High prevalence of de novo metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease after liver transplantation and the role of controlled attenuation parameter.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) remains an uncommon indication for liver transplantation (LT) in the Chinese, the prevalence of NAFLD is increasing. We aimed to determine the prevalence of de novo steatosis and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) after LT. METHODS: Transient elastography assessment for liver stiffness and controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) were performed after LT in 549 patients at median time of 77 months from LT. CAP was compared with implant liver biopsy, and also validated in 42 patients with post-LT liver biopsy. Longitudinal history including diabetes mellitus (DM), dyslipidemia, hypertension, and immunosuppressive regimen were recorded. RESULTS: The optimal cut-off level of CAP for diagnosing at least mild (≥ S1) and moderate-to-severe steatosis (≥ S2/3) was 266 and 293 dB/m respectively, with AUROC of 0.740 and 0.954 respectively. Using this newly derived cut-off, 28.9% patients have de novo NAFLD, of which 95.6% fulfilled the criteria for MAFLD. After multivariate analysis, BMI (HR 1.34), DM (HR 2.01), hypertension (HR 2.03), HDL-cholesterol (HR 0.25), LDL-cholesterol (HR 1.5) and cryptogenic cirrhosis (HR 4.85) were associated with the development of S2/3 graft steatosis. de novo NAFLD was associated with higher incidence of new-onset hypertension (p < 0.001), graft dysfunction (defined as ALT > 40 U/L; p = 0.008), but not associated with graft fibrosis (defined as liver stiffness > 12 kPa; p = 0.761). CONCLUSION: Although NAFLD remains an uncommon primary liver disease indication for LT in Chinese patients, post-transplant de novo graft steatosis is common and the majority is classified as MAFLD. Development of graft steatosis is not associated with an increase in graft fibrosis but was associated with worse metabolic control and graft dysfunction. Routine CAP measurement to detect de novo graft steatosis should be considered after LT regardless of the primary indication of LT.

Survival analysis of breast cancer liver metastasis treated by hepatectomy: A propensity score analysis for Chinese women in Hong Kong.

BACKGROUND: Survival of patients with breast cancer liver metastasis is very poor. This study aimed to analyze the survival outcome of hepatectomy for this patient population. METHODS: From January 1995 to December 2014, 2522 patients with liver cancer received hepatectomy at our hospital. Twenty-one of them, all female, received the operation for breast cancer liver metastasis. Performance was compared with patients with colorectal liver metastasis treated with hepatectomy after propensity score analysis in a ratio of 1:3. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients received hepatectomy for breast cancer. After propensity score matching, 63 patients who had hepatectomy for colorectal cancer were selected for comparison. There was no significant difference in immediate or short-term outcomes between the two groups of patients in terms of operative time, blood loss and surgical morbidities. All patients with breast cancer had R0 resection. No hospital death occurred. After hepatectomy, the 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 100.0%, 58.9% and 58.9% respectively in patients with breast cancer. The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 95.0%, 57.2% and 39.7% respectively in patients with colorectal cancer (P = 0.572). On multivariate analysis, triple negative status was the only independent poor prognostic factor in breast cancer liver metastasis (OR = 6.411; 95% CI: 1.351-30.435; P = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Hepatectomy is a safe and effective way of treating breast cancer liver metastasis at experienced centers where multidisciplinary adjuvant treatments are available. It can be considered more frequently as part of the multidisciplinary care for this patient population.

Donor ductal anomaly is not a contraindication to right liver lobe donation.

BACKGROUND: Data of living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) suggested that donor ductal anomaly may contribute to postoperative biliary complications in recipients and in donors. This retrospective study aimed to determine if the occurrence of postoperative biliary stricture in donors or recipients in right-lobe LDLT (RLDLT) is related to donor biliary anatomy type. METHODS: We analyzed our RLDLT recipients' clinical data and those of their graft donors. The recipients were divided into 2 groups: with and without postoperative biliary stricture. The 2 groups were compared. The primary endpoints were donor biliary anatomy type and postoperative biliary complication incidence; the secondary endpoints were 1-, 3- and 5-year graft and patient survival rates. RESULTS: Totally 127 patients were included in the study; 25 (19.7%) of them developed biliary anastomotic stricture. In these 25 patients, 16 had type A biliary anatomy, 3 had type B, 2 had type C, 3 had type D, and 1 had type E. In the 127 donors, 96 (75.6%) had type A biliary anatomy, 13 (10.2%) had type B, 6 (4.7%) had type C, 10 (7.9%) had type D, and 2 (1.6%) had type E. Biliary stricture was seen in 2 donors, who had type A biliary anatomy. None of the recipients or donors developed bile leakage. No association between the occurrence of postoperative biliary stricture and donor biliary anatomy type was found (P = 0.527). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of biliary stricture in donors or recipients after RLDLT was not related to donor biliary anatomy type. As postoperative complications were similar in whatever type of donor bile duct anatomy, donor ductal anomaly should not be considered a contraindication to donation of right liver lobe.

Better survival after stereotactic body radiation therapy following transarterial chemoembolization in nonresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study compared outcomes of nonresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who had transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) vs. stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) after TACE (TACE + SBRT). METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 2 centers in Hong Kong. There were 49 patients who had TACE + SBRT and 202 patients who had TACE alone. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for differences in patients' demographics and tumor characteristics between the 2 groups. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) and secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and treatment-related toxicity. RESULTS: After matching, 49 patients were in the TACE + SBRT group and 98 patients in the TACE group with similar baseline characteristics. The 1-&3-year OS were better in TACE + SBRT group (67.2 vs. 43.9% and 36.5 vs. 13.3%, p = 0.003). The 1-&3-year PFS was also better in TACE + SBRT group (32.5 vs. 21.4% and 15.1 vs. 5.1%, p = 0.012). Radiological disease control was better in the TACE + SBRT group (98 vs. 56.7%). Risk of severe toxicity was uncommon in both treatment arms. TACE + SBRT was an independent good prognostic factor for OS and PFS in multivariate analysis, whereas AFP>200 ng/ml, large tumor and multiple tumors predicted worse OS. CONCLUSION: TACE + SBRT is safe and results in better survivals in nonresectable HCC patients.

Hepatopancreatoduodenectomy for advanced hepatobiliary malignancies: a single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Hepatopancreatoduodenectomy is a complicated and challenging procedure but necessary for curative resection for advanced hepatobiliary malignancies. This retrospective study was to examine the safety and survival outcomes of hepatopancreatoduodenectomy in our center. METHODS: Prospectively collected data of 12 patients who underwent hepatopancreatoduodenectomy for advanced hepatobiliary malignancies in our hospital from January 1998 to December 2014 were analyzed. The primary endpoints are treatment-related morbidity and mortality and the secondary endpoints are overall survival and disease-free survival. RESULTS: Curative resection was achieved in 11 (91.7%) patients. Complications developed in 10 (83.3%) patients. Three hospital deaths resulted from multiorgan failure secondary to postoperative pancreatic fistula or hepaticojejunostomy leakage. Six of the nine remaining patients had disease recurrence. The nine patients had a median survival of 39.8 (5.3-151.8) months. The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 66.7%, 55.6% and 27.8%, respectively. The corresponding disease-free survival rates were 55.6%, 44.4% and 29.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Morbidity and mortality after hepatopancreatoduodenectomy were significant. With R0 resection, the 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were 27.8% and 29.6%, respectively.

Outcomes of right-lobe and left-lobe living-donor liver transplantations using small-for-size grafts.

AIM: To analyze the outcomes of living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using left-lobe (LL) or right-lobe (RL) small-for-size (SFS) grafts. METHODS: Prospectively collected data of adult patients who underwent LDLT at our hospital in the period from January 2003 to December 2013 were reviewed. The patients were divided into the RL-LDLT group and the LL-LDLT group. The two groups were compared in terms of short- and long-term outcomes, including incidence of postoperative complication, graft function, graft survival, and patient survival. A SFS graft was defined as a graft with a ratio of graft weight (GW) to recipient standard liver volume (RSLV) (GW/RSLV) of < 50%. The Urata formula was used to estimate RSLV. RESULTS: Totally 218 patients were included for analysis, with 199 patients in the RL-LDLT group and 19 patients in the LL-LDLT group. The two groups were similar in terms of age (median, 53 years in the RL-LDLT group and 52 years in the LL-LDLT group, P = 0.997) but had significantly different ratios of men to women (165:34 in the RL-LDLT group and 8:11 in the LL-LDLT group, P < 0.0001). The two groups were also significantly different in GW (P < 0.0001), GW/RSLV (P < 0.0001), and graft cold ischemic time (P = 0.007). When it comes to postoperative complication, the groups were comparable (P = 0.105). Five patients died in hospital, 4 (2%) in the RL-LDLT group and 1 (5.3%) in the LL-LDLT group (P = 0.918). There were 38 graft losses, 33 (16.6%) in the RL-LDLT group and 5 (26.3%) in the LL-LDLT group (P = 0.452). The 5-year graft survival rate was significantly better in the RL-LDLT group (95.2% vs 89.5%, P = 0.049). The two groups had similar 5-year patient survival rates (RL-LDLT: 86.8%, LL-LDLT: 89.5%, P = 0.476). CONCLUSION: The use of SFS graft in LDLT requires careful tailor-made surgical planning and meticulous operation. LL-LDLT can be a good alternative to RL-LDLT with similar recipient outcomes but a lower donor risk. Further research into different patient conditions is needed in order to validate the use of LL graft.

Resection of T4 hepatocellular carcinomas with adjacent structures, is it justified?

BACKGROUND: T4 hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with invasion to adjacent structure(s) may require resection of not only the tumor but also the invaded structure(s). This study aims to assess whether such combined resection for T4 HCC is justifiable. METHODS: Adult patients with T4 HCC were divided into three groups. Group 1: tumors and invaded adjacent structures were resected together if histopathologically confirmed tumor invasion; group 2: same as group 1 but histopathologically confirmed tumor adhesion; group 3: tumor resection only. Group comparisons were made. RESULTS: Totally 144 patients were included in the study. There were 71, 14 and 59 patients in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The groups were comparable in demographics, complication and survival. Ten hospital deaths occurred (5, 0 and 5 in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively; P=0.533). The 5-year overall survival (hospital mortality excluded) was 17.8% in group 1, 14.3% in group 2, and 28.9% in group 3 (P=0.191). The 5-year disease-free survival was 10.4% in group 1 and 14.5% in group 3 (no data for group 2 yet) (P=0.565). On multivariate analysis, macrovascular invasion and poor differentiation were risk factors for survival whereas combined resection did not impact patients' survival. CONCLUSIONS: Combined resection achieved survival outcomes similar to tumor resection only. Patients with tumor invasion and those with tumor adhesion had comparable survival after combined resection. At centers with the required expertise, combined resection should be attempted to treat T4 HCCs with clinically suspected invasion of adjacent structures.

Acute pancreatitis induced by transarterial chemoembolization: a single-center experience of over 1500 cases.

BACKGROUND: Acute pancreatitis is a relatively rare but potentially lethal complication after transarterial chemotherapy. This study aimed to review the complications such as acute pancreatitis after transarterial chemotherapy with or without embolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: A total of 1632 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who had undergone transarterial chemoembolization from January 2000 to February 2014 in a single-center were reviewed retrospectively. We investigated the potential complications of transarterial chemoembolization, such as acute pancreatitis and acute pancreatitis-related complications. RESULTS: Of the 1632 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who had undergone 5434 transarterial chemoembolizations, 1328 were male and 304 female. The median age of these patients was 61 years. Most (79.6%) of the patients suffered from HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma. The median tumor size was 5.2 cm. Of the 1632 patients, 145 patients underwent transarterial chemoembolization with doxorubicin eluting bead, making up a total of 538 episodes. The remaining patients underwent transarterial chemoembolization with cisplatin. Seven (0.4%) patients suffered from acute pancreatitis post-chemoembolization. Six patients had chemoembolization with doxorubicin and one had chemoembolization with cisplatin. Patients who received doxorubicin eluting bead had a higher risk of acute pancreatitis [6/145 (4.1%) vs 1/1487 (0.1%), P<0.0001]. Two patients had anatomical arterial variations. Four patients developed acute pancreatitis-related complications including necrotizing pancreatitis (n=3) and pseudocyst formation (n=1). All of the 4 patients resolved after the use of antibiotics and other conservative treatment. Three patients had further transarterial chemoembolization without any complication. CONCLUSIONS: Acute pancreatitis after transarterial chemoembolization could result in serious complications, especially after treatment with doxorubicin eluting bead. Continuation of current treatment with transarterial chemoembolization after acute pancreatitis is feasible providing the initial attack is completely resolved.

Samaritan donor interchange in living donor liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: In order to overcome ABO blood group incompatibility, paired donor interchange has been practised in living donor liver transplantation. Liver transplantations using grafts donated by Samaritan living donors have been performed in Europe, North America, South Korea, and Hong Kong. Such practice is clearly on strong biological grounds although social and psychological implications could be far-reaching. Local experience has been satisfactory but is still limited. As few centers have this arrangement, its safety and viability are still being assessed under a clinical trial setting. METHODS: Here we report a donor interchange involving an ABO-compatible pair with a universal donor and an ABO-incompatible pair with a universal recipient. This matching was not only a variation but also an extension of the donor interchange scheme. RESULTS: The four operations (two donor hepatectomies and two recipient operations) were successful. All the two donors and the two recipients recovered well. Such donor interchange further supports the altruistic principle of organ donation in contrast to exchange for a gain. CONCLUSIONS: Samaritan donor interchange certainly taxes further the ethical challenge of donor interchange. Although this practice has obvious biological advantages, such advantages have to be weighed against the potential increase in potential psychological risks to the subjects in the interchange. Further ethical and clinical evaluations of local and overseas experiences of donor interchange should guide future clinical practice in utilizing this potential organ source for transplantation.

Survival outcomes of right-lobe living donor liver transplantation for patients with high Model for End-stage Liver Disease scores.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists over whether living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) should be offered to patients with high Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores. This study tried to determine whether a high MELD score would result in inferior outcomes of right-lobe LDLT. METHODS: Among 411 consecutive patients who received right-lobe LDLT at our center, 143 were included in this study. The patients were divided into two groups according to their MELD scores: a high-score group (MELD score ≥25; n=75) and a low-score group (MELD score <25; n=68). Their demographic data and perioperative conditions were compared. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify risk factors affecting patient survival. RESULTS: In the high-score group, more patients required preoperative intensive care unit admission (49.3% vs 2.9%; P<0.001), mechanical ventilation (21.3% vs 0%; P<0.001), or hemodialysis (13.3% vs 0%; P=0.005); the waiting time before LDLT was shorter (4 vs 66 days; P<0.001); more blood was transfused during operation (7 vs 2 units; P<0.001); patients stayed longer in the intensive care unit (6 vs 3 days; P<0.001) and hospital (21 vs 15 days; P=0.015) after transplantation; more patients developed early postoperative complications (69.3% vs 50.0%; P=0.018); and values of postoperative peak blood parameters were higher. However, the two groups had comparable hospital mortality. Graft survival and patient overall survival at one year (94.7% vs 95.6%; 95.9% vs 96.9%), three years (91.9% vs 92.6%; 93.2% vs 95.3%), and five years (90.2% vs 90.2%; 93.2% vs 95.3%) were also similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although the high-score group had significantly more early postoperative complications, the two groups had comparable hospital mortality and similar satisfactory rates of graft survival and patient overall survival. Therefore, a high MELD score should not be a contraindication to right-lobe LDLT if donor risk and recipient benefit are taken into full account.

Outcome of laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer: a critical appraisal.

Despite the wide application of laparoscopic surgery for various common surgical conditions, the development of laparoscopic colorectal surgery has been slow. The obstacle for its advancement is formed by a steep learning curve and concerns about the oncologic safety in cases of malignant diseases. With refinement in instrumentation and improvement in surgical techniques in recent years, laparoscopic colectomy has become a safe and feasible procedure. The short-term advantages in terms of quicker recovery of bowel function, less postoperative pain and shorter hospital stay of laparoscopic colectomy over conventional treatment seem to be indisputable. Results from large prospective randomized trials revealed the oncologic outcome to be comparable between the two treatments. Furthermore, the incidence of port-site metastasis was shown to be similar between the two approaches. For rectal cancer, laparoscopic-assisted total mesorectal excision has been shown to be a safe and feasible procedure. The incidence of postoperative morbidity including anastomotic leakage appears to be comparable between the two treatments. However, the long-term outcome especially for local recurrence and overall survival remains uncertain. Prospective randomized study with long follow-up is required to elucidate this issue.