Multimodal treatment including surgery for esophageal adenocarcinoma with liver oligo-metastases: a pathological complete response but early brain metastasis.

Survival of patients with stage IV esophageal adenocarcinoma is exceedingly poor, with less than 5% surviving 5 years. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend only palliative and supportive measures for patients with metastatic esophageal cancer. Treatment for stage IV disease is chemotherapy in selected patients, while the role of radiation therapy and surgical resection remain controversial. We report herein a young patient with esophageal adenocarcinoma and synchronous liver metastasis who underwent induction chemotherapy with encouraging downstaging, then two-field esophageal resection with left liver lobectomy. Despite a complete response of esophageal and residual liver lesions, early progression with isolated brain metastasis occurred 2 months after discharge. Our case highlights that despite progress in perioperative chemotherapy, the role of surgery remains uncertain for patients with esophageal cancer and synchronous M1 disease who exhibit excellent response to neoadjuvant treatment.

Microvascular invasion is a major prognostic factor after pancreatico-duodenectomy for adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Microvascular invasion (MVI) has been proved to be poor prognostic factor in many cancers. To date, only one study published highlights the relationship between this factor and the natural history of pancreatic cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of MVI, on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), after pancreatico-duodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. Secondarily, we aim to demonstrate that MVI is the most important factor to predict OS after surgery compared with resection margin (RM) and lymph node (LN) status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2015 and December 2017, 158 PD were performed in two hepato-bilio-pancreatic (HBP) centers. Among these, only 79 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the study. Clinical-pathological data and outcomes were retrospectively analyzed from a prospectively maintained database. RESULTS: Of the 79 patients in the cohort, MVI was identified in 35 (44.3%). In univariate analysis, MVI (P = .012 and P < .0001), RM (P = .023 and P = .021), and LN status (P < .0001 and P = .0001) were significantly associated with DFS and OS. A less than 1 mm margin clearance did not influence relapse (P = .72) or long-term survival (P = .48). LN ratio > 0.226 had a negative impact on OS (P = .044). In multivariate analysis, MVI and RM persisted as independent prognostic factors of DFS (P = .0075 and P = .0098, respectively) and OS (P < .0001 and P = .0194, respectively). Using the likelihood ratio test, MVI was identified as the best fit to predict OS after PD for ductal adenocarcinomas compared with the margin status model (R0 vs R1) (P = .0014). CONCLUSION: The MVI represents another major prognostic factor determining long-term outcomes.

[Portal vein embolization: Present and future]. / Embolisation portale préopératoire : présent et futur.

Portal vein embolization consists of occluding a part of the portal venous system in order to achieve the hypertrophy of the non-embolized liver segments. This technique is used during the preoperative period of major liver resection when the future remnant liver (FRL) volume is insufficient, exposing to postoperative liver failure, main cause of death after major hepatectomy. Portal vein embolization indication depends on the FRL, commonly assessed by its volume. Nowadays, FRL function evaluation seems more relevant and can be measured by 99mTc labelled mebrofenin scintigraphy. Portal vein embolization procedure is mostly performed with percutaneous trans-hepatic access by using ultrasonography guidance and consists of embolic agent injection, such as cyanoacrylate, in the targeted portal vein branches with fluoroscopic guidance. It is a safe and well-tolerated technique, with extremely low morbi-mortality. Portal vein embolization leads to sufficient FRL hypertrophy in about 80% of patients, allowing them to undergo surgery from which they were initially rejected. The two main reasons of non-resection are tumor progression (≈15% of cases) and FRL insufficient hypertrophy (≈5% of cases). When portal vein embolization is not enough to obtain adequate FRL regeneration, hepatic vein embolization may potentiate its effect (liver venous deprivation technique).