Amber L Simpson1, David A Geller2, Alan W Hemming3, William R Jarnagin4, Logan W Clements5, Michael I D'Angelica6, Prashanth Dumpuri7, Mithat Gönen8, Ivan Zendejas9, Michael I Miga10, James D Stefansic7. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN; Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 2. Liver Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA. 3. Department of Surgery, Center for Hepatobiliary Disease and Abdominal Transplantation, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA. 4. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. Electronic address: jarnagiw@mskcc.org. 5. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN; Pathfinder Therapeutics Inc., Nashville, TN. 6. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 7. Pathfinder Therapeutics Inc., Nashville, TN. 8. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 9. Department of Surgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 10. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postoperative or remnant liver volume (RLV) after hepatic resection is a critical predictor of perioperative outcomes. This study investigates whether the accuracy of liver surgical planning software for predicting postoperative RLV and assessing early regeneration. STUDY DESIGN: Patients eligible for hepatic resection were approached for participation in the study from June 2008 to 2010. All patients underwent cross-sectional imaging (CT or MRI) before and early after resection. Planned remnant liver volume (pRLV) (based on the planned resection on the preoperative scan) and postoperative actual remnant liver volume (aRLV) (determined from early postoperative scan) were measured using Scout Liver software (Pathfinder Therapeutics Inc.). Differences between pRLV and aRLV were analyzed, controlling for timing of postoperative imaging. Measured total liver volume (TLV) was compared with standard equations for calculating volume. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were enrolled in the study from June 2008 to June 2010 at 3 treatment centers. Correlation was found between pRLV and aRLV (r = 0.941; p < 0.001), which improved when timing of postoperative imaging was considered (r = 0.953; p < 0.001). Relative volume deviation from pRLV to aRLV stratified cases according to timing of postoperative imaging showed evidence of measurable regeneration beginning 5 days after surgery, with stabilization at 8 days (p < 0.01). For patients at the upper and lower extremes of liver volumes, TLV was poorly estimated using standard equations (up to 50% in some cases). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative virtual planning of future liver remnant accurately predicts postoperative volume after hepatic resection. Early postoperative liver regeneration is measureable on imaging beginning at 5 days after surgery. Measuring TLV directly from CT scans rather than calculating based on equations accounts for extremes in TLV.
BACKGROUND: Postoperative or remnant liver volume (RLV) after hepatic resection is a critical predictor of perioperative outcomes. This study investigates whether the accuracy of liver surgical planning software for predicting postoperative RLV and assessing early regeneration. STUDY DESIGN:Patients eligible for hepatic resection were approached for participation in the study from June 2008 to 2010. All patients underwent cross-sectional imaging (CT or MRI) before and early after resection. Planned remnant liver volume (pRLV) (based on the planned resection on the preoperative scan) and postoperative actual remnant liver volume (aRLV) (determined from early postoperative scan) were measured using Scout Liver software (Pathfinder Therapeutics Inc.). Differences between pRLV and aRLV were analyzed, controlling for timing of postoperative imaging. Measured total liver volume (TLV) was compared with standard equations for calculating volume. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were enrolled in the study from June 2008 to June 2010 at 3 treatment centers. Correlation was found between pRLV and aRLV (r = 0.941; p < 0.001), which improved when timing of postoperative imaging was considered (r = 0.953; p < 0.001). Relative volume deviation from pRLV to aRLV stratified cases according to timing of postoperative imaging showed evidence of measurable regeneration beginning 5 days after surgery, with stabilization at 8 days (p < 0.01). For patients at the upper and lower extremes of liver volumes, TLV was poorly estimated using standard equations (up to 50% in some cases). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative virtual planning of future liver remnant accurately predicts postoperative volume after hepatic resection. Early postoperative liver regeneration is measureable on imaging beginning at 5 days after surgery. Measuring TLV directly from CT scans rather than calculating based on equations accounts for extremes in TLV.
Authors: J N Vauthey; A Chaoui; K A Do; M M Bilimoria; M J Fenstermacher; C Charnsangavej; M Hicks; G Alsfasser; G Lauwers; I F Hawkins; J Caridi Journal: Surgery Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Laurent Hermoye; Ismael Laamari-Azjal; Zhujiang Cao; Laurence Annet; Jan Lerut; Benoit M Dawant; Bernard E Van Beers Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-11-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Yoji Kishi; Eddie K Abdalla; Yun Shin Chun; Daria Zorzi; David C Madoff; Michael J Wallace; Steven A Curley; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Margo Shoup; Mithat Gonen; Michael D'Angelica; William R Jarnagin; Ronald P DeMatteo; Lawrence H Schwartz; Scott Tuorto; Leslie H Blumgart; Yuman Fong Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2003 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Universe Leung; Amber L Simpson; Raphael L C Araujo; Mithat Gönen; Conor McAuliffe; Michael I Miga; E Patricia Parada; Peter J Allen; Michael I D'Angelica; T Peter Kingham; Ronald P DeMatteo; Yuman Fong; William R Jarnagin Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2014-06-25 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Thomas Perrin; Abhishek Midya; Rikiya Yamashita; Jayasree Chakraborty; Tome Saidon; William R Jarnagin; Mithat Gonen; Amber L Simpson; Richard K G Do Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2018-12
Authors: Ghassan S Kassab; Gary An; Edward A Sander; Michael I Miga; Julius M Guccione; Songbai Ji; Yoram Vodovotz Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2016-03-25 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Jimme K Wiggers; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Kasia P Cieslak; Alexandre Doussot; David van Klaveren; Peter J Allen; Marc G Besselink; Olivier R Busch; Michael I D'Angelica; Ronald P DeMatteo; Dirk J Gouma; T Peter Kingham; Thomas M van Gulik; William R Jarnagin Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Linda M Pak; Jayasree Chakraborty; Mithat Gonen; William C Chapman; Richard K G Do; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Kees Verhoef; Ser Yee Lee; Marco Massani; Eric P van der Stok; Amber L Simpson Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 6.113