Effect of Autotransfusion in HCC Surgery on Survival and Recurrence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Role of locoregional therapy including liver transplantation in liver-only metastatic colorectal cancer: a review paper

INTRODUCTION

Resection of primary tumor and liver metastases is the gold standard for colorectal cancer with liver-only metastases (CRLM). Although treatment options have expanded to enable conversion of unresectable to resectable CRLM, about 40% of patients will have definitively unresectable disease. Major advances in surgical techniques, immunosuppressive protocols and patient selection criteria for liver transplantation have resulted in improved outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search has been conducted in Pubmed for articles published between 2014 and 2024. This review paper comments on current liver-directed treatment options for CRLM: resection, percutaneous ablation, conversion-chemotherapy, TACE, SIRT, and SABR. We explore evidence for liver transplantation in patients with unresectable CRLM, comment on possible limitations for implementation in clinical practice and give an overview of the current guidelines on liver transplantation in the USA, Europe, the United Kingdom, and Australia/New Zealand.

EXPERT OPINION

The recent randomized TRANSMET trial, investigating liver transplantation versus chemotherapy in unresectable CRLM, shows promising 5-year OS reaching similar values as for other accepted liver transplantation indications. Further investigations with RCTs to investigate reproducibility and feasibility in clinical practice are needed. Before liver transplantation can be implemented as a standard treatment option, reorganizations at federal, regional and hospital levels would be required.

Blood Transfusion and Survival of Children, Adolescent, and Young Adult Patients with Osteosarcoma: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

Background/Objectives: Prior studies suggest that blood transfusion may adversely affect the survival of patients with cancer via transfusion-related immunomodulation. The objective of our study is to investigate the association between transfusion during neoadjuvant chemotherapy and survival in children, adolescent, and young adult (CAYA, 39 years old or younger) patients with osteosarcoma. Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients between 2007 and 2022. Our primary exposure was receipt of any blood product in the neoadjuvant period (i.e., neoadjuvant transfusion). The primary outcome of interest was 3-year event-free survival (EFS) calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, while secondary outcomes of interest included 5-year EFS and 3- and 5-year overall survival (OS). Firth multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to evaluate the adjusted association between transfusion status and 3- and 5-year EFS and OS. Results: In total, 73 patients were included in the analytic sample; among them, 34 received neoadjuvant transfusion. There was no significant difference between transfused and non-transfused groups in race, ethnicity, tumor location, stage at diagnosis, histologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and receipt of ifosfamide or radiation during initial treatment. The transfusion group included more females (p = 0.02) and lower median hemoglobin at diagnosis (p = 0.002) than the non-transfusion group. EFS and OS did not significantly vary by transfusion status or type. Conclusions: We did not observe an adjusted association between neoadjuvant transfusion and survival in CAYA patients with osteosarcoma.

Influence of intraoperative blood salvage and autotransfusion on tumor recurrence after deceased donor liver transplantation: a large nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The practice of intraoperative blood salvage and autotransfusion (IBSA) during deceased donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can potentially reduce the need for allogeneic blood transfusion. However, implementing IBSA remains debatable due to concerns about its possible detrimental effects on oncologic recurrence.

METHODS

This study retrospectively enrolled nationwide recipients of deceased donor liver transplantation for HCC between 2015 and 2020. The focus was on comparing the cumulative recurrence rate and the recurrence-free survival rate. Propensity score matching was conducted repeatedly for further subgroup comparison. Recipients were categorized based on the Milan criteria, macrovascular invasion, and pretransplant α-Fetoprotein (AFP) level to identify subgroups at risk of HCC recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 6196 and 329 patients were enrolled in the non-IBSA and IBSA groups in this study. Multivariable competing risk regression analysis identified IBSA as independent risk factors for HCC recurrence ( P <0.05). Postmatching, the cumulative recurrence rate and recurrence-free survival rate revealed no significant difference in the IBSA group and non-IBSA group (22.4 vs. 16.5%, P =0.12; 60.3 vs. 60.9%, P =0.74). Recipients beyond Milan criteria had higher, albeit not significant, risk of HCC recurrence if receiving IBSA (33.4 vs. 22.5%, P =0.14). For recipients with macrovascular invasion, the risk of HCC recurrence has no significant difference between the two groups (32.2 vs. 21.3%, P =0.231). For recipients with an AFP level <20 ng/ml, the risk of HCC recurrence was comparable in the IBSA group and the non-IBSA group (12.8 vs. 18.7%, P =0.99). Recipients with an AFP level ≥20 ng/ml, the risk of HCC recurrence was significantly higher in the IBSA group. For those with an AFP level ≥400 ng/ml, the impact of IBSA on the cumulative recurrence rate was even more pronounced (49.8 vs. 21.9%, P =0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

IBSA does not appear to be associated with worse outcomes for recipients with HCC exceeding the Milan criteria or with macrovascular invasion. IBSA could be confidently applied for recipients with a pretransplant AFP level <20 ng/ml. For recipients with AFP levels ≥20 ng/ml, undertaking IBSA would increase the risk of HCC recurrence.

Impact of autotransfusion on recurrence of colorectal cancer liver metastasis: Long-term follow-up of patients undergoing curative intent hepatectomy

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM) occurs in upto 50% of cases and drives patient outcomes. Up-front liver resection is the treatment of choice in resectable cases. There is no consensus yet established as to the safety of intraoperative autotransfusion in liver resection for CRLM.

METHODS

Patients undergoing curative-intent hepatectomy for CRLM at a single quaternary-care institution from 1999 to 2016 were included. Demographics, surgical variables, Fong Clinical Risk Score (FCRS), use of intraoperative auto and/or allotransfusion, and survival data were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed accounting for allotransfusion, extent of hepatectomy, FCRS, and systemic treatment regimens.

RESULTS

Three-hundred sixteen patients were included. The median follow-up was 10.4 years (7.8-14.1 years). The median recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in all patients were 1.6 years (interquartile range: 0.63-6.6 years) and 4.4 years (2.1-8.7), respectively.  Before PSM, there was a significantly reduced RFS in the autotransfusion group (0.96 vs. 1.73 years, p = 0.20). There was no difference in OS (4.11 vs. 4.44 years, p = 0.118). Patients in groups of FCRS 0-2 and 3-5 both had reduced RFS when autotransfusion was used (p = 0.005). This reduction in RFS was further found when comparing autotransfusion versus no autotransfusion within the FCRS 0-2 group and within the FCRS 3-5 group (p = 0.027). On Cox-regression analysis, autotransfusion (hazard ratio = 1.423, 1.028-2.182, p = 0.015) remained predictive of RFS. After PSM, there were no differences in FCRS (p = 0.601), preoperative hemoglobin (p = 0.880), allotransfusion (p = 0.130), adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 1.000), immunotherapy (p = 0.172), tumor grade (p = 1.000), use of platinum-based chemotherapy (p = 0.548), or type of hepatic resection (p = 0.967). After matching, there was a higher rate of recurrence with autotransfusion (69.0% vs. 47.6%, p = 0.046). There was also a reduced time to recurrence in the autotransfusion group compared with the group without (p = 0.006). There was no difference in OS after PSM (p = 0.262).

CONCLUSION

Autotransfusion may adversely affect recurrence in liver resection for CRLM. Until further studies clarify this risk profile, the use of intraoperative autotransfusion should be critically assessed on a case-by-case basis only when other resuscitation options are not available.

Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in adults undergoing elective surgery

BACKGROUND

Concerns regarding the safety and availability of transfused donor blood have prompted research into a range of techniques to minimise allogeneic transfusion requirements. Cell salvage (CS) describes the recovery of blood from the surgical field, either during or after surgery, for reinfusion back to the patient.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness of CS in minimising perioperative allogeneic red blood cell transfusion and on other clinical outcomes in adults undergoing elective or non-urgent surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two clinical trials registers for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews from 2009 (date of previous search) to 19 January 2023, without restrictions on language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs assessing the use of CS compared to no CS in adults (participants aged 18 or over, or using the study's definition of adult) undergoing elective (non-urgent) surgery only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 106 RCTs, incorporating data from 14,528 participants, reported in studies conducted in 24 countries. Results were published between 1978 and 2021. We analysed all data according to a single comparison: CS versus no CS. We separated analyses by type of surgery. The certainty of the evidence varied from very low certainty to high certainty. Reasons for downgrading the certainty included imprecision (small sample sizes below the optimal information size required to detect a difference, and wide confidence intervals), inconsistency (high statistical heterogeneity), and risk of bias (high risk from domains including sequence generation, blinding, and baseline imbalances). Aggregate analysis (all surgeries combined: primary outcome only) Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if there is a reduction in the risk of allogeneic transfusion with CS (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.72; 82 RCTs, 12,520 participants). Cancer: 2 RCTs (79 participants) Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a difference for mortality, blood loss, infection, or deep vein thrombosis (DVT). There were no analysable data reported for the remaining outcomes. Cardiovascular (vascular): 6 RCTs (384 participants) Very low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a difference for most outcomes. No data were reported for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Cardiovascular (no bypass): 6 RCTs (372 participants) Moderate-certainty evidence suggests there is probably a reduction in risk of allogeneic transfusion with CS (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.97; 3 RCTs, 169 participants). Very low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a difference for volume transfused, blood loss, mortality, re-operation for bleeding, infection, wound complication, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and hospital length of stay (LOS). There were no analysable data reported for thrombosis, DVT, pulmonary embolism (PE), and MACE. Cardiovascular (with bypass): 29 RCTs (2936 participants) Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be a reduction in the risk of allogeneic transfusion with CS, and suggests there may be no difference in risk of infection and hospital LOS. Very low- to moderate-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a reduction in volume transfused because of CS, or if there is any difference for mortality, blood loss, re-operation for bleeding, wound complication, thrombosis, DVT, PE, MACE, and MI, and probably no difference in risk of stroke. Obstetrics: 1 RCT (1356 participants) High-certainty evidence shows there is no difference between groups for mean volume of allogeneic blood transfused (mean difference (MD) -0.02 units, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.04; 1 RCT, 1349 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference for risk of allogeneic transfusion. There were no analysable data reported for the remaining outcomes. Orthopaedic (hip only): 17 RCTs (2055 participants) Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if CS reduces the risk of allogeneic transfusion, and the volume transfused, or if there is any difference between groups for mortality, blood loss, re-operation for bleeding, infection, wound complication, prosthetic joint infection (PJI), thrombosis, DVT, PE, stroke, and hospital LOS. There were no analysable data reported for MACE and MI. Orthopaedic (knee only): 26 RCTs (2568 participants) Very low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if CS reduces the risk of allogeneic transfusion, and the volume transfused, and whether there is a difference for blood loss, re-operation for bleeding, infection, wound complication, PJI, DVT, PE, MI, MACE, stroke, and hospital LOS. There were no analysable data reported for mortality and thrombosis. Orthopaedic (spine only): 6 RCTs (404 participants) Moderate-certainty evidence suggests there is probably a reduction in the need for allogeneic transfusion with CS (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.63; 3 RCTs, 194 participants). Very low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference for volume transfused, blood loss, infection, wound complication, and PE. There were no analysable data reported for mortality, re-operation for bleeding, PJI, thrombosis, DVT, MACE, MI, stroke, and hospital LOS. Orthopaedic (mixed): 14 RCTs (4374 participants) Very low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if there is a reduction in the need for allogeneic transfusion with CS, or if there is any difference between groups for volume transfused, mortality, blood loss, infection, wound complication, PJI, thrombosis, DVT, MI, and hospital LOS. There were no analysable data reported for re-operation for bleeding, MACE, and stroke.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In some types of elective surgery, cell salvage may reduce the need for and volume of allogeneic transfusion, alongside evidence of no difference in adverse events, when compared to no cell salvage. Further research is required to establish why other surgeries show no benefit from CS, through further analysis of the current evidence. More large RCTs in under-reported specialities are needed to expand the evidence base for exploring the impact of CS.