Modern work-up and extended resection in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: the AMC experience.

AIM: Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) is a challenging disease and requires aggressive surgical treatment in order to achieve curation. The assessment and work-up of patients with presumed PHC is multidisciplinary, complex and requires extensive experience. The aim of this paper is to review current aspects of diagnosis, preoperative work-up and extended resection in patients with PHC from the perspective of our own institutional experience with this complex tumor. METHODS: We provided a review of applied modalities in the diagnosis and work-up of PHC according to current literature. All patients with presumed PHC in our center between 2000 and 2016 were identified and described. The types of resection, surgical techniques and outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Upcoming diagnostic modalities such as Spyglass and combinations of serum biomarkers and molecular markers have potential to decrease the rate of misdiagnosis of benign, inflammatory disease. Assessment of liver function with hepatobiliary scintigraphy provides better information on the future remnant liver (FRL) than volume alone. The selective use of staging laparoscopy is advisable to avoid futile laparotomies. In patients requiring extended resection, selective preoperative biliary drainage is mandatory in cholangitis and when FRL is small (< 50%). Preoperative portal vein embolization (PVE) is used when FRL volume is less than 40% and optionally includes the left portal vein branches to segment 4. Associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) as alternative to PVE is not recommended in PHC. N2 positive lymph nodes preclude long-term survival. The benefit of unconditional en bloc resection of the portal vein bifurcation is uncertain. Along these lines, an aggressive surgical approach encompassing extended liver resection including segment 1, regional lymphadenectomy and conditional portal venous resection translates into favorable long-term survival.

The effects of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and one-anastomosis gastric bypass on glycemic control and remission of type 2 diabetes mellitus: study protocol for a multi-center randomized controlled trial (the DIABAR-trial).

BACKGROUND: Metabolic surgery induces rapid remission of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). There is a paucity of high level evidence comparing the efficacy of the laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and the laparoscopic one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) in glycemic control. Also, the mechanisms that drive the conversion of T2DM in severe obese subjects to euglycemia are poorly understood. METHODS: The DIABAR-trial is an open, multi-center, randomized controlled clinical trial with 10 years follow-up which will be performed in 220 severely obese patients, diagnosed with T2DM and treated with glucose-lowering agents. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to undergo RYGB or OAGB. The primary outcome is glycemic control at 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcome measures are diverse and include weight loss, surgical complications, psychologic status and quality of life, dietary behavior, gastrointestinal symptoms, repetitive bloodwork to identify changes over time, glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity as measured by mixed meal tests, remission of T2DM, presence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease/non-alcoholic steatohepatitis in liver biopsy, oral and fecal microbiome, cardiovascular performance, composition of bile acids, and the tendency to develop gallstones. DISCUSSION: The DIABAR-trial is one of the few randomized controlled trials primarily aimed to evaluate the glycemic response after the RYGB and OAGB in severe obese patients diagnosed with T2DM. Secondary aims of the trial are to contribute to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms that drive the remission of T2DM in severe obese patients by identification of microbial, immunological, and metabolic markers for metabolic response and to compare complications and side effects of RYGB and OAGB. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03330756 ; date first registered: October 13, 2017.

Prevention of hepatic encephalopathy by administration of rifaximin and lactulose in patients with liver cirrhosis undergoing placement of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS): a multicentre randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial (PEARL trial).

INTRODUCTION: Cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension can suffer from variceal bleeding or refractory ascites and can benefit from a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). Post-TIPS hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a common (20%-54%) and often severe complication. A prophylactic strategy is lacking. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Prevention of hepatic Encephalopathy by Administration of Rifaximin and Lactulose in patients with liver cirrhosis undergoing placement of a TIPS (PEARL) trial, is a multicentre randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial. Patients undergoing covered TIPS placement are prescribed either rifaximin 550 mg two times per day and lactulose 25 mL two times per day (starting dose) or placebo 550 mg two times per day and lactulose 25 mL two times per day from 72 hours before and until 3 months after TIPS placement. Primary endpoint is the development of overt HE (OHE) within 3 months (according to West Haven criteria). Secondary endpoints include 90-day mortality; development of a second episode of OHE; time to development of episode(s) of OHE; development of minimal HE; molecular changes in peripheral and portal blood samples; quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The total sample size is 238 patients and recruitment period is 3 years in six hospitals in the Netherlands and one in Belgium. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol was approved in the Netherlands by the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam (2018-332), in Belgium by the Ethics Committee Research UZ/KU Leuven (S62577) and competent authorities. This study will be conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Study results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04073290) and EudraCT database (2018-004323-37).

The 2012 revised Dutch national guidelines for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus infection.

In 2008, the Netherlands Association of Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists (Nederlands Vereniging van Maag-Darm-Leverartsen) published the Dutch national guidelines for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus infection. New insights into the treatment of chronic hepatitis B with relevance for clinical practice have been adopted in these concise, revised guidelines. The most important changes include the choice of initial antiviral therapy, licensing of tenofovir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B and the management of antiviral resistance.

The role of mycophenolate mofetil in the management of autoimmune hepatitis and overlap syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Treatment failure occurs in 20% of autoimmune hepatitis patients on prednisolone and azathioprine (AZA). There is no established second line treatment. AIM: To assess the efficacy of mycophenolate mofetil as second line treatment after AZA-intolerance or AZA-nonresponse in autoimmune hepatitis and overlap syndromes. METHODS: Consecutive patients from the Dutch Autoimmune Hepatitis Group cohort, consisting of 661 patients, with autoimmune hepatitis or overlap syndromes, AZA-intolerance or AZA-nonresponse and past or present use of mycophenolate mofetil were included. Primary endpoint of mycophenolate mofetil treatment was biochemical remission. Secondary endpoints were biochemical response (without remission), treatment failure and prevention of disease progression. RESULTS: Forty-five patients treated with mycophenolate mofetil were included. In autoimmune hepatitis remission or response was achieved in 13% and 27% in the AZA-nonresponse group compared to 67% and 0% in the AZA-intolerance group (P = 0.008). In overlap-syndromes remission or response was reached in 57% and 14% in the AZA-nonresponse group and 63% and 25% of the AZA-intolerance group (N.S.); 33% had side effects and 13% discontinued mycophenolate mofetil. Overall 38% had treatment failure; this was 60% in the autoimmune hepatitis AZA-nonresponse group. Decompensated liver cirrhosis, liver transplantations and death were only seen in the autoimmune hepatitis AZA-nonresponse group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Mycophenolate mofetil induced response or remission in a majority of patients with autoimmune hepatitis and azathioprine-intolerance and with overlap syndromes, irrespective of intolerance or nonresponse for azathioprine. In autoimmune hepatitis with azathioprine nonresponse mycophenolate mofetil is less often effective.