Intraoperative Imaging Techniques to Visualize Hepatic (Micro)Perfusion: An Overview

The microcirculation plays a crucial role in the distribution of perfusion to organs. Studies have shown that microcirculatory dysfunction is an independent predictor of morbidity and mortality. Hence, ass

Selection of optimal molecular targets for tumor-specific imaging in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Discrimination of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) from chronic pancreatitis (CP) or peritumoral inflammation is challenging, both at preoperative imaging and during surgery, but it is crucial for proper therapy selection. Tumor-specific molecular imaging aims to enhance this discrimination and to help select and stratify patients for resection. We evaluated various biomarkers for the specific identification of PDAC and associated lymph node metastases. Using immunohistochemistry (IHC), expression levels and patterns were investigated of integrin avβ6, carcinoembryonic antigen-related cell adhesion molecule 5 (CEACAM5), Cathepsin E (Cath E), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), hepatocyte growth factor receptor (c-MET), thymocyte differentiation antigen 1 (Thy1), and urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR). In a first cohort, multiple types of pancreatic tissue were evaluated (n=62); normal pancreatic tissue (n=8), CP (n=7), PDAC (n=9), tumor associated lymph nodes (n=32), and PDAC after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (n=6). In a second cohort, tissues were investigated (n=55) with IHC and immunofluorescence (IF) for concordance of biomarker expression in all tissue types, obtained from an individual patient. Integrin avβ6 and CEACAM5 showed significantly higher expression levels in PDAC versus normal pancreatic tissue (P=0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively) and CP (P=0.003 and P < 0.001, respectively). Avβ6 and CEACAM5 expression identified tumor-positive lymph nodes correctly in 84% and 68%, respectively, and in 100% of tumor-negative nodes for both biomarkers. In conclusion, avβ6 and CEACAM5 are excellent biomarkers to differentiate PDAC from surrounding tissue and to identify lymph node metastases. Individually or combined, these biomarkers are promising targets for tumor-specific molecular imaging of PDAC

Gemcitabine with Cisplatin Versus Hepatic Arterial Infusion Pump Chemotherapy for Liver-Confined Unresectable Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

Background: A post-hoc analysis of ABC trials included 34 patients with liver-confined unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) who received systemic chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin (gem-cis). The median overall survival (OS) was 16.7 months and the 3-year OS was 2.8%. The aim of this study was to compare patients treated with systemic gem-cis versus hepatic arterial infusion pump (HAIP) chemotherapy for liver-confined unresectable iCCA. Methods: We retrospectively collected consecutive patients with liver-confined unresectable iCCA who received gem-cis in two centers in the Netherlands to compare with consecutive patients who received HAIP chemotherapy with or without systemic chemotherapy in Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Results: In total, 268 patients with liver-confined unresectable iCCA were included; 76 received gem-cis and 192 received HAIP chemotherapy. In the gem-cis group 42 patients (55.3%) had multifocal disease compared with 141 patients (73.4%) in the HAIP group (p = 0.023). Median OS for gem-cis was 11.8 months versus 27.7 months for HAIP chemotherapy (p &lt; 0.001). OS at 3 years was 3.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0–13.6%) in the gem-cis group versus 34.3% (95% CI 28.1–41.8%) in the HAIP chemotherapy group. After adjusting for male gender, performance status, baseline hepatobiliary disease, and multifocal disease, the hazard ratio (HR) for HAIP chemotherapy was 0.27 (95% CI 0.19–0.39). Conclusions: This study confirmed the results from the ABC trials that survival beyond 3 years is rare for patients with liver-confined unresectable iCCA treated with palliative gem-cis alone. With HAIP chemotherapy, one in three patients was alive at 3 years.</p

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

Population-based study on practice variation regarding preoperative systemic chemotherapy in patients with colorectal liver metastases and impact on short-term outcomes

Introduction: Definitions regarding resectability and hence indications for preoperative chemotherapy vary. Use of preoperative chemotherapy may influence postoperative outcomes. This study aimed to assess the variation in use of preoperative chemotherapy for CRLM and related postoperative outcomes in the Netherlands. Materials and methods: All patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2018 were included from a national database. Case-mix factors contributing to the use of preoperative chemotherapy, hospital variation and postoperative outcomes were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Postoperative outcomes were postoperative complicated course (PCC), 30-day morbidity and 30-day mortality. Results: In total, 4469 patients were included of whom 1314 patients received preoperative chemotherapy and 3155 patients did not. Patients receiving chemotherapy were significantly younger (mean age (+SD) 66.3 (10.4) versus 63.2 (10.2) p < 0.001) and had less comorbidity (Charlson scores 2+ (24% versus 29%, p = 0.010). Unadjusted hospital variation concerning administration of preoperative chemotherapy ranged between 2% and 55%. After adjusting for case-mix factors, three hospitals administered significantly more preoperative chemotherapy than expected and six administered significantly less preoperative chemotherapy than expected. PCC was 12.1%, 30-day morbidity was 8.8% and 30-day mortality was 1.5%. No association between preoperative chemotherapy and PCC (OR 1.24, 0.98–1.55, p = 0.065), 30-day morbidity (OR 1.05, 0.81–1.39, p = 0.703) or with 30-day mortality (OR 1.22, 0.75–2.09, p = 0.467) was found. Conclusion: Significant hospital variation in the use of preoperative chemotherapy for CRLM was present in the Netherlands. No association between postoperative outcomes and use of preoperative chemotherapy was found

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

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

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

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

Colorectal liver metastases: Surgery versus thermal ablation (COLLISION) - a phase III single-blind prospective randomized controlled trial

Background: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) are widely accepted techniques to eliminate small unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Although previous studies labelled thermal ablation inferior to surgical resection, the apparent selection bias when comparing patients with unresectable disease to surgical candidates, the superior safety profile, and the competitive overall survival results for the more recent reports mandate the setup of a randomized controlled trial. The objective of the COLLISION trial is to prove non-inferiority of thermal ablation compared to hepatic resection in patients with at least one resectable and ablatable CRLM and no extrahepatic disease. Methods: In this two-arm, single-blind multi-center phase-III clinical trial, six hundred and eighteen patients with at least one CRLM (≤3cm) will be included to undergo either surgical resection or thermal ablation of appointed target lesion(s) (≤3cm). Primary endpoint is OS (overall survival, intention-to-treat analysis). Main secondary endpoints are overall disease-free survival (DFS), time to progression (TTP), time to local progression (TTLP), primary and assisted technique efficacy (PTE, ATE), procedural morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay, assessment of pain and quality of life (QoL), cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Discussion: If thermal ablation proves to be non-inferior in treating lesions ≤3cm, a switch in treatment-method may lead to a reduction of the post-procedural morbidity and mortality, length of hospital stay and incremental costs without compromising oncological outcome for patients with CRLM. Trial registration:NCT03088150 , January 11th 2017