Search

Background: Primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) represent the liver’s two most common malignant neoplasms. Liver-directed therapies such as ablation have become part of multidisciplinary therapies despite a paucity of data. Therefore, an expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for HCC or CRLM less than 5 cm in diameter in patients ineligible for other therapies. Methods: A systematic review was conducted for six key questions (KQ) regarding MWA or RFA for solitary liver tumors in patients deemed poor candidates for first-line therapy. Subject experts used the GRADE methodology to formulate evidence-based recommendations and future research recommendations. Results: The panel addressed six KQs pertaining to MWA vs. RFA outcomes and laparoscopic vs. percutaneous MWA. The available evidence was poor quality and individual studies included both HCC and CRLM. Therefore, the six KQs were condensed into two, recognizing that these were two disparate tumor groups and this grouping was somewhat arbitrary. With this significant limitation, the panel suggested that in appropriately selected patients, either MWA or RFA can be safe and feasible. However, this recommendation must be implemented cautiously when simultaneously considering patients with two disparate tumor biologies. The limited data suggested that laparoscopic MWA of anatomically more difficult tumors has a compensatory higher morbidity profile compared to percutaneous MWA, while achieving similar overall 1-year survival. Thus, either approach can be appropriate depending on patient-specific factors (very low certainty of evidence). Conclusion: Given the weak evidence, these guidelines provide modest guidance regarding liver ablative therapies for HCC and CRLM. Liver ablation is just one component of a multimodal approach and its use is currently limited to a highly selected population. The quality of the existing data is very low and therefore limits the strength of the guidelines. Background: The multidisciplinary management of both primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) may include liver-directed therapies as part of treatment algorithms; these algorithms focus heavily on control of liver-specific disease as in many cases this serves as a proxy for long-term survival. Hepatectomy is the primary treatment option in patients who can tolerate resection for both HCC and CRLM. Liver-directed therapies include arterial embolization, stereotactic body radiation therapy, and liver ablation. Over the last several decades, microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of liver tumors have been used in high-risk patients unfit for surgical intervention or tumors not amenable to local control with other therapies. As ablation is an evolving technology, outcomes data are primarily reported in liver tumors less than 3 cm in diameter, while data for liver tumors greater than 3 cm are limited for both HCC and CRLM. The authors sought to perform a systematic review of the existing data to assess for meaningful conclusions. Therefore, a multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians, patients, and others regarding the role of liver ablation in the treatment of HCC and CRLM up to 5 cm in diameter. Methods: A systematic review was conducted for six key questions (KQ) regarding the use of either MWA or RFA for solitary HCC or CRLM. Due to the paucity of evidence available, HCC and CRLM less than 5 cm in diameter were combined into two final KQs which were used to develop recommendations. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject matter experts. Additionally, the panel developed recommendations for future research. Interpretation of strong and conditional recommendations: All guideline recommendations were assigned “conditional” recommendations. These were based on the GRADE approach. The words “the guideline panel suggests” were used for conditional recommendations. Key questions addressed by these guidelines: Should MWA (laparoscopic or open) vs. RFA (laparoscopic or open) be used for HCC or CRLM less than 5 cm ineligible for other therapies? Should laparoscopic MWA vs. percutaneous MWA be used for HCC and/or CRLM less than 5 cm ineligible for other therapies? Recommendations: Should MWA (laparoscopic or open) vs. RFA (laparoscopic or open) be used for HCC or CRLM less than 5 cm ineligible for other therapies? The panel suggests MWA and RFA are both safe and feasible. There was insufficient evidence to recommend one modality over another in terms of oncologic outcomes (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). Should laparoscopic MWA vs. percutaneous MWA be used for HCC and/or CRLM less than 5 cm ineligible for other therapies? The panel suggests that either ablative approach achieves similar overall outcomes, albeit through distinct patterns. The laparoscopic approach obtained better local control and the percutaneous approach had fewer morbidities while obtaining similar overall 1-year survival (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). How to use these guidelines: The aim of these guidelines is to assist surgeons and physicians in making management decisions for patients with HCC or CRLM. Given that the evidence for this guideline was based on very low certainty evidence, these guidelines should be applied with caution. They are also intended to provide education, inform advocacy, and describe future areas for research. The guidelines are not meant to mandate a particular approach or strategy given the lack of evidence and intricacies of the healthcare environment, individual patient needs, comorbidities, and surgeon experience. Specific situations require adjustment of treatment plans to suit the needs and priorities of the individual patient. Finally, since the guidelines take a patient-centered approach, patients can use these guidelines as a source of information and for discussion with their physicians.

Background: Minimally invasive approaches to liver resection (MILR) are associated with favorable outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine the implications of conversion to an open procedure on perioperative outcomes. Methods: Patients who underwent MILR at 10 North American institutions were identified from the Americas Minimally Invasive Liver Resection (AMILES) database. Outcomes of patients who required conversion were compared to those who did not. Additionally, outcomes after conversion due to unfavorable findings (poor visualization/access, lack of progress, disease extent) versus intraoperative events (bleeding, injury, cardiopulmonary instability) were compared. Results: Of 1675 patients who underwent MILR, 102 (6.1%) required conversion. Conversion rate ranged from 4.4% for left lateral sectionectomy to 10% for right hepatectomy. The primary reason for conversion was unfavorable findings in 67 patients (66%) and intraoperative adverse events in 35 patients (34%). By multivariable analysis, major resection, cirrhosis, prior liver surgery, and tumor proximity to major vessels were identified as risk factors for conversion (p< 0.05). Patients who required conversion had higher blood loss, transfusion requirements, operative time, and length of stay, (p< 0.05). They also had higher major complication rates (23% vs. 5.2%, p< 0.001) and 30-day mortality (8.8% vs. 1.3%, p< 0.001). When compared to those who required conversion due to unfavorable findings, patients who required conversion due to intraoperative adverse events had significantly higher major complication rates (43% vs. 14%, p= 0.012) and 30-day mortality (20% vs. 3.0%, p= 0.007). Conclusions: Conversion from MILR to open surgery is associated with increased perioperative morbidity and mortality. Conversion due to intraoperative adverse events is rare but associated with significantly higher complication and mortality rates, while conversion due to unfavorable findings is associated with similar outcomes as planned open resection. High-risk patients may benefit from early conversion in a controlled fashion if difficulties are encountered or anticipated.

Background Completion cholecystectomy (CC) is performed for recurrent or persistent biliary symptoms following subtotal cholecystectomy (STC) or incomplete cholecystectomy (IC). Due to its complexity, cases are often referred to hepato-pancreato-biliary (HBP) surgeons. There is little published literature on indications or outcomes of CC.Methods Completion cholecystectomy cases performed between 2016 and 2021 by the sole HPB surgeon covering a rural referral base of >250-mile radius in West Texas were included. Primary variables of interest include indications and outcomes of CC.Results Of the eleven patients included, 5 (45.5%) had laparoscopic STC, 3 patients (27.3%) had laparoscopic converted to open STC, and 2 (18.2%) had laparoscopic IC. Most STC cases (6/9, 66.6%) were reconstituting, while 3 STC cases were fenestrating (all had persistent bile leak). For reconstituting STC, indications were symptomatic cholelithiasis in 5 patients (45.5%), and choledocholithiasis in 3 patients (27.3%). The median (IQR) duration between index procedure and subsequent CC was 15 (1.4-92) months. The median (IQR) remnant gallbladder length was 4 (3-4.5) cm. Completion cholecystectomy was performed robotically in 8 cases (72.7%). Post-CC complications occurred in 3 patients (27.3%); these were 1 superficial surgical site infection, 1 hepatic abscess requiring percutaneous drainage, and lastly atrial fibrillation.Conclusions All patients requiring CC had residual gallbladder remnant >2.5 cm; this is longer than recommended for STC. Completion cholecystectomy is a complex operation that carries significant morbidity, even when performed using minimally invasive techniques. As bailout procedures become more common in severely inflamed cholecystitis, it is important to collate more data on the outcomes of requiring CC.

Background: Minimally invasive approach represents the gold standard for the resection of the left lateral section of the liver. Recently, the American Minimally Invasive Liver Resection (AMILES) registry has become available to track outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic liver resection in the Americas. The aim of the present study is to determine the benchmark performance of MILLS throughout the AMILES database. Methods: The AMILES registry was interrogated for cases of minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies (MILLS). Centers with best practices according to the achievement of textbook outcomes (TOs) were identified and were used to define benchmark performances. Results: Seven institutions from US and Canada entered 1665 minimally invasive liver resections, encompassing 203 MILLS. Overall, 49% of cases of MILLS satisfied contemporarily all textbook outcomes. While all centers obtained TOs with different rates of success, the outcomes of the top-ranking centers were used for benchmarking. Benchmark performance metrics of MILLS across North America are: conversion rate ≤ 3.7%, blood loss ≤ 200 ml, OR time ≤ 199 min, transfusion rate ≤ 4.5%, complication rate ≤ 7.9%, LOS ≤ 4 days. Conclusion: Benchmark performances of MILLS have been defined on a large multi-institutional database in North America. As more institutions join the collaboration and more prospective cases accrue, benchmark for additional procedures and approaches will be defined. Graphical abstract:

Background: Primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) represent the two most common malignant neoplasms of the liver. The objective of this study was to assess outcomes of surgical approaches to liver ablation comparing laparoscopic versus percutaneous microwave ablation (MWA), and MWA versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with HCC or CRLM lesions smaller than 5 cm. Methods: A systematic review was conducted across seven databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane, to identify all comparative studies between 1937 and 2021. Two independent reviewers screened for eligibility, extracted data for selected studies, and assessed study bias using the modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Random effects meta-analyses were subsequently performed on all available comparative data. Results: From 1066 records screened, 11 studies were deemed relevant to the study and warranted inclusion. Eight of the 11 studies were at high or uncertain risk for bias. Our meta-analyses of two studies revealed that laparoscopic MW ablation had significantly higher complication rates compared to a percutaneous approach (risk ratio = 4.66; 95% confidence interval = [1.23, 17.22]), but otherwise similar incomplete ablation rates, local recurrence, and oncologic outcomes. The remaining nine studies demonstrated similar efficacy of MWA and RFA, as measured by incomplete ablation, complication rates, local/regional recurrence, and oncologic outcomes, for both HCC and CRLM lesions less than 5 cm (p> 0.05 for all outcomes). There was no statistical subgroup interaction in the analysis of tumors < 3 cm. Conclusion: The available comparative evidence regarding both laparoscopic versus percutaneous MWA and MWA versus RFA is limited, evident by the few studies that suffer from high/uncertain risk of bias. Additional high-quality randomized trials or statistically matched cohort studies with sufficient granularity of patient variables, institutional experience, and physician specialty/training will be useful in informing clinical decision making for the ablative treatment of HCC or CRLM.

•Mixed hepatocellular carcinoma-neuroendocrine carcinomas (HCC-NECs) are extremely rare and aggressive.•Diagnosis of mixed HCC-NECs could be challenging — pathologists should be cautious dealing with HCCs with poorly differentiated components.•It's important to consolidate the information of mixed HCC-NECs to guide their management in the future.•We included a comprehensive review of previously reported cases of mixed HCC-NECs.