Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases with Major Vessel Involvement.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of CRLM with major vessel involvement is still challenging and valid data on outcomes are still rare. We analyzed our experience of hepatectomies with resection and reconstruction of major hepatic vessels with regard to operative and perioperative details, histopathological findings and oncological outcome. METHODS: Data of 32 hepatectomies with major hepatic vessel resections and reconstructions were included. Results were correlated with perioperative and oncological outcome. RESULTS: Out of 1236 surgical resections due to CRLM, we performed 35 major hepatic vessel resections and reconstructions in 32 cases (2.6%) during the study period from January 2008 to March 2023. The vena cava inferior (VCI) was resected and reconstructed in 19, the portal vein (PV) in 6 and a hepatic vein (HV) in 10 cases. Histopathological examination confirmed a vascular infiltration in 6/32 patients (VCI 3/17, HV 2/10 and PV 1/6). There were 27 R0 and 5 R1 resections. All R1 situations affected the parenchymal margin. Vascular wall margins were R0. Ninety-day mortality was 0. The median overall survival (OS) for the patient group with vascular infiltration (V1) was 21 months and for the V0 group 33.3 months. CONCLUSION: Liver resections with vascular resection and reconstruction are rare and histological vessel infiltration occurs seldom. In cases with presumed vascular wall infiltration, liver resection combined with major vessel resection and reconstruction can be performed with low morbidity and mortality. We prefer a parenchymal sparing liver resection with vascular resection and reconstruction to achieve negative resection margins, but in technically difficult cases with higher risk for postoperative complications, tumor detachment from vessels without resection is a most reasonable surgical alternative.

Understanding tumor localization in multiparametric MRI of the prostate-effectiveness of 3D printed models.

Introduction: Understanding tumor localization in multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate is challenging for urologists but of great importance in mpMRI-fused prostate biopsy or radical prostatectomy. The aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of 3D printed models of the prostate to help urologists to locate tumors. Methods and Participants: 20 urologists from University Medical Center Mainz (Germany) were asked to plot the location of a cancer suspicious lesion (PI-RADS ≥ 4) on a total of 30 mpMRI on a prostate sector diagram. The following 3 groups (as matched triplets) were divided into: mpMRI only, mpMRI with radiological report and mpMRI with 3D printed model (scaled 1:1). Statistical analysis was performed using one-way and two-way ANOVA (with bonferroni post-test). Results: Overall, localization of the suspicious lesion was superior with the radiological report (median of max. 10 [IQR]: MRI 2 [IQR 1;5], MRI + report: 8 [6.3;9], MRI + 3D model 3 [1.3;5.8]; p < 0.001). Residents with <1 year of experience had a significantly higher detection rate using a 3D printed model [5 (5;5.8)] compared to mpMRI alone [1.5 (1;3.5)] (p < 0.05). Regarding the estimation of index lesion extension, the 3D model showed a significant benefit (mean percentage difference [95% CI]: MRI alone 234% [17.1;451.5], MRI + report 114% [78.5;149.6], MRI + 3D model 17% [-7.4;41.3] (p < 0.01). Conclusion: Urologists still need the written radiological report for a sufficient understanding of tumor localization. The effectiveness of the 3D printed model regarding tumor localization is particularly evident in young residents (<1 year) and leads to a better overall assessment of the tumor extension.

Negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: further outcome and consequences.

PURPOSE: EAU guidelines recommend multiparametric MRI of the prostate (mpMRI) prior to biopsy to increase accuracy and reduce biopsies. Whether biopsy can be avoided in case of negative mpMRI remains unclear. Aim of this study is to evaluate predictors of overall prostate cancer (PCa) in negative mpMRI. METHODS: A total of 216 patients from 2018 to 2020 with suspicion of PCa and negative mpMRI (PI-RADS ≤ 2) were interviewed by telephone about outcome and further follow-up. Clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was defined as ISUP ≥ 2. Patients with vs. without biopsy and with vs. without PCa were compared. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate predictors of PCa occurrence in patients with negative mpMRI. RESULTS: 15.7% and 5.1% of patients with PI-RADS ≤ 2 on mpMRI showed PCa and csPCa, respectively. PCa patients had higher PSAD (0.14 vs. 0.09 ng/ml2; p = 0.001) and lower prostate volume (50.5 vs. 74.0 ml; p = 0.003). Patients without biopsy (25%) after MRI were older (69 vs. 65.5 years; p = 0.027), showed lower PSA (5.7 vs. 6.73 ng/ml; p = 0.033) and lower PSA density (0.09 vs. 0.1 ng/ml2; p = 0.027). Multivariate analysis revealed age (OR 1.09 [1.02-1.16]; p = 0.011), prostate volume (OR 0.982 [0.065; 0.997]; p = 0.027), total PSA level (OR 1.22 [1.01-1.47], p = 0.033), free PSA (OR 0.431 [0.177; 0.927]; p = 0.049) and no PI-RADS lesion vs PI-RADS 1-2 lesion (OR 0.38 [0.15-0.91], p = 0.032.) as predictive factors for the endpoint presence of PCa. CONCLUSIONS: Biopsy for selected patient groups (higher age, prostate volume and free PSA as well as lower PSA-Density) with negative mpMRI can be avoided, if sufficient follow-up care is guaranteed. Detailed counseling regarding residual risk for undetected prostate cancer should be mandatory.