable very-early iCCA (i.e. 642 cm), with survival outcomes comparable to those of hepatocellular carcinoma. In patients with unresectable, advanced tumours, confined to the liver who achieve sustained response to neoadjuvant treatment, LT may be considered an option within prospective protocols. The role of adjuvant therapies in iCCA is still under debate. Herein, we review the recent advances in the surgical treatment of iCCA and examine its correlation with locoregional therapies, adjuvant and neo-adjuvant strategies

Association of laparoscopic surgery with improved perioperative and survival outcomes in patients with resectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic seview and meta-analysis from propensity-score matched studies

Background: Recent studies have associated laparoscopic surgery with better overall survival (OS) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). The potential benefits of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) over open liver resection (OLR) have not been demonstrated in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC). Methods: A systematic review of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases was performed to search studies comparing OS and perioperative outcome for patients with resectable iCC. Propensity-score matched (PSM) studies published from database inception to May 1, 2022 were eligible. A frequentist, patient-level, one-stage meta-analysis was performed to analyze the differences in OS between LLR and OLR. Second, intraoperative, postoperative, and oncological outcomes were compared between the two approaches by using a random-effects DerSimonian-Laird model. Results: Six PSM studies involving data from 1.042 patients (530 OLR vs. 512 LLR) were included. LLR in patients with resectable iCC was found to significantly decrease the hazard of death (stratified hazard ratio [HR]: 0.795 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.638-0.992]) compared with OLR. Moreover, LLR appears to be significantly associated with a decrease in intraoperative bleeding (- 161.47 ml [95% CI - 237.26 to - 85.69 ml]) and transfusion (OR = 0.41 [95% CI 0.26-0.69]), as well as with a shorter hospital stay (- 3.16 days [95% CI - 4.98 to - 1.34]) and a lower rate of major (Clavien-Dindo ≥III) complications (OR = 0.60 [95% CI 0.39-0.93]). Conclusions: This large meta-analysis of PSM studies shows that LLR in patients with resectable iCC is associated with improved perioperative outcomes and, being conservative, yields similar OS outcomes compared with OLR

Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on liver cancer management (CERO-19)

Background & Aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems and it may have heavily impacted patients with liver cancer (LC). Herein, we evaluated whether the schedule of LC screening or procedures has been interrupted or delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: An international survey evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical practice and clinical trials from March 2020 to June 2020, as the first phase of a multicentre, international, and observational project. The focus was on patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, cared for around the world during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave. Results: Ninety-one centres expressed interest to participate and 76 were included in the analysis, from Europe, South America, North America, Asia, and Africa (73.7%,17.1%, 5.3%, 2.6%, and 1.3% per continent, respectively). Eighty-seven percent of the centres modified their clinical practice: 40.8% the diagnostic procedures, 80.9% the screening programme, 50% cancelled curative and/or palliative treatments for LC, and 41.7% modified the liver transplantation programme. Forty-five out of 69 (65.2%) centres in which clinical trials were running modified their treatments in that setting, but 58.1% were able to recruit new patients. The phone call service was modified in 51.4% of centres which had this service before the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 19/37). Conclusions: The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had a tremendous impact on the routine care of patients with liver cancer. Modifications in screening, diagnostic, and treatment algorithms may have significantly impaired the outcome of patients. Ongoing data collection and future analyses will report the benefits and disadvantages of the strategies imple mented, aiding future decision-making

Management of primary hepatic malignancies during the COVID-19 pandemic: recommendations for risk mitigation from a multidisciplinary perspective

Around the world, recommendations for cancer treatment are being adapted in real time in response to the pandemic of COVID-19. We, as a multidisciplinary team, reviewed the standard management options, according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer classification system, for hepatocellular carcinoma. We propose treatment recommendations related to COVID-19 for the different stages of hepatocellular carcinoma (ie, 0, A, B, and C), specifically in relation to surgery, locoregional therapies, and systemic therapy. We suggest potential strategies to modify risk during the pandemic and aid multidisciplinary treatment decision making. We also review the multidisciplinary management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma as a potentially curable and incurable diagnosis in the setting of COVID-19

Liver transplantation is a preferable alternative to palliative therapy for selected patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Background: Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) beyond the traditional criteria (advanced HCC) are typically offered palliation, which is associated with a 3-year survival rate lower than 30%. This study aimed to describe the outcomes for a subset of patients with advanced HCC who satisfied the Extended Toronto Criteria (ETC) and were listed for liver transplantation (LT). Materials & Methods: All patients listed in the Toronto liver transplant program with HCC beyond both the Milan and University of California, San Francisco criteria were included in this study. Data were extracted from the prospectively collected electronic database. All radiological images were reviewed by two independent radiologists. The primary endpoint was patient survival. Results: Between January 1999 and August 2014, 96 patients with advanced HCC were listed for LT, and 62 (65%) of these patients received bridging therapy while on the waiting list. Bridging therapy led to a significant reduction in tumor progression (p=0.02) and tumor burden (p <0.001). The majority of those listed underwent LT (n=69, 72%). Both tumor progression on waiting list (HR 4.973 [1.599 – 15.464], p=0.006) and peak AFP ≥400ng/ml (HR 4.604 [1.660 – 12.768], p=0.003) were independently associated with waiting list dropout. Post-LT HCC recurrence occurred in 35% (n=24). Among those with HCC recurrence, survival was significantly better for those who received curative treatment (p=0.004). The overall actuarial survival rates from the listing were 76% at 1 year, 56% at 3 years, and 47% at 5 years, and the corresponding rates from LT were 93%, 71%, and 66%. Conclusion: LT provides significantly better survival rates than palliation for patients with selected advanced HCC

Liver transplantation outcomes after transarterial chemotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) awaiting liver transplantation is widespread, although evidence that it improves outcomes is lacking and there exist concerns about morbidity. The impact of TACE on outcomes after transplantation was evaluated in this study. METHODS: Patients with HCC who had liver transplantation in the UK were identified, and stratified according to whether they received TACE between 2006 and 2016. Cox regression methods were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for death and graft failure after transplantation adjusted for donor and recipient characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 385 of 968 patients (39·8 per cent) received TACE. Five-year patient survival after transplantation was similar in those who had or had not received TACE: 75·2 (95 per cent c.i. 68·8 to 80·5) and 75·0 (70·5 to 78·8) per cent respectively. After adjustment for donor and recipient characteristics, there were no differences in mortality (HR 0·96, 95 per cent c.i. 0·67 to 1·38; P = 0·821) or graft failure (HR 1·01, 0·73 to 1·40; P = 0·964). The number of TACE treatments (2 or more versus 1: HR 0·97, 0·61 to 1·55; P = 0·903) or the time of death after transplantation (within or after 90 days; P = 0·291) did not alter the outcome. The incidence of hepatic artery thrombosis was low in those who had or had not received TACE (1·3 and 2·4 per cent respectively; P = 0·235). CONCLUSION: TACE delivered to patients with HCC before liver transplant did not affect complications, patient death or graft failure after transplantation

Enithelioid hemangioendothelioma, an ultra-rare cancer : a consensus paper from the community of experts

Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is an ultra-rare, translocated, vascular sarcoma. EHE clinical behavior is variable, ranging from that of a low-grade malignancy to that of a high-grade sarcoma and it is marked by a high propensity for systemic involvement. No active systemic agents are currently approved specifically for EHE, which is typically refractory to the antitumor drugs used in sarcomas. The degree of uncertainty in selecting the most appropriate therapy for EHE patients and the lack of guidelines on the clinical management of the disease make the adoption of new treatments inconsistent across the world, resulting in suboptimal outcomes for many EHE patients. To address the shortcoming, a global consensus meeting was organized in December 2020 under the umbrella of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) involving >80 experts from several disciplines from Europe, North America and Asia, together with a patient representative from the EHE Group, a global, disease-specific patient advocacy group, and Sarcoma Patient EuroNet (SPAEN). The meeting was aimed at defining, by consensus, evidence-based best practices for the optimal approach to primary and metastatic EHE. The consensus achieved during that meeting is the subject of the present publication.Peer reviewe