Novel Benchmark Values for Open Major Anatomic Liver Resection in Non-cirrhotic Patients: A Multicentric Study of 44 International Expert Centers.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims at establishing benchmark values for best achievable outcomes following open major anatomic hepatectomy for liver tumors of all dignities. BACKGROUND: Outcomes after open major hepatectomies vary widely lacking reference values for comparisons among centers, indications, types of resections, and minimally invasive procedures. METHODS: A standard benchmark methodology was used covering consecutive patients, who underwent open major anatomic hepatectomy from 44 high-volume liver centers from 5 continents over a 5-year period (2016-2020). Benchmark cases were low-risk non-cirrhotic patients without significant comorbidities treated in high-volume centers (≥30 major liver resections/year). Benchmark values were set at the 75th percentile of median values of all centers. Minimum follow-up period was 1 year in each patient. RESULTS: Of 8044 patients, 2908 (36%) qualified as benchmark (low-risk) cases. Benchmark cutoffs for all indications include R0 resection ≥78%; liver failure (grade B/C) ≤10%; bile leak (grade B/C) ≤18%; complications ≥grade 3 and CCI ® ≤46% and ≤9 at 3 months, respectively. Benchmark values differed significantly between malignant and benign conditions so that reference values must be adjusted accordingly. Extended right hepatectomy (H1, 4-8 or H4-8) disclosed a higher cutoff for liver failure, while extended left (H1-5,8 or H2-5,8) were associated with higher cutoffs for bile leaks, but had superior oncologic outcomes, when compared to formal left hepatectomy (H1-4 or H2-4). The minimal follow-up for a conclusive outcome evaluation following open anatomic major resection must be 3 months. CONCLUSION: These new benchmark cutoffs for open major hepatectomy provide a powerful tool to convincingly evaluate other approaches including parenchymal-sparing procedures, laparoscopic/robotic approaches, and alternative treatments, such as ablation therapy, irradiation, or novel chemotherapy regimens.

Vena cava replacement and major hepatectomy for liver tumors: international multicenter retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Involvement of the inferior vena cava (IVC) and hepatic veins has been considered a relative contraindication to hepatic resection for primary and metastatic liver tumors. However, patients affected by tumors extending to the IVC have limited therapeutic options and suffer worsening of quality of life due to IVC compression. METHODS: Cases of primary and metastatic liver tumors with vena cava infiltration from 10 international centers were collected (7 European, 1 US, 2 Brazilian, 1 Indian) were collected. Inclusion criteria for the study were major liver resection with concomitant vena cava replacement. Clinical data and short-term outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-six cases were finally included in the study. Median tumor max size was 98 mm (range: 25-250). A biliary reconstruction was necessary in 28% of cases, while a vascular reconstruction other than vena cava in 34% of cases. Median operative time was 462 min (range: 230-750), with 750 median ml of estimated blood loss and a median of one pRBC transfused intraoperatively (range: 0-27). Median ICU stay was 4 days (range: 1-30) with overall in-hospital stay of 15 days (range: 3-46), postoperative CCI score of 20.9 (range: 0-100), 12% incidence of PHLF grade B-C. Five patients died in a 90-days interval from surgery, one due to heart failure, one due to septic shock, and three due to multiorgan failure. With a median follow-up of 17 months (interquartile range: 11-37), the estimated 5 years overall survival was 48% (95% CI: 27-66%), and 5-year cumulative incidence of tumor recurrence was 55% (95% CI: 33-73%). CONCLUSIONS: Major liver resections with vena cava replacement can be performed with satisfactory results in expert HPB centers. This surgical strategy represents a feasible alternative for otherwise unresectable lesions and is associated with favorable prognosis compared to nonoperative management, especially in patients affected by intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.