Search

Objective: The aim of this study was to define robust benchmark values for the surgical treatment of perihilar cholangiocarcinomas (PHC) to enable unbiased comparisons., Background: Despite ongoing efforts, postoperative mortality and morbidity remains high after complex liver surgery for PHC. Benchmark data of best achievable results in surgical PHC treatment are however still lacking., Methods: This study analyzed consecutive patients undergoing major liver surgery for PHC in 24 high-volume centers in 3 continents over the recent 5-year period (2014-2018) with a minimum follow-up of 1 year in each patient. Benchmark patients were those operated at high-volume centers (≥50 cases during the study period) without the need for vascular reconstruction due to tumor invasion, or the presence of significant co-morbidities such as severe obesity (body mass index ≥35), diabetes, or cardiovascular diseases. Benchmark cutoff values were derived from the 75th or 25th percentile of the median values of all benchmark centers., Results: Seven hundred eight (39%) of a total of 1829 consecutive patients qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cut-offs included: R0 resection ≥57%, postoperative liver failure (International Study Group of Liver Surgery): ≤35%; in-hospital and 3-month mortality rates ≤8% and ≤13%, respectively; 3-month grade 3 complications and the CCI: ≤70% and ≤30.5, respectively; bile leak-rate: ≤47% and 5-year overall survival of ≥39.7%. Centers operating mostly on complex cases disclosed better outcome including lower post-operative liver failure rates (4% vs 13%; P = 0.002). Centers from Asia disclosed better outcomes., Conclusion: Surgery for PHC remains associated with high morbidity and mortality with now the availability of benchmark values covering 21 outcome parameters, which may serve as key references for comparison in any future analyses of individuals, group of patients or centers., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Based on the International ALPPS registry, we have recently proposed two easily applicable risk models (pre-stage1 and 2) for predicting 90-day mortality in ALPPS but a validation of both models has not been performed yet., Methods: The validation cohort (VC) was composed of subsequent cases of the ALPPS registry and cases of centers outside the ALPPS registry., Results: The VC was composed of a total of 258 patients including 70 patients outside the ALPPS registry with 32 cases of early mortalities (12%). Development cohort (DC) and VC were comparable in terms of patient and surgery characteristics. The VC validated both models with an acceptable prediction for the pre-stage 1 (c-statistic 0.64, P = 0.009 vs. 0.77, P < 0.001) and a good prediction for the pre-stage 2 model (c-statistic 0.77, P < 0.001 vs. 0.85, P < 0.001) as compared to the DC. Overall model performance measured by Brier score was comparable between VC and DC for the pre-stage 1 (0.089 vs. 0.081) and pre-stage 2 model (0.079 vs. 0087)., Conclusion: The ALPPS risk score is a fully validated model to estimate the individual risk of patients undergoing ALPPS and to assist clinical decision making to avoid procedure-related early mortality after ALPPS., (Copyright © 2018 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)