Omid Salehi1,2, Vera Kazakova3,2, Eduardo A Vega1,2, Onur C Kutlu3,2, Sylvia V Alarcon2,4, Richard Freeman1,2, Olga Kozyreva2,4, Claudius Conrad5,6. 1. Department of Surgery, St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, 11 Nevins St., Suite 201, Brighton, MA, 02135, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami Health System, Miami, FL, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Harvard Medical School, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute at St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, 11 Nevins St., Suite 201, Brighton, MA, 02135, USA. claudius.conrad@steward.org. 6. Department of Surgery, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami Health System, Miami, FL, USA. claudius.conrad@steward.org.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Sean P Martin; Justin Drake; Michael M Wach; Samantha Ruff; Laurence P Diggs; Jim Y Wan; Zachary J Brown; Reed I Ayabe; Evan S Glazer; Paxton V Dickson; Jeremy L Davis; Jeremiah L Deneve; Jonathan M Hernandez Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-03-20 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Hauke Lang; Georgios C Sotiropoulos; George Sgourakis; Klaus J Schmitz; Andreas Paul; Philip Hilgard; Thomas Zöpf; Tanja Trarbach; Massimo Malagó; Hideo A Baba; Christoph E Broelsch Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Bruno Silva de Assis; Fabricio Ferreira Coelho; Vagner Birk Jeismann; Jaime Arthur Pirola Kruger; Gilton Marques Fonseca; Ivan Cecconello; Paulo Herman Journal: Arq Bras Cir Dig Date: 2020-05-18
Authors: Renumathy Dhanasekaran; Alan W Hemming; Ivan Zendejas; Thomas George; David R Nelson; Consuelo Soldevila-Pico; Roberto J Firpi; Giuseppe Morelli; Virginia Clark; Roniel Cabrera Journal: Oncol Rep Date: 2013-02-18 Impact factor: 3.906