Impact of neoadjuvant multimodal therapy in the setting of locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Immunotherapy and the implementation of more aggressive treatment schemes for locally advanced hepatocellular carcinomas have expanded the boundaries of curative options. Because of these advancements, patients who were once considered beyond the aim of a cure are now eligible for liver transplantation and resection.

Cornerstones and divergencies in the implementation and use of liver hypertrophy techniques: results from a nationwide survey for the set-up of the prospective registry.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this national survey on liver hypertrophy techniques was to track the trends of their use and implementation in Italy and to detect analogies and heterogeneities among centers. METHODS: In December 2022, Italian centers with liver resection activity were specifically contacted and asked to fill an online questionnaire composed of 6 sections including a total of 51 questions. RESULTS: 46 Italian centers filled the questionnaire. The proportion of major/total number of liver resections was 27% and the use of hypertrophy techniques was required in 6,2% of cases. The most frequent reason of drop out was disease progression in 58.5% of cases. Most frequently used techniques were PVE and ALPPS with an increasing use of hepatic venous deprivation (HVD). Heterogeneous answers were provided regarding the cutoff values to indicate the need for hypertrophy techniques. Criteria to allocate a patient to different hypertrophy techniques are not standardized. CONCLUSIONS: The use of hypertrophy techniques is deep-rooted in Italy, documenting the established value of their role in improving resectability rate. While an evolution of techniques is detectable, still significant heterogeneity is perceived in terms of cutoff values, indications and managing protocols.

Recipient hepatectomy technique may affect oncological outcomes of liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma.

To date, caval sparing (CS) and total caval replacement (TCR) for recipient hepatectomy in liver transplantation (LT) have been compared only in terms of surgical morbidity. Nonetheless, the CS technique is inherently associated with an increased manipulation of the native liver and later exclusion of the venous outflow, which may increase the risk of intraoperative shedding of tumor cells when LT is performed for HCC. A multicenter, retrospective study was performed to assess the impact of recipient hepatectomy (CS vs. TCR) on the risk of posttransplant HCC recurrence among 16 European transplant centers that used either TCR or CS recipient hepatectomy as an elective protocol technique. Exclusion criteria comprised cases of non-center-protocol recipient hepatectomy technique, living-donor LT, HCC diagnosis suspected on preoperative imaging but not confirmed at the pathological examination of the explanted liver, HCC in close contact with the IVC, and previous liver resection for HCC. In 2420 patients, CS and TCR approaches were used in 1452 (60%) and 968 (40%) cases, respectively. Group adjustment with inverse probability weighting was performed for high-volume center, recipient age, alcohol abuse, viral hepatitis, Child-Pugh class C, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, cold ischemia time, clinical HCC stage within Milan criteria, pre-LT downstaging/bridging therapies, pre-LT alphafetoprotein serum levels, number and size of tumor nodules, microvascular invasion, and complete necrosis of all tumor nodules (matched cohort, TCR, n = 938; CS, n = 935). In a multivariate cause-specific hazard model, CS was associated with a higher risk of HCC recurrence (HR: 1.536, p = 0.007). In conclusion, TCR recipient hepatectomy, compared to the CS approach, may be associated with some protective effect against post-LT tumor recurrence.