Transplantation and surgical strategies in patients with neuroendocrine liver metastases: protocol of four systematic reviews

Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines on liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is a highly complex and challenging field of clinical practice. Although it was originally developed in western countries, it has been further advanced in Asian countries through the use of living donor liver transplantation. This method of transplantation is the only available option in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region due to the lack of deceased organ donation. As a result of this clinical situation, there is a growing need for guidelines that are specific to the Asia-Pacific region. These guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for evidence-based management throughout the entire process of liver transplantation, covering both deceased and living donor liver transplantation. In addition, the development of these guidelines has been a collaborative effort between medical professionals from various countries in the region. This has allowed for the inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences, leading to a more comprehensive and effective set of guidelines.

Liver transplantation in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Neuroendocrine tumors are part of a heterogeneous group of tumors located in organs such as the gastrointestinal tract (GIT), lungs, thymus, thyroid, and adrenal glands. The most prevalent sites are the small intestine, cecal appendix, and pancreas. More than 50% of these tumors are associated with metastases at the time of diagnosis. Neuroendocrine tumors are classified according to the degree of cell differentiation and the histopathological proliferation index of the lesion. Neuroendocrine tumors can be well differentiated or poorly differentiated. G3 tumors are characterized by Ki-67 expression greater than 20% and can be either well differentiated (G3 NET) or poorly differentiated (G3 NEC). Neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC G3) is subdivided into small-cell and large-cell types. When neuroendocrine tumors present clinical and compressive symptoms, carcinoid syndrome is evident. Carcinoid syndrome occurs when the tumor produces neuroendocrine mediators that cannot be metabolized by the liver due to either the size of the tumor or their secretion by the liver itself. Several therapeutic strategies have been described for the treatment of metastatic neuroendocrine tumors, including curative or palliative surgical approaches, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy, percutaneous therapy, systemic chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. Liver surgery is the only approach that can offer a cure for metastatic patients. Liver metastases must be completely resected, and in this context, orthotopic liver transplantation has gained prominence for yielding very promising outcomes in selected cases. The aim of this study is to review the literature on OLT as a form of treatment with curative intent for patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors with liver metastasis.

Neuroendocrine liver metastases: The role of liver transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Neuroendocrine tumor (NET) metastasis localized to the liver is an accepted indication for liver transplantation as such tumors have a low biological aggressiveness in terms of malignancy and are slow growing.

RECENT FINDINGS

The long-term results are comparable with and in some cases even better than those of transplantations performed for primary liver cancer. However, compared with nonmalignant conditions, neuroendocrine liver metastasis (NELM) may result in an inferior outcome of transplantation. In the face of the scarcity of donated organs and recent improved results of non-surgical treatment for NELM, controversy over patient selection and timing for liver transplantation continues.

SUMMARY

In this review, we provide an overview of the diagnostic work-up and selection criteria of patients with NELM being considered for liver transplantation. Thereafter, we provide a critical analysis of the reported outcomes of OLT.

Association of a Prophylactic Surgical Approach to Stage IV Small Intestinal Neuroendocrine Tumors With Survival

Importance

Primary tumor resection and mesenteric lymph node dissection in asymptomatic patients with stage IV small intestinal neuroendocrine tumors (SI-NETs) are controversial.

Objective

To determine the association of locoregional surgery (LRS) performed at diagnosis with outcomes in patients with asymptomatic SI-NETs and distant metastases.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study included asymptomatic patients with stage IV SI-NETs diagnosed from January 1, 1985, through December 31, 2015, and identified using the prospective database of SI-NETs from Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden. Patients included were treated at a tertiary referral center and followed up until May 31, 2016, with data from the Swedish National Patient Register. The 363 patients with stage IV SI-NETs without abdominal symptoms were divided between those who underwent prophylactic up-front surgery within 6 months from diagnosis combined with oncologic treatment (hereafter referred to as LRS group [n = 161]) and those who underwent nonsurgical treatment or delayed surgery as needed combined with oncologic treatment (hereafer referred to as delayed LRS group [n = 202]).

Exposures

Prophylactic up-front surgery within 6 months from diagnosis combined with oncologic treatment vs nonsurgical treatment or delayed surgery as needed combined with oncologic treatment.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overall survival (OS), length of hospital stay (LOS), postoperative morbidity and mortality, and reoperation rates measured from baseline. Propensity score matching was performed between the 2 groups.

Results

The 363 patients included 173 women (47.7%) and 190 men (52.3%), with a mean (SD) age at diagnosis of 62.4 (11.1) years. Two isonumerical groups with 91 patients in each resulted after propensity score matching. The LRS and delayed LRS groups were comparable in median OS (7.9 years [range, 5.1-10.7 years] vs 7.6 years [range, 5.8-9.5 years]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.70-1.37; log-rank P = .93) and cancer-specific survival (7.7 years [range, 4.5-10.8 years] vs 7.6 years [range, 5.6-9.7 years]; HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.71-1.40; log-rank P = .99). No difference was found in 30-day mortality (0 patients in both matched groups) or postoperative morbidity (2 [2.2%] vs 1 [1.1%]; P > .99), median LOS (73 days [range, 2-270 days] vs 76 days [range, 0-339 days]; P = .64) or LOS due to local tumor-related symptoms (7.0 days [range, 0-90 days] vs 11.5 days [range, 0-69 days]; P = .81), or incisional hernia repairs (4 patients [4.4%] in both groups; P > .99). Patients in the LRS group underwent more reoperative procedures (13 [14.3%]) compared with those in the delayed LRS group (3 [3.3%]) owing to intestinal obstruction (P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Prophylactic up-front LRS conferred no survival advantage in asymptomatic patients with stage IV SI-NETs. Delayed surgery as needed was comparable in all examined outcomes and was associated with fewer reoperations for intestinal obstruction. The value of a priori LRS in the presence of distant metastases is challenged and needs to be elucidated in a randomized clinical study.

Is there still a role for the hepatic locoregional treatment of metastatic neuroendocrine tumors in the era of systemic targeted therapies?

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) frequently present with distant metastases at the time of diagnosis and the liver is the most frequent site of spreading. The early identification of metastatic disease represents a major prognostic factor for GEP-NENs patients. Radical surgical resection, which is feasible for a minority of patients, is considered the only curative option, while the best management for patients with unresectable liver metastases is still being debated. In the last few years, a number of locoregional and systemic treatments has become available for GEP-NEN patients metastatic to the liver. However, to date only a few prospective studies have compared those therapies and the optimal management option is based on clinical judgement. Additionally, locoregional treatments appear feasible and safe for disease control for patients with limited liver involvement and effective in symptoms control for patients with diffuse liver metastases. Considering the lack of randomized controlled trials comparing the locoregional treatments of liver metastatic NEN patients, clinical judgment remains key to set the most appropriate therapeutic pathway. Prospective data may ultimately lead to more personalized and optimized treatments. The present review analyzes all the locoregional therapy modalities (i.e., surgery, ablative treatments and transarterial approach) and aims to provide clinicians with a useful algorithm to best treat GEP-NEN patients metastatic to the liver.

Living donor liver transplantation: a life-saving option in emergency situations for diffuse hepatic neuroendocrine tumor metastasis

Liver metastasis is the main cause of death in patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs), but only 10%-20% of metastasis in these cases is resectable at the time of diagnosis. In some cases, medical and interventional radiological treatments may not be effective. Liver transplantation, although controversial, may be an option. Worldwide organ-sharing systems do not provide exception points, but give recommendations for liver transplantation in cases of hepatic metastasis from GEP-NETs due to the issue of fair access to donor organs. Living donor liver transplantation is an option in select cases. Presented here are 2 cases in which living donor liver transplantation was performed in emergency situations as a life-saving procedure, with acceptable survival and without donor complications.

Liver transplantation for neuroendocrine tumour liver metastases

OBJECTIVE

Search and review of available literature were made to define the indications for and timing of liver transplantation for neuroendocrine tumour (NET) liver metastases.

METHODS

Electronic bibliographical databases were searched. Prospective and retrospective cohort studies and case-controlled studies were used for qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the systematic review. Reports of patients with liver transplantation alone for NET liver metastases of any origin or combined with resection of extrahepatic tumour deposits were recruited.

RESULTS

The number of patients who have undergone liver transplantation for NET liver metastases is 706. The post-transplant 5-year survival rate from the time of diagnosis was approximately 70%. NET patients with metastases confined to the liver and not poorly differentiated are favourable candidates for liver transplantation. Selection of patients based on evolution of tumours over 6 months is not recommended.

CONCLUSION

Non-resectable NET liver metastasis resistant to medical treatment and confined to the liver is an accepted indication for liver transplantation.

When should a liver resection be performed in patients with liver metastases from neuroendocrine tumours? A systematic review with practice recommendations

AIM

To determine the benefits and risks of hepatic resection versus non-resectional liver-directed treatments in patients with potentially resectable neuroendocrine liver metastases.

METHODS

A systematic review identified 1594 reports which alluded to a possible liver resection for neuroendocrine tumour metastases, of which 38 reports (all retrospective), comprising 3425 patients, were relevant.

RESULTS

Thirty studies reported resection alone, and 16 studies reported overall survival (OS). Only two studies addressed quality-of-life (QoL) issues. Five-year overall survival was reported at 41-100%, whereas 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 5-54%. We identified no robust evidence that a liver resection was superior to any other liver-directed therapies in improving OS or PFS. There was no evidence to support the use of a R2 resection (debulking), with or without tumour ablation, to improve either OS or QoL. There was little evidence to guide sequencing of surgery for patients presenting in Stage IV with resectable disease, and none to support a resection of asymptomatic primary tumours in the presence of non-resectable liver metastases.

CONCLUSION

Low-level recommendations are offered to assist in the management of patients with neuroendocrine liver metastases, along with recommendations for future studies.