RESUMO
The rapidly aging population in industrialized countries comes with an increased incidence of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC) which presents new challenges for oncological treatments especially in elderly patients. Thus, the question arises to what extent the benefit of surgical resections, as the only curative treatment option, outweighs possible perioperative risks in patients ≥ 80 years of age (octogenarians). We therefore retrospectively analyzed 311 patients who underwent resection for iCC at Hannover Medical School between January 1996 and December 2022. In total, there were 11 patients older than 80 years in our collective. Despite similar tumor size, octogenarians underwent comparatively less extensive surgery (54.5% major resections in octogenarians vs. 82.7% in all other patients; p = 0.033) with comparable rates of lymphadenectomy and tumor-free resection margins. Furthermore, we did not observe increased major postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIa complications: 27.3% vs. 34.3% in all other patients; p = 0.754) or mortality (estimated 1-year OS of 70.7% vs. 72.5% in all other patients, p = 0.099). The length of intensive care unit (ICU) or intermediate care unit (IMC) stay was significantly longer in octogenarians, however, with a comparable length in total hospital stay. The estimated overall survival (OS) did also not differ significantly, although a trend towards reduced long-term survival was observed (14.5 months vs. 28.03 months in all other patients; p = 0.099). In conclusion, primary resection is a justifiable and safe therapeutic option even in octogenarians but requires an even more thorough preoperative patient selection.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) remains the main reason for short-term mortality after liver surgery. APRI+ALBI, aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio (APRI) combined with albumin-bilirubin grade (ALBI), score and the liver function maximum capacity test (LiMAx) are both established preoperative (preop) liver function tests. The aim of this study was to compare both tests for their predictive potential for clinically significant PHLF grade B and C (B+C). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 352 patients were included from 4 European centers. Patients had available preop APRI+ALBI scores and LiMAx results. Predictive potential for PHLF, PHLF B+C and 90-day mortality was compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and calculation of the area under the curve (AUC). Published cutoffs of ≥ -2.46 for APRI+ALBI and of <315 for LiMAx were assessed using chi-squared test. RESULTS: APRI+ALBI showed superior predictive potential for PHLF B+C (N = 34; AUC = 0.766), PHLF grade C (N = 20; AUC = 0.782) and 90-day mortality (N = 15; AUC = 0.750). When comparing the established cutoffs of both tests, APRI+ALBI outperformed LiMAx in prediction of PHLF B+C (APRI+ALBI ≥2.46: Positive predictive value (PPV) = 19%, negative predictive value (NPV) = 97%; LiMAx <315: PPV = 3%, NPV = 90%) and 90-day mortality (APRI+ALBI ≥2.46: PPV = 12%, NPV = 99%; LiMAx <315: PPV = 0%, NPV = 94%) CONCLUSION: In our analysis, APRI+ALBI outperformed LiMAx measurement in the preop prediction of PHLF B+C and postoperative mortality, at a fraction of the costs, manual labor and invasiveness.
