Advances in the surgical treatment of liver cancer.

Liver resection is the standard curative treatment for liver cancer. Advances in surgical techniques over the last 30 years, including the preoperative assessment of the future liver remnant, have improved the safety of liver resection. In addition, advances in nonsurgical multidisciplinary treatment have increased the opportunities for tumor downstaging. Consequently, the indications for resection of more advanced liver cancer have expanded. Laparoscopic and robot-assisted liver resections have also gradually become more widespread. These techniques should be performed in stages, depending on the difficulty of the procedure. Advances in preoperative simulation and intraoperative navigation technology may have also lowered the threshold for their performance and may have promoted their widespread use. New insights and experiences gained from laparoscopic surgery may be applicable in open surgery. Liver transplantation, which is usually indicated for patients with poor liver function, has also become safer with advances in perioperative management. The indications for liver transplantation in liver cancer are also expanding. Although the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has forced the postponement of liver resection and transplantation procedures, liver surgeons should appropriately tailor the surgical plan to the individual patient as part of multidisciplinary treatment. This review may provide an entry point for future clinical research by identifying currently unresolved issues regarding liver cancer, and particularly hepatocellular carcinoma.

New next-generation microwave thermosphere ablation for small hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In July 2017, the Emprint™ next-generation microwave ablation system using thermosphere technology (Covidien, Boulder, CO, USA) was approved for use in Japan. This system can produce a predictable spherical ablation zone at higher temperatures than radiofrequency ablation (RFA). The aim of the present study was to elucidate whether this new microwave thermosphere ablation (MTA) could safely improve outcome compared to RFA, which is the standard of care for small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed 513 patients with 630 HCCs (≤3 cm) who were performed by percutaneous RFA (174 patients, 214 HCCs) or MTA (339 patients, 416 HCCs) between January 2016 and March 2020. RESULTS: Median ablation time was significantly shorter for MTA (240 seconds) than for RFA (721 seconds; P<0.001). A significant difference in 3-year local tumor progression rate was evident between the RFA group (22%) and MTA group (8%; P<0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed ablation procedure and tumor diameter as independent factors contributing to local tumor progression (MTA; P<0.001; hazard ratio, 0.565; 95% confidence interval, 0.437-0.731). In patients with primary HCC, a significant difference in overall survival was evident (RFA vs. MTA, 3-year, 77% vs. 95%, P=0.029). Ablation procedure and Child-Pugh score were independent factors contributing to survival. The total complication rate was significantly lower for MTA (8%) than for RFA (14%, P<0.05), particularly for bile duct injury (3% vs. 9%, respectively; P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Next-generation MTA for small HCC could provide safer, more curative treatment in a shorter ablation time than RFA.

Guidelines Adaptation to the COVID-19 Outbreak for the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Background: COVID-19 pandemic rendered the surgical approach as well as the surgical indication very complex due to the outstanding consumption of public health system' resources, especially in the intensive care subdivision. A multidisciplinary team-based strategy is necessary to adapt guidelines and medical practices to the actual situation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the changes in the therapeutic algorithm in a small group of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) enlisted for surgery during the COVID-19 outbreak. Materials and Methods: A multidisciplinary strategy has been adopted to allocate HCC patients to a treatment that permitted to reduce the risk of complications and the hospital stay, thus preventing contamination by the virus. Nasopharyngeal swab and a chest radiograph were performed in all patients within 48 hours before the surgical procedure: in the suspected cases with negative COVID tests, we prudently postponed surgery and repeated the diagnostic tests after 15 days. Results: During the emergency state, 11 HCC patients were treated (8 laparoscopic ablations and 3 hepatic resections). We reported only 1 postoperative complication (hemothorax) and 1 death during the follow-up for COVID pneumonia. Comparing our performances with those in the same time frame in the past 4 years, we treated a similar number of HCC patients, obtaining a decrease in operative timing (P = .0409) and hospital stay (P = .0412) (Fig. 2b) with similar rates of immediate postoperative complications, without ICU admissions. Conclusions: An adapted algorithm for the treatment of HCC to COVID outbreak permitted to manage safely these patients by identifying those most at risk of evolution of the neoplastic disease.

Clinical characteristics and immunosuppressant management of coronavirus disease 2019 in solid organ transplant recipients.

Over 1 000 000 cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been confirmed since the worldwide outbreak began. Not enough data on infected solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are available, especially data about the management of immunosuppressants. We report two cases of COVID-19 in two transplant recipients, with different treatments and prognoses. The first patient received liver transplantation due to hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma and was confirmed to have COVID-19 9 days later. Following a treatment regimen consisting of discontinued immunosuppressant use and low-dose methylprednisolone-based therapy, the patient developed acute rejection but eventually recovered. The other patient had undergone a renal transplant from a living-related donor 17 years ago, and was admitted to the hospital because of persistent fever. This patient was also diagnosed with COVID-19. His treatment regimen consisted of reduced immunosuppressant use. No signs of rejection were observed during the regimen. In the end, the patient successfully recovered from COVID-19. These effectively treated cases can provide a basis for immunosuppressant management of COVID-19-positive SOT recipients.