Total laparoscopic partial hepatectomy versus open partial hepatectomy for primary left-sided hepatolithiasis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The advantages of laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy (LLH) for treating hepatolithiasis in terms of the time to postoperative length of hospital stay (LOS), morbidity, long-term abdominal wall hernias, hospital costs, residual stone rate, and recurrence of calculus have not been confirmed by a randomized controlled trial. The aim of this trial is to compare the safety and effectiveness of LLH with open left-sided hepatectomy (OLH) for the treatment of hepatolithiasis. METHODS: Patients with hepatolithiasis eligible for left-sided hepatectomy will be recruited. The experimental design will produce two randomized arms (laparoscopic and open hepatectomy) at a 1:1 ratio and a prospective registry. All patients will undergo surgery in the setting of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme. The prospective registry will be based on patients who cannot be randomized because of the explicit treatment preference of the patient or surgeon or because of ineligibility (not meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria) for randomization in this trial. The primary outcome is the LOS. The secondary outcomes are percentage readmission, morbidity, mortality, hospital costs, long-term incidence of incisional hernias, residual stone rate, and recurrence of calculus. It will be assumed that, in patients undergoing LLH, the length of hospital stay will be reduced by 1 day. A sample size of 86 patients in each randomization arm has been calculated as sufficient to detect a 1-day reduction in LOS [90% power and α = 0.05 (two-tailed)]. The trial is a randomized controlled trial that will provide evidence for the merits of laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing liver resection within an ERAS programme. CONCLUSIONS: Although the outcomes of LLH have been proven to be comparable to those of OLH in retrospective studies, the use of LLH remains restricted, partly due to the lack of short- and long-term informative RCTs pertaining to patients with hepatolithiasis in ERAS programmes. To evaluate the surgical and long-term outcomes of LLH, we will perform a prospective RCT to compare LLH with OLH for hepatolithiasis within an ERAS programme. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03958825. Registered on 21 May 2019.

Liver X receptor agonists exert antitumor effects against hepatocellular carcinoma via inducing REPS2 expression.

Recent studies show that liver X receptor (LXR) agonists exert significant antitumor effects in a variety of tumor cell lines including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). But the molecular mechanisms underlying LXR antitumor activity are not fully understood. In this study we investigated the effect of LXR agonist T0901317 (T317) on HCC development and its relationship with RalA binding protein 1 (RALBP1)-associated EPS domain containing 2 (REPS2)/epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling axis. We showed that T317 (0.1-0.5 µM) dose-dependently increased REPS2 expression in normal hepatocytes (BNLCL.2 and LO2) and HCC cells (HepG2 and Huh-7). Using promoter activity assay and chromatin immunoprecipitation (CHIP) assay we demonstrated that T317 enhanced REPS2 expression at the transcriptional level via promoting the binding of LXR protein to the LXR-response element (LXRE) in the REPS2 promoter region. We showed that the inhibitory effect of T317 on the proliferation and migration of HCC cells was closely related to REPS2. Moreover, we revealed that T317 (400 nM) increased expression of REPS2 in HepG2 cells, thus inhibiting epidermal growth factor (EGF)-mediated endocytosis of EGFR as well as the downstream activation of AKT/NF-κB, p38MAPK, and ERK1/2 signaling pathways. Clinical data analysis revealed that REPS2 expression levels were inversely correlated with the development of HCC and reduced REPS2 expression associated with poor prognosis, suggesting that REPS2 might be involved in the development of HCC. In conclusion, this study provides new insights into the potential mechanisms of LXR agonist-inhibited HCC.

Advances in liver transplantation for unresectable colon cancer liver metastasis.

It is estimated that 50% of patients with colorectal cancer will develop liver metastasis. Surgical resection significantly improves survival and provides a chance of cure for patients with colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM). Increasing the resectability of primary unresectable liver metastasis provides more survival benefit for those patients. Considerable surgical innovations have been made to increase the resection rate and decrease the potential risk of hepatic failure postoperation. Liver transplantation (LT) has been explored as a potential curative treatment for unresectable CRLM. However, candidate selection criteria, chemotherapy strategies, refined immunity regimens and resolution for the shortage of grafts are lacking. This manuscript discusses views on surgical indication, peritransplantation anti-tumor and anti-immunity therapy and updated advances in LT for unresectable CRLM. A literature review of published articles and registered clinical trials in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Clinicaltrials.gov was performed to identify studies related to LT for CRLM. Some research topics were identified, including indications for LT for CRLM, oncological risk, antitumor regimens, graft loss, administration of anti-immunity drugs and solutions for graft deficiency. The main candidate selection criteria are good patient performance, good tumor biological behavior and chemosensitivity. Chemotherapy should be administered before transplantation but is not commonly administered posttransplantation for preventive purposes. Mammalian target of rapamycin regimens are recommended for their potential oncological benefit, although there are limited cases. In addition to extended criterion grafts, living donor grafts and small grafts combined with two-stage hepatectomy are efficient means to resolve organ deficiency. LT has been proven to be an effective treatment for selected patients with liver-only CRLM. Due to limited donor grafts, high cost and poorly clarified oncological risks, LT for unresectable CRLM should be strictly performed under a well-organized study plan in selected patients. Some vital factors, like LT indication and anti-tumor and anti-immune treatment, remain to be confirmed. Ongoing clinical trials are expected to delineate these topics.

CARMA3/NF-κB signaling contributes to tumorigenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma and is inhibited by sodium aescinate.

BACKGROUND: Primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a very malignant tumor in the world. CARMA3 plays an oncogenic role in the pathogenesis of various tumors. However, the function of CARMA3 in HCC has not been fully clarified. AIM: To study the biological function of CAEMA3 in HCC. METHODS: Tissue microarray slides including tissues form 100 HCC patients were applied to access the expression of CARMA3 in HCC and its clinical relevance. Knockdown and overexpression of CARMA3 were conducted with plasmid transfection. MTT, colony formation, and apoptosis assays were performed to check the biological activity of cells. RESULTS: Higher expression of CARMA3 in HCC was relevant to poor prognostic survival (P < 0.05). Down-regulation of CARMA3 inhibited proliferation and colony formation and induced apoptosis in HCC cell lines, while increasing its expression promoted tumorigenesis. We also found that sodium aescinate (SA), a natural herb extract, exerted anti-proliferation effects in HCC cells by suppressing the CARMA3/nuclear factor kappa-B (NF-κB) pathway. CONCLUSION: Overexpression of CARMA3 in HCC tissues correlates with a poor prognosis in HCC patients. CARMA3 acts pro-tumorigenic effects partly through activation of CARMA3/NF-κB. SA inhibits HCC growth by targeting CARMA3/NF-κB.

BiClamp® vessel-sealing device for open hepatic resection of malignant and benign liver tumours: a single-institution experience.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative blood loss during hepatectomy worsens prognosis, and various tools have been used to improve perioperative safety and feasibility. We aimed to retrospectively evaluate the feasibility and safety of the BiClamp® device for open liver resection. METHODS: We included 84 patients undergoing liver resection from a single centre, with all patients operated by the same surgical group. All hepatectomies were performed using BiClamp® (Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH, Tubingen, Germany), an electrosurgical device that simultaneously transects liver parenchyma and seals vessels <7 mm in diameter. We collected data on intraoperative blood loss, resection time, and perioperative complications, comparing cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients. RESULTS: The 84 patients enrolled in this study included 56 cirrhotic and 28 non-cirrhotic patients. All patients underwent hepatectomy (30 major and 54 minor hepatectomies) using the BiClamp®, exclusively, and 54 patients required inflow occlusion (Pringle manoeuvre). Overall intraoperative blood loss (mean ± standard deviation) was 523.5 ± 558.6 ml, liver parenchymal transection time was 36.3 ± 16.5 min (range, 13-80 min), and the mean parenchymal transection speed was 3.0 ± 1.9 cm2/min. Twelve patients received perioperative blood transfusion. The cost of BiClamp® for each patient was 800 RMB (approximately 109€). There were no deaths, and the morbidity rate was 25%. The mean (standard deviation) hospital stay was 9.3 (2.3) days. Comparisons between cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients revealed no difference in blood loss (491.0 ± 535.7 ml vs 588.8 ± 617.5 ml, P = 0.598), liver parenchymal transection time (34.1 ± 14.8 min vs 40.9 ± 19.2 min, P = 0.208), mean parenchymal transection speed (3.3 ± 2.1 cm2/min vs 2.5 ± 1.3 cm2/min, P = 0.217), and operative morbidity (28.6% vs 14.3%, P = 0.147). CONCLUSIONS: The reusable BiClamp® vessel-sealing device allows for safe and feasible major and minor hepatectomy, even in patients with cirrhotic liver. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was retrospectively registered and the detail information was as followed. Registration number: ChiCTR-ORC-17011873 (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry). Registration Date: 2017-07-05.

[Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation vs. endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy for common bile duct stones: a meta analysis].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy between endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD) and endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy ( EST) for common bile duct stones using meta-analysis method. METHODS: Randomizd controlled trials comparing EPBD with EST for common bile duct stones and published from January 1990 to July 2012 were recruited. This meta-analysis was conducted to estimate short-term and long-term complications. Fixed random effect model or random effect model was established to analyze the data. RESULTS: Twelve randomizd controlled trials were included in this analysis. These studies included 1865 patients, 925 of them were treated with EPBD and 940 were treated with EST. The analysis of basic characteristics of these included studies showed that: compared to EST, patients in the EPBD group were younger (OR = -1.16, 95% CI: -1.49 to -0.84, P = 0.00), while in two groups, there were no significant difference (P > 0.05) in gender proportion, average size of stones, number of gallstones, previous cholecystectomy, the number of merged duodenal diverticulum, common bile duct diameter, the total follow-up time. Also, compared to EST, the overall stone clearance in the EPBD group was lower (OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.96, P = 0.03), pancreatitis incidence was higher (OR = 2.67, 95% CI: 1.61 to 4.43, P = 0.00), incidence of bleeding (OR = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.34, P = 0.00), acute cholecystitis (OR= 0.39, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.84, P = 0.02), total long-term complication rate (OR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.77, P = 0.01), stone recurrence rate more than a year were lower (OR= 0.48, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.90, P = 0.02). While in two groups, there were no significant difference (P > 0.05) in the stone removal on 1 '' attempt, the total near-term complications and acute cholangitis. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of lower rates of bleeding, EPBD seems to be preferred strategy over EST for endoscopic remove of common bile duct stones in patients who have coagulopathy. Although stone recurrence rate more than a year of EPBD is lower, but the overall stone clearance rate is lower and the risk of pancreatitis is higher than that of EST.

Meta-analysis comparison of endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation and endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy.

AIM: To assess endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD) and endoscopic sphincteropapillotomy (EST) for common bile duct (CBD) stone removal using a meta-analysis. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials published from 1990 to 2012 comparing EPBD with EST for CBD stone removal were evaluated. This meta-analysis was performed to estimate short-term and long-term complications of these two treatments. The fixed random effect model or random effect model was established to analysis the data. Results were obtained by analyzing the relative risk, odds ratio, and 95%CI for a given comparison using RevMan 5.1. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. Risk of bias was evaluated using a funnel plot. RESULTS: Of the 1975 patients analyzed, 980 of them were treated with EPBD and 995 were treated with EST. Of the patient population, patients in the EPBD group were younger (OR = -1.16, 95%CI: -1.49 to 0.84, P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in gender proportion, average size of stones, number of gallstones, previous cholecystectomy, the incidence of duodenal diverticulum, CBD diameter or the total follow-up time between EST and EPBD groups. Compared with EST, the total stone clearance in the EPBD group decreased (OR = 0.64, 95%CI: 0.42 to 0.96, P = 0.03), the use of stone extraction baskets significantly increased (OR = 1.91, 95%CI: 1.41 to 2.59, P < 0.01), and the incidence of pancreatitis significantly increased (OR = 2.79, 95%CI: 1.74 to 4.45, P < 0.0001). The incidence of bleeding (OR = 0.12, 95%CI: 0.04 to 0.34, P < 0.01) and cholecystitis (OR = 0.41, 95%CI: 0.20 to 0.84, P = 0.02) significantly decreased. The stone recurrence rate also was significantly reduced in EPBD (OR = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.26 to 0.90, P = 0.02). There were no significant differences between the two groups with the incidence of stone removal at first attempt, hours of operation, total short-term complications and infection, perforation, or acute cholangitis. CONCLUSION: Although the incidence of pancreatitis was higher, the overall stone clearance rate and risk of bleeding was lower with EPBD compared to EST.

[Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for small hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta analysis].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the curative effect of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and hepatic resection (RES) for small hepatocarcinoma eligible for Milan criterion using meta analysis method. METHODS: Retrieved clinical trials comparing percutaneous radiofrequency ablation with RES for small hepatocarcinoma published from 1990 to 2010. A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate overall survival and disease free survival. A fixed random effect model or random effect model was established to collect the data. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials were included in this analysis. These studies included a total of 539 patients: 252 treated with percutaneous RFA and 287 treated with RES. The differences in overall survival were not statistically significant between RFA and RES (P > 0.05). In the patients treated with RES group, the 2-, 3- and 4-years disease free survival rates were significantly better than that in the patients treated with percutaneous RFA (P < 0.05). The postoperative morbidity rate was significant lower in patients treated with percutaneous RFA (OR: 0.14, 95%CI: 0.09 - 0.22, P = 0.000). But percutaneous RFA had a higher rate of tumor recurrence compared to RES (OR: 2.63, 95%CI: 1.67 - 4.15, P = 0.000). CONCLUSIONS: For small hepatocarcinoma eligible for Milan criterion, percutaneous RFA had a similar overall survival to RES. Percutaneous RFA was the invasive lesser and had a lower postoperative morbidity rate than RES, but RES may had a better prevention of the tumor recurrence than percutaneous RFA. For those patients who don't want to be treated by RES, percutaneous RFA may be a recommendable choice.