Prognostic role of infracentimetric colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: The number of lesions and the size of the largest (CRLMmax) have been widely investigated as prognostic factors in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). The aim of the present study was to assess whether, in patients undergoing curative liver resection, the presence of infracentimetric lesions could affect recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). METHODS: Patients who underwent a liver resection for CRLM between 2001 and 2019 were included. The size of CRLM was measured on the surgical specimen. The best cut-off of the smallest lesion (CRLMmin) associated with RFS was determined through the time-dependent ROC analysis. A multivariate Cox regression analysis was carried out. RESULTS: Overall, 227 patients were included. Median follow-up time was 50 months [IQR 26-84]. Recurrence occurred for 151 (66.5%) patients (liver recurrence in 67.5%, while exclusive extra-hepatic recurrence in 32.5%). The best cut-off for CRLMmin associated with RFS was 9 mm, with 12- and 24-month td-AUC 0.56 and 0.52 respectively. CRLMmin ≤ 9 mm was found to be an independent prognostic factor that impairs RFS at multivariate analysis (HR 1.534 (1.02-2.32), p = 0.042). In particular, CRLMmin ≤ 9 mm was correlated with impaired hepatic RFS (HR 1.860 (1.15-3.01), p = 0.011), but not extra-hepatic RFS. CONCLUSIONS: Infracentimetric metastases (≤ 9 mm) are an independent prognostic factor that impairs hepatic RFS. This result suggests the potential benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT) also in selected patients with initially resectable lesions, in case of CRLM ≤ 9 mm on preoperative imaging.

Feasibility and outcomes of multiple simultaneous laparoscopic liver resections.

INTRODUCTION: Surgeons often remain reluctant to consider laparoscopic approach in multiple liver tumors. This study assessed feasibility and short-term results of patients who had more than 3 simultaneous laparoscopic liver resections (LLR). METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent LLR for primary or secondary malignancies between 2009 and 2019 were analyzed. After exclusion of major LLR, patients were divided into three groups: less than three (Group A), between three and five (Group B), and more than five resections (Group C) in the same procedure. Intraoperative details, postoperative outcomes, and textbook outcome (TO) were compared in the 3 groups. RESULTS: During study period, 463 patients underwent minor LLR. Among them, 412 (88.9%) had less than 3 resections, 38 (8.2%) between 3 and 5 resections, and 13 (2.8%) more than 5 resections. Despite a difficulty score according to IMM classification comparable in the 3 groups (with high difficulty grade 3 procedures of 16.5% vs. 15.7% vs. 23.1% in Group A, B, and C, respectively, p = 0.124), mean operative time was significantly longer in Group C (p = 0.039). Blood loss amount (p = 0.396) and conversion rate (p = 0.888) were similar in the 3 groups. Rate of R1 margins was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.078). Achievement of TO was not different between groups (p = 0.741). In multivariate analysis, non-achievement of TO was associated with difficulty according to IMM classification (OR = 2.29 (1.33-3.98)). CONCLUSION: Since intra- and post-operative outcomes and quality of resection are comparable, multiple liver resections should not preclude the laparoscopic approach.

Quality of oncological resection criteria in minimally invasive esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Even though minimally invasive esophageal surgery (MIE) is spreading, questions remain regarding its oncological outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of oncological resection criteria in MIE. METHODS: All patients undergoing a two-way Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal or junctional cancer between 2010 and 2020 in a single tertiary upper gastrointestinal surgery ward were analyzed retrospectively. The following oncological criteria were analyzed: lymph node (LN) harvest and location, positive lymph node rate, margins, and R0 rates. They were compared between the MIE group (thoracoscopy + laparoscopy) and the hybrid group (H/O, thoracotomy + laparoscopy). RESULTS: Among the 240 patients included, 34 (14%) had MIE and 206 a hybrid esophagectomy. Main surgical indication was lower thoracic adenocarcinoma and the rate of neoadjuvant treatments administered (chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) was comparable between both groups (p = 1.0). LN harvest was significantly higher in the MIE group (31 ± 9 vs. 28 ± 9, p = 0.04) as well as thoracic LN harvest (14 ± 7 vs. 11 ± 5, p = 0.002). When analyzing patients according to T stage and response to neoadjuvant treatments, patients with T1 and T2 tumors and patients with a poor pathological response (TRG3, 4, 5) had a significantly higher LN harvest when undergoing a minimally invasive approach (p = 0.021 and p = 0.01, respectively). Positive LN rates (1.26 ± 3.63 in the MIE group vs. 1.60 ± 2.84 in the H/O group, p = 0.061), R0 rates (97% vs. 98.5%, p = 0.46) as well as proximal (p = 0.083), distal (p = 0.063), and lateral (p = 0.15) margins were comparable between both approaches. CONCLUSION: MIE seems oncologically safe and may even be better than the open approach in terms of LN harvest especially in patients with T1 and T2 tumors and in poor responders.

Validation of the IMM classification in laparoscopic repeat liver resections for colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: To validate the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification as a difficulty scoring system applicable to laparoscopic repeat liver resections and identify risk-factors of unexpected difficulty. METHODS: From a prospectively collected database between 2000 and 2019, patients undergoing laparoscopic repeat liver resections were classified according to the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification. Doubly robust estimators (weighted regressions) were used to assess the effect of factors on intra- and postoperative outcomes and allowed for strong adjustment on age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists, carcinoembryonic antigen, number, and size of lesions. Unexpected difficulty was defined as a composite indicator which included substantial blood loss and/or substantial operative time and/or conversion. RESULTS: Of 205 laparoscopic repeat liver resections patients, 87, 25, and 93 procedures were classified as grade 1, 2, and 3 laparoscopic repeat liver resections, respectively. After doubly robust adjustment, the IMM classification was associated with blood loss (Cohen f2 0.12; P = 0.001), operative time (Cohen f2 0.07; P = .001), and length of stay (Cohen f2 0.13; P = .001), as well as with the risk of both minor and severe complications (odd ratio = 2.94; 95% confidence interval: 2.06-4.20) and the chances of achieving textbook outcome (relative risk = 0.57; 95% confidence interval: 0.41-0.81). Independently from the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification, a first major hepatectomy (relative risk = 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.29) as well as sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (relative risk = 1.24, 95% confidence interval: 1.09-1.41) were independent risk factors of unexpected difficulty. A first major resection was associated with decreased chances of textbook outcome (relative risk = 0.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.33-0.85). CONCLUSION: The Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification is a valuable difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic repeat liver resections procedures, while previous major resection and presence of sinusoidal obstruction syndrome are likely to jeopardize the outcomes.