Alternative Fistula Risk Score for Pancreatoduodenectomy (a-FRS): Design and International External Validation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop an alternative fistula risk score (a-FRS) for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy, without blood loss as a predictor. BACKGROUND: Blood loss, one of the predictors of the original-FRS, was not a significant factor during 2 recent external validations. METHODS: The a-FRS was developed in 2 databases: the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (18 centers) and the University Hospital Southampton NHS. Primary outcome was grade B/C POPF according to the 2005 International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definition. The score was externally validated in 2 independent databases (University Hospital of Verona and University Hospital of Pennsylvania), using both 2005 and 2016 ISGPS definitions. The a-FRS was also compared with the original-FRS. RESULTS: For model design, 1924 patients were included of whom 12% developed POPF. Three predictors were strongly associated with POPF: soft pancreatic texture [odds ratio (OR) 2.58, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.80-3.69], small pancreatic duct diameter (per mm increase, OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.61-0.76), and high body mass index (BMI) (per kg/m increase, OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.04-1.11). Discrimination was adequate with an area under curve (AUC) of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71-0.78) after internal validation, and 0.78 (0.74-0.82) after external validation. The predictive capacity of a-FRS was comparable with the original-FRS, both for the 2005 definition (AUC 0.78 vs 0.75, P = 0.03), and 2016 definition (AUC 0.72 vs 0.70, P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: The a-FRS predicts POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy based on 3 easily available variables (pancreatic texture, duct diameter, BMI) without blood loss and pathology, and was successfully validated for both the 2005 and 2016 POPF definition. The online calculator is available at www.pancreascalculator.com.

The liver-first approach for synchronous colorectal liver metastases: more than a decade of experience in a single centre.

BACKGROUND: The feasibility of the liver-first approach for synchronous colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) has been established. We sought to assess the short-term and long-term outcomes for these patients. METHODS: Outcomes of patients who underwent a liver-first approach for CRLM between 2005 and 2015 were retrospectively evaluated from a prospective database. RESULTS: Of the 92 patients planned to undergo the liver-first strategy, the paradigm could be completed in 76.1%. Patients with concurrent extrahepatic disease failed significantly more often in completing the protocol (67% versus 21%; p = 0.03). Postoperative morbidity and mortality were 31.5% and 3.3% following liver resection and 30.9% and 0% after colorectal surgery. Of the 70 patients in whom the paradigm was completed, 36 patients (51.4%) developed recurrent disease after a median interval of 20.9 months. The median overall survival on an intention-to-treat basis was 33.1 months (3- and 5-year overall survival: 48.5% and 33.1%). Patients who were not able to complete their therapeutic paradigm had a significantly worse overall outcome (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The liver-first approach is feasible with acceptable perioperative morbidity and mortality rates. Despite the considerable overall-survival-benefit, recurrence rates remain high. Future research should focus on providing selection tools to enable the optimal treatment sequence for each patient with synchronous CRLM.

Impact of chemotherapy-associated liver injury on tumour regression grade and survival in patients with colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: An inverse relation between chemotherapy-associated liver injury (CALI) and tumour response to chemotherapy has been reported. The aim was to validate these findings, and further investigate the impact of CALI on survival in patients who underwent partial hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). METHODS: Patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and underwent partial hepatectomy for CRLM between 2008 and 2014 were included. Liver and tumour specimens were histologically examined for CALI (steatosis, steatohepatitis, sinusoidal dilatation [SD], nodular regeneration) and tumour regression grade (TRG). TRG 1-2 was defined as complete tumour response. RESULTS: 166 consecutive patients were included with a median survival of 30 and 44 months for recurrence-free and overall survival, respectively. Grade 2-3 SD was found in 44 (27%) and TRG 1-2 was observed in 33 (20%) patients. Of studied CALI, only grade 2-3 SD was associated with increased TRG 3-5 (odds ratio 3.99, 95% CI 1.17-13.65, p = 0.027). CALI was not significantly related to survival. TRG 1-2 was associated with prolonged recurrence-free (hazard ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.25-0.89, p = 0.020) and overall survival (hazard ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.68, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: CALI was not directly related to survival. CALI was, however, associated with diminished complete tumour response, and diminished complete tumour response, in turn, was associated with decreased survival.

ERAS: Improving outcome in the cachectic HPB patient.

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program has reduced postoperative morbidity and duration of hospital stay but not mortality in patients undergoing hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery. Many HPB patients suffer from cancer cachexia, a syndrome of severe weight and muscle loss. This may affect outcomes of HPB surgery even within an ERAS program. A tailored ERAS approach may be essential in further improving outcome in this vulnerable patient category.

Abandoning Prophylactic Abdominal Drainage after Hepatic Surgery: 10 Years of No-Drain Policy in an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Environment.

BACKGROUND: Routine prophylactic abdominal drainage after hepatic surgery is still being debated, as it may be unnecessary, possibly harmful, and uncomfortable for patients. This study evaluated the safety of a no-drain policy after liver resection within an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) programme. METHODS: All hepatectomies performed without prophylactic drainage during 2005-2014 were included. Primary end points were resection-surface-related (RSR) morbidity, defined as the presence of postoperative biloma, hemorrhage or abscess, and reinterventions. Secondary end points were length of stay, total postoperative morbidity, the composite end point of liver surgery-specific complications, readmissions, and 90-day mortality. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent risk factors for RSR morbidity. A systematic search was performed to compare the results of this study to literature. RESULTS: A total of 538 resections were included in the study. The RSR complication and reintervention rate was 15 and 12%, respectively. Major liver resection (≥3 segments) was an independent risk factor for the development of RSR morbidity (OR 3.01, 95% CI 1.61-5.62; p = 0.001) and need for RSR reintervention (OR 3.02, 95% CI 1.59-5.73; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: RSR morbidity, mortality, and reintervention rates after liver surgery without prophylactic drainage in patients, treated within an ERAS programme, were comparable to previously published data. A no-drain policy after partial hepatectomy seems safe and feasible.

Validation of the peak bilirubin criterion for outcome after partial hepatectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative liver failure (PLF) is a dreaded complication after partial hepatectomy. The peak bilirubin criterion (>7.0 mg/dL or ≥120 µmol/L) is used to define PLF. This study aimed to validate the peak bilirubin criterion as postoperative risk indicator for 90-day liver-related mortality. METHODS: Characteristics of 956 consecutive patients who underwent partial hepatectomy at the Maastricht University Medical Centre or Royal Free London between 2005 and 2012 were analyzed by uni- and multivariable analyses with odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). RESULTS: Thirty-five patients (3.7%) met the postoperative peak bilirubin criterion at median day 19 with a median bilirubin level of 183 [121-588] µmol/L. Sensitivity and specificity for liver-related mortality after major hepatectomy were 41.2% and 94.6%, respectively. The positive predictive value was 22.6%. Predictors of liver-related mortality were the peak bilirubin criterion (p < 0.001, OR = 15.9 [95%CI 5.2-48.7]), moderate-severe steatosis and fibrosis (p = 0.013, OR = 8.5 [95%CI 1.6-46.6]), ASA 3-4 (p = 0.047, OR = 3.0 [95%CI 1.0-8.8]) and age (p = 0.044, OR = 1.1 [95%CI 1.0-1.1]). CONCLUSION: The peak bilirubin criterion has a low sensitivity and positive predictive value for 90-day liver-related mortality after major hepatectomy.

Endoscopic versus percutaneous biliary drainage in patients with resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, biliary drainage is recommended to treat obstructive jaundice and optimise the clinical condition before liver resection. Little evidence exists on the preferred initial method of biliary drainage. We therefore investigated the incidence of severe drainage-related complications of endoscopic biliary drainage or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with potentially resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised controlled trial at four academic centres in the Netherlands. Patients who were aged at least 18 years with potentially resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma requiring major liver resection, and biliary obstruction of the future liver remnant (defined as a bilirubin concentration of >50 µmol/L [2·9 mg/dL]), were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive endoscopic biliary drainage or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage through the use of computer-generated allocation. Randomisation, done by the trial coordinator, was stratified for previous (attempted) biliary drainage, the extent of bile duct involvement, and enrolling centre. Patients were enrolled by clinicians of the participating centres. The primary outcome was the number of severe complications between randomisation and surgery in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered at the Netherlands National Trial Register, number NTR4243. FINDINGS: From Sept 26, 2013, to April 29, 2016, 261 patients were screened for participation, and 54 eligible patients were randomly assigned to endoscopic biliary drainage (n=27) or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (n=27). The study was prematurely closed because of higher mortality in the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage group (11 [41%] of 27 patients) than in the endoscopic biliary drainage group (three [11%] of 27 patients; relative risk 3·67, 95% CI 1·15-11·69; p=0·03). Three of the 11 deaths among patients in the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage group occurred before surgery. The proportion of patients with severe preoperative drainage-related complications was similar between the groups (17 [63%] patients in the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage group vs 18 [67%] in the endoscopic biliary drainage group; relative risk 0·94, 95% CI 0·64-1·40). 16 (59%) patients in the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage group and ten (37%) patients in the endoscopic biliary drainage group developed preoperative cholangitis (p=0·1). 15 (56%) patients required additional percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage after endoscopic biliary drainage, whereas only one (4%) patient required endoscopic biliary drainage after percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. INTERPRETATION: The study was prematurely stopped because of higher all-cause mortality in the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage group. Post-drainage complications were similar between groups, but the data should be interpreted with caution because of the small sample size. The results call for further prospective studies and reconsideration of indications and strategy towards biliary drainage in this complex disease. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Foundation.