Can laparoscopic liver resection provide a favorable option for patients with large or multiple intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas?

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Stratified analysis based on tumor burden score

The role of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) remains debated. This study aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of LLR vs. open liver resection (OLR) in ICC stratified by tumor burden score (TBS). ICC patients who underwent LLR or OLR were included from a multicenter database between July 2009 and October 2022. Patients were stratified into two cohorts based on whether the TBS was > 5.3. A 1:3 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed between LLR and OLR in each cohort. Cox regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors for ICC. A total of 626 patients were included in this study, 304 and 322 patients were classified into the low- and high-TBS groups, respectively. In the low-TBS group, after PSM, LLR was associated with less blood loss, lower CCI, fewer complications and shorter hospital stay (all p < 0.05). Kaplan-Meier curves revealed that LLR had better OS (p = 0.032). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that surgical procedure was an independent prognostic factor for ICC (HR: 0.445; 95% CI: 0.235-0.843; p = 0.013). In the high-TBS group, after PSM, LLR were associated with reduced blood loss, lower CCI, fewer complications and shorter hospital stay (all p < 0.05), while OS (p = 0.98) and DFS (p = 0.24) were similar between the two groups. TBS is an important prognostic factor for ICC. LLR is a safe and feasible option for ICC and leads to faster postoperative recovery. LLR can offer ICC a comparable and even better long-term prognosis than OLR.

[Prognostic factors and preoperative therapy in resectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma]

OBJECTIVE

To identify prognostic factors and role of preoperative therapy for resectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We analyzed the results of surgical and combined treatment of IHCC between 1999 and 2023. Immediate and long-term outcomes were evaluated depending on negative prognostic factors and additional therapy.

RESULTS

The study included 195 patients. Postoperative complications grade ≥III were observed in 35 (17.9%) case. Mortality rate was 3.1% (n=6). Thirty-eight patients (19.5%) underwent treatment before surgery, 109 (55.9%) ones - after surgery. The median overall survival was 31 months, 5-year overall survival - 32.0%. The following factors worsened overall survival: node size ≥8 cm (HR 1.45; 95% CI 0.97-2.17), invasion (HR 1.63; 95% CI 1.07-2.47), multiple lesion (HR 1.51; 95% CI 1.00-2.28). R1 resection worsened disease-free survival (HR 1.88; 95% CI 1.14-3.10). Lymph node metastases decreased overall (HR 1.96; 95% CI 1.27- 3.04) and disease-free survival (HR 2.37; 95% CI 1.63-3.44). Two and more negative factors worsened overall (p=0.0013) and disease-free survival (p=0.0005). Absence of adjuvant therapy worsened overall (HR 2.12; 95% CI 1.41-3.20) and disease-free survival (HR 1.42; 95% CI 0.99-2.04). There was a trend towards higher overall (p=0.088) and progression-free survival (p=0.029) in case of preoperative therapy (n=195). In unfavorable prognosis group, preoperative therapy (n=33) was superior to standard treatment (resection+capecitabine after surgery, n=26). There was a trend towards higher overall survival (p=0.066) and significantly better progression-free survival (17 vs 13 months, p=0.018).

CONCLUSION

Negative prognostic factors for resectable IHCC are lesion size ≥8 cm, intrahepatic and regional metastases, invasion into neighboring structures, R1 resection. Combination of negative factors worsened prognosis. Adjuvant therapy improved postoperative outcomes. Preoperative therapy may be advisable in case of negative factors and high risk of R1 resection.

Laparoscopic liver resection as a treatment option for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) remains controversial in the treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). The aim of the present study is to investigate the outcomes of LLR for ICC compared to open liver resection (OLR). We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent surgery for ICC between January 2013 and February 2020. OLR and LLR were compared after propensity score matching (PSM). Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared between the matched groups. During the study period, 219 patients met the inclusion criteria (OLR = 170 patients, 77.6%; LLR = 49 patients, 22.4%). Two groups of 43 patients each were analyzed after PSM. The 5-year RFS and OS were 44.6% and 47.9% in the OLR group and 50.9% and 39.8% in the LLR group, respectively. Hospital stay and intensive care unit care were significantly shorter and lower in the LLR group than in the OLR group, respectively. Total postoperative complications and complication rates for those Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher were similar between the OLR group and the LLR group. Multiple tumors and lymph node metastases were predisposing factors for tumor recurrence and death in multivariate analysis. The present study suggests that LLR should be considered in selective ICC because of short hospitalization and similar oncologic outcome and overall survival.

Minimally Invasive Approach Provides Oncological Benefit in Patients with High Risk of Very Early Recurrence (VER) After Surgery for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA)

BACKGROUND

Surgery for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is jeopardized by significant risk of early recurrence (≤ 6 months). The aim of the present study is to analyze the oncological benefit provided by laparoscopic over open approach for iCCA in patients with high risk of very early recurrence (VER).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 532 liver resections (LR) were performed for iCCA [265 by minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and 267 with open approach, matched through a 1:1 propensity score] and stratified using the postoperative prediction model of VER. Outcomes were compared between open and laparoscopic approaches, specifically evaluating oncological benefit.

RESULTS

The percentage of patients with high risk of VER was similar (32.7% in the laparoscopic group and 35.3% in the open group, pNS). The number of retrieved nodes as well as the rate and depth of negative resection margins were comparable between laparoscopic and open. The surgery-adjuvant treatment interval was shorter in laparoscopic patients in the overall series, as well in the subgroup of high risk of VER. The rate of patients starting adjuvant treatments within 2 months from surgery was higher in laparoscopic group compared with open group. In VER high-risk group both disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly improved in MIS compared with open group (p = 0.032 and p = 0.026, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with high risk of VER, laparoscopy translates into an advantage in terms of recurrence-free survival, likely related to lower biological impact of surgery, together with a shorter interval between surgery and start of adjuvant treatments, even allowing for a higher number of patients to start adjuvant therapies within 2 months from resection.

Impact of Tumor Subclassifications for Identifying an Appropriate Surgical Strategy in Patients with Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is subclassified into small and large duct types. The impact of these subclassifications for identifying appropriate surgical strategies remains unclear.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study included 118 patients with ICC who underwent liver resection. Based on the pathological examination results, the participants were divided into the small duct-type ICC group (n = 64) and large duct-type ICC group (n = 54). The clinicopathological features and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups to investigate the impact of subclassification for selecting appropriate surgical strategies.

RESULTS

Ten patients in the small duct-type ICC group had synchronous or metachronous hepatocellular carcinoma. The large duct-type ICC group had higher proportions of patients who underwent major hepatectomy, extrahepatic bile duct resection, portal vein resection, and lymph node sampling or dissection than the small duct-type ICC group. The large duct-type ICC group had significantly higher incidences of lymph node metastasis/recurrence and pathological major vessel invasion than the other. The small duct-type ICC group exhibited significantly higher recurrence-free and overall survival rates than the large duct-type ICC group. Further, the large duct-type ICC group had a significantly higher incidence of lymph node metastasis/recurrence than the small duct-type ICC at the perihilar region group.

CONCLUSIONS

Suitable surgical strategies may differ between the small and large duct-type ICCs. In patients with large duct-type ICCs, hepatectomy with lymph node dissection and/or biliary reconstruction should be considered, whereas hepatectomy without these advanced procedures can be suggested for patients with small duct-type ICCs.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review of propensity score-matched studies

Outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) versus open LR (OLR) for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICCA) are heterogeneous. We aimed to compare LLR and OLR for ICCA based on propensity-score-matched (PSM) studies. Two reviewers independently searched the online databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) for PSM studies that compared LLR and OLR for ICCA. The Ottawa-Newcastle Quality Assessment Scale with a cutoff of ≥ 7 was used to define higher-quality literature. Only 'high-quality' PSM analyses of the English language that met all our inclusion criteria were considered. A total of ten PSM trials were included in the analyses. Compared with OLR, although the lymph node dissection (LND) (RR = 0.67) and major hepatectomy rates were lower in the LLR group (RR = 0.87), higher R0 resections (RR = 1.05) and lower major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III) (RR = 0.72) were also observed in the LLR group. In addition, patients in the LLR group showed less estimated blood loss (MD = - 185.52 ml) and shorter hospital stays as well (MD = - 2.75 days). Further analysis found the overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.91), disease-free survival (DFS) (HR = 0.95), and recurrence-free survival (HR = 0.80) for patients with ICCA after LLR were all comparable to those of OLR. LLR for selected ICCA patients may be technically safe and feasible, providing short-term benefits and achieving oncological efficacy without compromising the long-term survival of the patients.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multicenter propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopy in the treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) remains unclear. This multicenter study examined the outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for ICC.

METHODS

Patients with ICC who had undergone laparoscopic or open liver resection between 2012 and 2019 at four European expert centers were included in the study. Laparoscopic and open approaches were compared in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes. Propensity score matching was used for minimizing treatment selection bias and adjusting for confounders (age, ASA grade, tumor size, location, number of tumors and underlying liver disease).

RESULTS

Of 136 patients, 50 (36.7%) underwent laparoscopic resection, whereas 86 (63.3%) had open surgery. Median tumor size was larger (73.6 vs 55.1 mm, p = 0.01) and the incidence of bi-lobar tumors was higher (36.6 vs 6%, p < 0.01) in patients undergoing open surgery. After propensity score matching baseline characteristics were comparable although open surgery was associated with a larger fraction of major liver resections (74 vs 38%, p < 0.01), lymphadenectomy (60 vs 20%, p < 0.01) and longer operative time (294 vs 209 min, p < 0.01). Tumor characteristics were similar. Laparoscopic resection resulted in less complications (30 vs 52%, p = 0.025), fewer reoperations (4 vs 16%, p = 0.046) and shorter hospital stay (5 vs 8 days, p < 0.01). No differences were found in terms of recurrence, recurrence-free and overall survival.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic resection seems to be associated with improved short-term and with similar long-term outcomes compared with open surgery in patients with ICC. However, possible selection criteria for laparoscopic surgery are yet to be defined.

Laparoscopic or open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Background

Although laparoscopic hepatectomy has been widely used in the treatment of benign and malignant liver diseases, its applicability in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy (Lap-ICC) and open hepatectomy (Open-ICC) in ICC patients.

Methods

The PubMed, Web of science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and other databases were searched for the relevant literature. The research data were extracted according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Results

Seventeen studies, including 3975 ICC patients, were selected for the meta-analysis. Compared to Open-ICC, Lap-ICC had lower rates of lymph node dissection (OR=0.44, P=0.01) and metastasis (OR=0.58, P=0.03), along with less intraoperative bleeding (MD=-128.43 ml, P<0.01) lower blood transfusion rate (OR=0.43, P<0.01), shorter hospital stay (MD=-2.75 day, P<0.01), higher R0 resection rate (OR=1.60, P<0.01), and lower tumor recurrence rate (OR=0.67, P=0.01). However, there was no difference between the two groups in terms of operation time, number of lymph node dissection, incision margin distance, overall complications rate, severe complications rate, and the 1-, 3- and 5-year DFS and OS rates.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is partially superior to open hepatectomy in terms of less bleeding, shorter hospital stay and higher R0 resection rate, while the long-term efficacy of the two approaches is similar.

Optimization of a laparoscopic procedure for advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma based on the concept of "waiting time": a preliminary report

INTRODUCTION

Clinicians increasingly perform laparoscopic surgery for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). However, this surgery can be difficult in patients with advanced-stage ICC because of the complicated procedures and difficulty in achieving high-quality results. We compared the effects of a three-step optimized procedure with a traditional procedure for patients with advanced-stage ICC.

METHODS

Forty-two patients with advanced-stage ICC who received optimized laparoscopic hemihepatectomy with lymph node dissection (LND, optimized group) and 84 propensity score-matched patients who received traditional laparoscopic hemihepatectomy plus LND (traditional group) were analyzed. Surgical quality, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared.

RESULTS

The optimized group had a lower surgical bleeding score (P = 0.038) and a higher surgeon satisfaction score (P = 0.001). Blood loss during hepatectomy was less in the optimized group (190 vs. 295 mL, P < 0.001). The optimized group had more harvested LNs (12.0 vs. 8.0, P < 0.001) and more positive LNs (8.0 vs. 5.0, P < 0.001), and a similar rate of adequate LND (88.1% vs. 77.4%, P = 0.149). The optimized group had longer median DFS (9.0 vs. 7.0 months, P = 0.018) and median OS (15.0 vs. 13.0 months, P = 0.046). In addition, the optimized group also had a shorter total operation time (P = 0.001), shorter liver resection time (P = 0.001), shorter LND time (P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001), and lower incidence of total morbidities (14.3% vs. 36.9%, P = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Our optimization of a three-step laparoscopic procedure for advanced ICC was feasible, improved the quality of liver resection and LND, prolonged survival, and led to better intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.

Laparoscopic vs. open anatomical hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is a highly malignant and invasive cancer originating from biliary epithelial cells. The current study was designed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes of laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

Methods

After screening, 95 patients who underwent anatomical hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma at our center were enrolled and divided into two groups according to the surgical approach; the baseline characteristics, pathological findings, surgical outcomes, and long-term outcomes were compared. Moreover, univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).

Results

There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics or pathological findings between the two groups. Regarding short-term outcomes, the intraoperative blood loss, incision length, and length of postoperative hospital stay were more favorable in the laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy group than the open anatomical hepatectomy group (P < 0.05). The two groups differed significantly in the extent of liver resection, with a lower lymph node dissection rate and lymph node yield in the laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy group (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the postoperative complication rate was similar in the two groups (P > 0.05). The median postoperative follow-up times were 10.7 and 13.8 months in the laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy and open anatomical hepatectomy groups, respectively. Regarding the long-term follow-up results, OS and DFS were similar in the two groups (P > 0.05). On multivariate analysis, the independent prognostic factors for OS were CA-199, CEA, HGB, tumor diameter, and T stage, and those for DFS were CA-199 (P < 0.05), and T stage (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is safe and feasible when performed by experienced surgeons. Compared with open anatomical hepatectomy, laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy provides better short-term outcomes and a comparable long-term prognosis.

The prognostic value of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a population-based study

OBJECTIVE

We assess the predictive value impacted by tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) undergoing complete resection.

METHODS

Sixty-eight patients with resectable ICC were included in this study. We studied stromal TIL density and scored it by staining sections from surgically resected ICC patients with hematoxylin and eosin (HE). The clinical data and prognosis of patients with ICC were obtained by searching clinical and follow-up records.

RESULTS

A stromal TIL negative status was a predictor of poor OS (HR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.20-0.83, p = .01) and poor PFS (HR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.23-0.97, p = .04) independently. Low stromal TIL density was associated with high levels of CA125 (p = .03) and CA19-9 (p < .01). The high level of CA19-9 (p = .05), high differentiation (p = .02), a large diameter (p = .05), a positive bile duct/vascular cancer embolus (p = .03) and positive satellite nodules (p = .02) were tendencies to develop tumors for patients with a negative status of stromal TIL.

CONCLUSION

Our data prompt for the prediction of the PFS and OS of patients with ICC after complete resection, stromal TILs play an important role.

Selection criteria for minimally invasive resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma-a word of caution: a propensity score matched analysis using the national cancer database

BACKGROUND

While minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) vs. open approach (OLR) has been shown to be safe, the perioperative and oncologic safety for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) specifically, necessitating often complex hepatectomy and extended lymphadenectomy, remains ill-defined.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with ICC undergoing liver resection from 2010 to 2016. After 1:1 Propensity Score Matching (PSM), Kruskal-Wallis and χ2 tests were applied to compare short-term outcomes. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and Cox multivariable regression were performed.

RESULTS

988 patients met inclusion criteria: 140 (14.2%) MILR and 848 (85.8%) OLR resulting in 115 patients MILR and OLR after 1:1 PSM with c-index of 0.733. MILR had lower unplanned 30-day readmission [OR 0.075, P = 0.014] and positive margin rates [OR 0.361, P = 0.011] and shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) [OR 0.941, P = 0.026], but worse lymph node yield [1.52 vs 2.07, P = 0.001]. No difference was found for 30/90-day mortality. Moreover, multivariate analysis revealed that MILR was associated with poorer overall survival compared to OLR [HR 2.454, P = 0.001]. Subgroup analysis revealed that survival differences from approach were dependent on major hepatectomy, tumor size > 4 cm, or negative margins.

CONCLUSION

MILR vs. OLR is associated with worse lymphadenectomy and survival in patients with ICC greater than 4 cm requiring major hepatectomy. Hence, MILR major hepatectomy for ICC should only be approached selectively and if surgeons are able to perform an appropriate lymphadenectomy.

Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Primary Hepatobiliary Tumors-Possibilities and Limitations

Simple Summary

Primary liver malignancies are some of the most common and fatal tumors today. Robotic-assisted liver surgery is becoming increasingly interesting for both patients and surgeons alike. Up to date, prospective comparative studies around the topic are scarce. This leads us to an ever existing controversy about the efficacy, safety, and economic benefits of robotic surgery as an extension of traditional minimally invasive surgery over open liver surgery. However, there is evidence that robotic-assisted surgery is, after passing the learning curve, equivalent in terms of feasibility and safety, and in some cases superior to traditional laparoscopic hepatic resection. With this work, we want to provide an overview of the latest and most significant reviews and meta-analyses focusing on robotic hepatectomy in primary liver malignancies. We outline the technical aspects of robotic-assisted surgery and place them into the context of technical, surgical, and oncological outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open resection. When chosen per case individually, any hepatic resection can be performed robotically to overcome limitations of laparoscopic surgery by an experienced team. In this paper, we propose that prospective studies are needed to prove efficacy for robotic-assisted resection in liver malignancy.

Abstract

Hepatocellular and cholangiocellular carcinoma are fatal primary hepatic tumors demanding extensive liver resection. Liver surgery is technically challenging due to the complex liver anatomy, with an intensive and variant vascular and biliary system. Therefore, major hepatectomies in particular are often performed by open resection and minor hepatectomies are often performed minimally invasively. More centers have adopted robotic-assisted surgery, intending to improve the laparoscopic surgical limits, as it offers some technical benefits such as seven degrees of freedom and 3D visualization. The da Vinci^® Surgical System has dominated the surgical robot market since 2000 and has shown surgical feasibility, but there is still much controversy about its economic benefits and real benefits for the patient over the gold standard. The currently available retrospective case studies are difficult to compare, and larger, prospective studies and randomized trials are still urgently missing. Therefore, here we summarize the technical, surgical, and economic outcomes of robotic versus open and laparoscopic hepatectomies for primary liver tumors found in the latest literature reviews and meta-analyses. We conclude that complex robotic liver resections (RLR) are safe and feasible after the steep learning curve of the surgical team has plateaued. The financial burden is lower in high volume centers and is expected to decrease soon as new surgical systems will enter the market.

Minimally invasive surgical treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is the second most common primary liver cancer and is characterized by an aggressive behavior and a dismal prognosis. Radical surgical resection represents the only potentially curative treatment. Despite the increasing acceptance of laparoscopic liver resection for surgical treatment of malignant liver diseases, its use for ICC is not commonly performed. In fact, to achieve surgical free margins a major resection and/or vascular and/or biliary reconstructions is often needed, as well as an associated lymph node dissection.

AIM

To review and summarize the current evidences on the minimally invasive resection of ICC.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature based on the criteria predetermined by the investigators was performed from the 1^st of January 2009 up to the 1^st of January 2021 in 4 databases (PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases). All retrospective and prospective studies reporting on the comparative outcomes of open vs minimally invasive treatment of ICC were included. An evaluation of manuscripts quality was achieved using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

After a systematic search 9 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Among the all 3012 included patients, 2450 were operated by an open approach and 562 by a minimally invasive (laparoscopic) approach. Baseline characteristics, tumor characteristics, surgical outcomes and oncological outcomes were collected and analyzed, highlighting values with a statistical significant difference between patients treated with open or laparoscopic approach. Shorter hospital stay and lower intraoperative blood losses were reported by some Authors in minimally invasive surgery, on the contrary, in the open group there was a higher number of lymphadenectomies and a higher percentage of major hepatectomies.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive resection of ICC has some short-term benefits and it is safe and feasible only in selected centers with a high experience in laparoscopic approach for liver surgery. Minimally invasive surgery, actually, was considered mainly in patients with a tumor with a diameter < 5 cm, without invasion of main biliary duct or main vessel and no vascular or biliary reconstructions were planned. Further studies are needed to elucidate its impact on long term oncologic outcomes.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Patient Selection and Special Considerations

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is an aggressive primary hepatic malignancy. Unfortunately, despite advancements in diagnosis, staging and management, mortality is high. Surgery remains the only curative treatment, but many patients present with advanced, unresectable disease. For patients able to undergo surgical resection, overall survival is improved, but remains low, with high rates of disease recurrence. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS), including laparoscopic and robotic approaches, are increasingly used in surgical resection for ICC. These approaches variably demonstrate faster recovery times, less blood loss, decreased postoperative pain and fewer postoperative complications, with adequate oncologic resections. This review examines patient selection and special considerations for MIS for ICC. Patient selection is critical and includes evaluation of a patient’s anatomic and oncologic resectability, as well as comorbidities.

Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: An individual patient data survival meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We compared the outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) vs. open hepatectomy (OH) for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA).

METHODS

A systematic review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases was performed using PRISMA guidelines (end-of-search date: 08-June-2020). Individual patient data on overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were extracted. Random-effects meta-analyses, and one- and two-stage survival analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Eight retrospective cohort studies comparing LH (n = 544) vs. OH (n = 2256) were identified. LH demonstrated lower overall complication (Risk ratio [RR] = 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-0.90; p = 0.01), surgical lymphadenectomy (RR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.58-0.93; p = 0.01) and margin-positive resection (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.62-0.99; p = 0.04) rates, and higher recurrence-free rate (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.01-1.51; p = 0.04) vs. OH. In Cox regression, no difference was observed regarding OS (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.65-1.91; p = 0.70) and RFS (HR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.74-1.90; p = 0.47).

CONCLUSION

The use of LH should be considered when feasible in well-selected iCCA patients by hepatobiliary surgeons with experience in minimally-invasive surgery.

Is laparoscopic liver resection safe for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma? A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of laparoscopic liver resection for curative surgery of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is not well established. Herein, we perform a meta-analysis to compare the differences between laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for ICC.

METHODS

Multiple electronic databases were searched and 8 relevant studies containing 552 patients treated by LLR and 2320 treated by OLR were identified. The fixed effects and a random-effects model were used to perform a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with OLR, LLR for ICC was associated with less blood transfusion (7.14% versus 17.11%; OR: 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.71; P < 0.05), higher R0 resection (85.63% versus 74.69%; OR: 1.48; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.95; P < 0.05), shorter length of stay (LOS) (SMD: -0.40; 95% CI -0.80 to 0.00; P = 0.05), less overall morbidities (20% versus 32.69%; OR: 0.50; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.78; P < 0.05), and less death due to tumor recurrence (22.39% versus 35.48%; OR: 0.50; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.86; P <0.05); but LLR was associated with smaller ICC, fewer major hepatectomies, less lymph node (LN) dissection rate, and inferior 5-year overall survival (OS) (P < 0.05). Duration of operation, blood loss, average LN retrieved, LN metastasis, major morbidities, mortality, tumor recurrence, 3-year OS and disease free survival (DFS), and 5-year DFS were comparable (P >0.05).

CONCLUSION

LLR for ICC is in the initial phase of exploration. More evidence is necessary to validate LLR for ICC.

Laparoscopic versus open resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

The relevance of laparoscopic resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) remains debated. The aim of this study was to compare laparoscopic (LLR) and open (OLR) liver resection for ICC, with specific focus on textbook outcome and lymph node dissection (LND).

METHODS

Patients undergoing LLR or OLR for ICC were included from two French, nationwide hepatopancreatobiliary surveys undertaken between 2000 and 2017. Patients with negative margins, and without transfusion, severe complications, prolonged hospital stay, readmission or death were considered to have a textbook outcome. Patients who achieved both a textbook outcome and LND were deemed to have an adjusted textbook outcome. OLR and LLR were compared after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

In total, 548 patients with ICC (127 LLR, 421 OLR) were included. Textbook-outcome and LND completion rates were 22.1 and 48.2 per cent respectively. LLR was independently associated with a decreased rate of LND (odds ratio 0.37, 95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.69). After matching, 109 patients remained in each group. LLR was associated with a decreased rate of transfusion (7.3 versus 21.1 per cent; P = 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (median 7 versus 14 days; P = 0.001), but lower rate of LND (33.9 versus 73.4 per cent; P = 0.001). Patients who underwent LLR had lower rate of adjusted TO completion than patients who had OLR (6.5 versus 17.4 per cent; P = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach did not substantially improve quality of care of patients with resectable ICC.

[Evidence of minimally invasive oncological surgery of the liver]

BACKGROUND

The evidence for minimally invasive surgery (MIS) of the liver has significantly increased with the increasing number of publications on this topic in recent years; however, this technique has not yet gained broad acceptance among surgeons.

OBJECTIVE

Analysis and presentation of the current literature on MIS of the liver.

MATERIAL UND METHODS

Structured PubMed literature search and analysis.

RESULTS

According to the literature, MIS and open liver surgery are equivalent regarding the oncological quality. In addition to parenchyma-preserving resections, major hepatectomies (e.g. hemihepatectomy and sectorectomy), two-stage concepts and re-resections have increasingly been reported. The MIS of the liver is associated with less blood loss and other immunological advantages in addition to a shorter hospital stay. The highest level of evidence has been achieved for colorectal liver metastases for which a systematic review even revealed a survival benefit for patients undergoing MIS surgery. From an oncological perspective, laparoscopic and robotic liver surgery are considered to be equivalent.

CONCLUSION

According to the current literature MIS of the liver is recommended for the resection of colorectal liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is a rare and aggressive hepatic malignancy. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted aiming to compare outcomes between laparoscopic (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for patients with iCCA. A systematic literature search of Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases was performed. A total of 8 studies comprising 2872 patients, who underwent LLR or OLR for iCCA, were included in our meta-analysis. LLR patients had smaller tumors [mean difference (MD): - 1.17 cm, 95% confidence intervals (CI) - 1.77 to - 0.57, p = 0.0001], underwent major resections less frequently [risk ratio (RR): 0.75, 95% CI 0.67-0.83, p < 0.00001] and R0 resections more frequently (RR: 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.09, p = 0.01), while lymphadenectomy was less common in the laparoscopic group (RR: 0.73, 95% CI 0.58-0.92, p = 0.007). The LLR group presented reduced blood loss (MD: - 270.16 ml, 95% CI - 381.53 to - 32.79, p = 0.002), need for transfusion (RR: 0.39, 95% CI 0.21-0.73, p = 0.003), overall morbidity (RR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.4-0.83, p = 0.003) and hospital stay (MD: - 3.48 days, 95% CI: - 6.94 to - 0.02, p = 0.05) compared to the OLR group. No differences were shown in operative time (MD: 1.6 min, 95% CI - 34.17-37.37, p = 0.93), major morbidity (RR: 0.65, 95% CI 0.38-1.11, p = 0.12), mortality (RR: 1.42, 95% CI 0.13-15.07, p = 0.77), overall (HR: 0.9, 95% CI 0.59-1.38, p = 0.63) and relapse-free survival (HR: 0.77, 95% CI 0.5-1.16, p = 0.21) between the two groups. LLR seems to benefit patients with iCCA in terms of short-term outcomes, whilst long-term outcomes are comparable among the two approaches.

Is It Time to Consider Laparoscopic Hepatectomy for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma? A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The role of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) remains indefinite, though the utilization of this minimally invasive approach has been increasing for ICC. We herein performed a meta-analysis to investigate this issue.

METHODS

Six retrospective studies including 384 patients who had undergone LH and 2147 patients who had undergone open hepatectomy (OH) for ICC were included. The fixed-effects or random-effects models were utilized for data analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with patients who had undergone OH for ICC, patients who had undergone LH for ICC experienced more R0 resections (81.6 versus 73.8%, risk ratio (RR) = 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.14; P = 0.008) but less major hepatectomies (37.7 versus 54.2%, RR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.60-0.79; P < 0.0001), less lymph node dissections (38.0 versus 61.5%, RR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.54-0.70; P < 0.0001), and smaller tumor size resected (4.14 versus 4.94 cm, weighted mean difference = - 0.80 cm, 95% CI - 1.38 to - 0.22 cm; P = 0.007). No significant difference was observed in other perioperative results (all P > 0.05) or overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.38, 95% CI 0.63-3.02; P = 0.43).

CONCLUSIONS

LH has comparable safety, feasibility, and oncological efficacy to that of OH for ICC and has superiority in R0 resection over OH. It may be time to consider LH for ICC only if a more thorough effort on lymph node dissection is undertaken in selective patients at experienced centers.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: the first meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has gained increasing acceptance for surgical treatment of malignant and benign liver tumors. LLR for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is not commonly performed because of the concern for the frequent need for major hepatectomy, vascular-biliary reconstructions, and lymph node dissection (LND). The aim of this present meta-analysis is to compare surgical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic (LLR) versus open liver resection (OLR) for ICC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane library database of published studies comparing LLR and OLR up to October 2019. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of the studies. Dichotomous data were calculated by odds ratio (OR), and continuous data were calculated by mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

Four retrospective observational studies describing 204 patients met the inclusion criteria. With respect to surgical outcomes, laparoscopic compared with open liver resection was associated with lower blood loss [MD - 173.86, (95% CI - 254.82, -92.91) p < 0.0001], less requirement of blood transfusion [OR 0.34, (95% CI 0.14, 0.82) p = 0.02], less need for Pringle maneuver [OR 0.17, (95% CI 0.07, 0.43) p = 0.0002], shorter hospital stay [MD - 3.77, (95% CI - 5.09, - 2.44; p < 0.0001], and less morbidity [OR 0.44, (95% CI 0.21, 0.94) p = 0.03]. With respect to oncological outcomes, the LLR group was prone to lower rates of lymphadenectomy [OR 0.12, (95% CI 0.06, 0.25) p < 0.0001], but surgical margins R0 and recurrence rate were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection for ICC seems to achieve better surgical outcomes, providing short-term benefits without negatively affecting oncologic adequacy in terms of R0 resections and disease recurrence. However, a higher LND rate was observed in the open group. Due to the risk of bias and the statistical heterogeneity between the studies included in this review, further RCTs are needed to reach stronger scientific conclusions.

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Limitations for resectability, current surgical concepts and future perspectives

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is the second most common hepatic malignancy and its incidence has been shown to increase significantly during the past decades. Complete surgical resection is currently acknowledged as the only curative treatment option able to provide adequate long-term outcomes. We herein review technical, functional and oncologic limitations for resectability, discuss current surgical aspects as well as highlight the fields in which future research and practice should focus on in order to ameliorate long-term outcomes in patients with iCCA.

Oncological Resection for Liver Malignancies: Can the Laparoscopic Approach Provide Benefits?

: Laparoscopic surgery has become an increasingly popular alternative approach to open surgery, resulting in a paradigm shift in liver surgery. Although laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) was initially indicated for small benign and peripheral tumors, at present more than half of LLRs are performed in malignant tumors. Several studies have reported the feasibility of LLR in malignant disease and suggested various short-term benefits compared to open liver resection, including decreased blood loss and postoperative complications and a shorter hospital stay. Although these benefits are important to surgeons, patients, and providers, the main goal of surgery for malignancies is to achieve a maximum oncologic benefit.The relevance of the laparoscopic approach must be assessed in relation to the possibility of respecting basic oncological rules and the expertise of the center. Easy LLRs can be safely performed by most surgeons with minimum expertise in liver surgery and laparoscopy, and can therefore probably provide an oncological benefit. On the other hand, intermediate or difficult LLRs require technical expertise and an oncological benefit can only be achieved in expert centers. Technical standardization is the only way to obtain an oncological benefit with this type of resection, and many problems must still be solved.

The role of minimally invasive hepatectomy for hilar and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review of the literature

Despite the fact laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) for cholangiocarcinoma is still limited, this systematic review addressed surgical and oncological outcomes of LLR to treat both perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA). Five comparative and 20 noncomparative studies were found. Regarding iCCA, LLR had lower blood loss and less need for Pringle maneuver. However, open liver resections (OLR) were performed more for major hepatectomies, with better lymphadenectomy rates and higher number of harvested lymph nodes. High heterogeneity and selection bias were suggested for iCCA studies.

Indications for laparoscopic liver resection of mass-forming intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

INTRODUCTION

We investigated the indications for laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) of mass-forming intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (MF-ICC), including the need for lymph node dissection for improved postoperative prognosis.

METHODS

This study involved 36 patients who underwent surgery for solitary peripheral MF-ICC. Fifteen patients underwent LLR, and 21 underwent open liver resection (OLR). Surgical outcomes and prognostic factors were investigated to determine the indications for LLR.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in perioperative outcomes between patients who underwent LLR and OLR. A significantly worse disease-free survival (DFS) rate was observed in patients who preoperatively had a tumor diameter ≥3 cm, vascular invasion on diagnostic imaging, and elevated serum carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels. A significantly worse overall survival (OS) rate was observed in patients with a tumor diameter ≥3 cm, vascular invasion on diagnostic imaging, and elevated serum CA19-9 levels. Therefore, a tumor diameter ≥3 cm, vascular invasion on diagnostic imaging, and elevated serum CA19-9 and CEA levels were determined to be preoperative prognostic factors. DFS and OS rates were significantly better in patients without these factors. Moreover, in six patients without these factors who underwent LLR, neither lymph node metastasis nor postoperative recurrence was observed.

CONCLUSION

A tumor diameter ≥3 cm, vascular invasion on diagnostic imaging, and elevated serum CA19-9 and CEA levels are preoperative prognostic factors for peripheral MF-ICC. LLR is indicated for patients without these factors.

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection for patients with large or multiple intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas: A propensity score based case-matched analysis from a single institute

Only a few high-volume centers have reported the efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). The minimally invasive approach is still controversial for ICC, especially when dealing with large (≥5 cm) or multiple (≥2) ICCs.Patients with large and multiple ICCs who underwent LLR or open hepatectomy (OH) between January 2012 and June 2017 were included. Furthermore, 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed between the LLR group and the OH group. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the different techniques.After PSM, LLR resulted in significantly longer operation time (median 225 minutes vs 190 minutes, P = .006) and pringle maneuver time (median 50 minutes vs 32.5 minutes, P = .001). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative hospital stay between the different approaches (median 6 days vs 7 days, P = .092). The grade III/IV complication rates were comparable between the groups (5.6% vs 11.1%, P = .868). In the PSM subset, there was no significant difference in terms of overall survival (P = .645) or disease-free survival (P = .827) between patients in the LLR group and in the OH group.The present study showed that patients who underwent LLR for large or multiple ICCs could obtain similar short- and long-term outcomes compared with those who underwent OH, and lymph node dissection (LND) was technically difficult but feasible during LLR.

Essential updates to the surgical treatment of biliary tract cancer

Biliary tract cancer, which includes intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, extrahepatic bile duct cancer, gallbladder cancer, and ampullary cancer, is an intractable disease with a dismal prognosis. Prognosis is particularly poor in cases involving vessels or lymph nodes. Hepatobiliary pancreatic surgeons worldwide have consistently focused on improving surgical treatment, perioperative management, and chemotherapy to improve the outcomes of these diseases. There has been significant progress even in the last 2 years (2017 and 2018), such as promising findings reported by studies on the optimal extent of surgical treatment and multi-institutional randomized controlled trials on adjuvant chemotherapy. We overview the current trends and advancements made in surgical treatment in 2017 and 2018.

Laparoscopic liver resection: a review of current indications and surgical techniques

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been the most impressive development in the field of liver surgery in recent two decades. Technical innovations and experience accumulation have made LLR a safe and effective procedure with faster postoperative recovery. Despite the fast spreading of the procedure, details regarding the indications, oncological outcomes and technical essentials were still disputable. To address these issues, two international consensus conferences were hold to update the knowledge in this field. The statements of the both conferences were not conclusive and more high-quality researches are required. In this article, we reviewed the development and the current state of LLR. Indications, outcomes, surgical techniques and devices used in LLR were also discussed.

Multidisciplinary management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Current approaches

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is a common primary hepatic tumor. However, its outcomes are usually worse than those of hepatocellular carcinoma owing to its non-specific presentation and detection at an advanced stage. The most widely used serum marker, carbohydrate antigen 19-9, is non-specific. Furthermore, imaging studies rarely identify any pathognomonic features. Surgery is the only treatment option that offers a chance of long-term survival. However, the resectability rate is low owing to the high frequencies of intrahepatic metastases, peritoneal carcinomatosis, or extrahepatic metastases. Surgical treatment should be tailored according to the macroscopic classification of ICC (e.g. mass-forming, periductal infiltrating, and intraductal growth types) because it reflects the tumor's dissemination pattern. Although lymph node metastasis is a negative prognostic factor, the importance and extent of lymph node dissection is still controversial. To improve patient survival, liver transplantation is considered in some patients with unresectable ICC, especially in those with an insufficient remnant liver volume. Minimally invasive procedures, including laparoscopic and robotic liver resection, have been tested and achieved comparable outcomes to conventional surgery in preliminary studies. No randomized trials have confirmed the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy in ICC, and several trials have evaluated molecular-targeted agents as monotherapy or in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Multidisciplinary approaches are necessary to improve the outcomes of ICC.