Eddie K. Abdalla

One hundred years after "carcinoid": epidemiology of and prognostic factors for neuroendocrine tumors in 35,825 cases in the United States.

PURPOSE Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are considered rare tumors and can produce a variety of hormones. In this study, we examined the epidemiology of and prognostic factors for NETs, because a thorough examination of neither had previously been performed. METHODS The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program registries were searched to identify NET cases from 1973 to 2004. Associated population data were used for incidence and prevalence analyses. Results We identified 35,618 patients with NETs. We observed a significant increase in the reported annual age-adjusted incidence of NETs from 1973 (1.09/100,000) to 2004 (5.25/100,000). Using the SEER 9 registry data, we estimated the 29-year limited-duration prevalence of NETs on January 1, 2004, to be 9,263. Also, the estimated 29-year limited-duration prevalence in the United States on that date was 103,312 cases (35/100,000). The most common primary tumor site varied by race, with the lung being the most common in white patients, and the rectum being the most common in Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and African American patients. Additionally, survival duration varied by histologic grade. In multivariate analysis of patients with well-differentiated to moderately differentiated NETs, disease stage, primary tumor site, histologic grade, sex, race, age, and year of diagnosis were predictors of outcome (P < .001). CONCLUSION We observed increased reported incidence of NETs and increased survival durations over time, suggesting that NETs are more prevalent than previously reported. Clinicians need to be become familiar with the natural history and patterns of disease progression, which are characteristic of these tumors.

Recurrence and Outcomes Following Hepatic Resection, Radiofrequency Ablation, and Combined Resection/Ablation for Colorectal Liver Metastases

Objective:To examine recurrence and survival rates for patients treated with hepatic resection only, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) plus resection or RFA only for colorectal liver metastases. Summary Background Data:Thermal destruction techniques, particularly RFA, have been rapidly accepted into surgical practice in the last 5 years. Long-term survival data following treatment of colorectal liver metastasis using RFA with or without hepatic resection are lacking. Methods:Data from 358 consecutive patients with colorectal liver metastases treated for cure with hepatic resection ± RFA and 70 patients found at laparotomy to have liver-only disease but not to be candidates for potentially curative treatment were compared (1992–2002). Results:Of 418 patients treated, 190 (45%) underwent resection only, 101 RFA + resection (24%), 57 RFA only (14%), and 70 laparotomy with biopsy only or arterial infusion pump placement (“chemotherapy only,” 17%). RFA was used in operative candidates who could not undergo complete resection of disease. Overall recurrence was most common after RFA (84% vs. 64% RFA + resection vs. 52% resection only, P < 0.001). Liver-only recurrence after RFA was fourfold the rate after resection (44% vs. 11% of patients, P < 0.001), and true local recurrence was most common after RFA (9% of patients vs. 5% RFA + resection vs. 2% resection only, P = 0.02). Overall survival rate was highest after resection (58% at 5 years); 4-year survival after resection, RFA + resection and RFA only were 65%, 36%, and 22%, respectively (P < 0.0001). Survival for “unresectable” patients treated with RFA + resection or RFA only was greater than chemotherapy only (P = 0.0017). Conclusions:Hepatic resection is the treatment of choice for colorectal liver metastases. RFA alone or in combination with resection for unresectable patients does not provide survival comparable to resection, and provides survival only slightly superior to nonsurgical treatment.

Chemotherapy Regimen Predicts Steatohepatitis and an Increase in 90-Day Mortality After Surgery for Hepatic Colorectal Metastases

PURPOSE Chemotherapy before resection of hepatic colorectal metastases (CRM) may cause hepatic injury and affect postoperative outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS Four hundred six patients underwent hepatic resection of CRM between 1992 and 2005. Pathologic review of the nontumorous liver was performed using established criteria for steatosis, steatohepatitis, and sinusoidal injury. The effect of chemotherapy and liver injury on perioperative outcome was analyzed. RESULTS One hundred fifty-eight patients (38.9%) received no preoperative chemotherapy, whereas 248 patients (61.1%) did. The median duration of chemotherapy was 16 weeks (range, 2 to 70 weeks). Chemotherapy consisted of fluoropyrimidine-based regimens (fluorouracil [FU] alone, 15.5%; irinotecan plus FU, 23.1%; and oxaliplatin plus FU, 19.5%) and other therapy (3.0%). On pathologic analysis, 36 patients (8.9%) had steatosis, 34 (8.4%) had steatohepatitis, and 22 (5.4%) had sinusoidal dilation. Oxaliplatin was associated with sinusoidal dilation compared with no chemotherapy (18.9% v 1.9%, respectively; P < .001; odds ratio [OR] = 8.3; 95% CI, 2.9 to 23.6). In contrast, irinotecan was associated with steatohepatitis compared with no chemotherapy (20.2% v 4.4%, respectively; P < .001; OR = 5.4; 95% CI, 2.2 to 13.5). Patients with steatohepatitis had an increased 90-day mortality compared with patients who did not have steatohepatitis (14.7% v 1.6%, respectively; P = .001; OR = 10.5; 95% CI, 2.0 to 36.4). CONCLUSION Steatohepatitis is associated with an increased 90-day mortality after hepatic surgery. In patients with hepatic CRM, the chemotherapy regimen should be carefully considered because the risk of hepatotoxicity is significant.

The International Position on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery: The Louisville Statement, 2008

Objective:To summarize the current world position on laparoscopic liver surgery. Summary Background Data:Multiple series have reported on the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic liver surgery. Small and medium sized procedures have become commonplace in many centers, while major laparoscopic liver resections have been performed with efficacy and safety equaling open surgery in highly specialized centers. Although the field has begun to expand rapidly, no consensus meeting has been convened to discuss the evolving field of laparoscopic liver surgery. Methods:On November 7 to 8, 2008, 45 experts in hepatobiliary surgery were invited to participate in a consensus conference convened in Louisville, KY, US. In addition, over 300 attendees were present from 5 continents. The conference was divided into sessions, with 2 moderators assigned to each, so as to stimulate discussion and highlight controversies. The format of the meeting varied from formal presentation of experiential data to expert opinion debates. Written and video records of the presentations were produced. Specific areas of discussion included indications for surgery, patient selection, surgical techniques, complications, patient safety, and surgeon training. Results:The consensus conference used the terms pure laparoscopy, hand-assisted laparoscopy, and the hybrid technique to define laparoscopic liver procedures. Currently acceptable indications for laparoscopic liver resection are patients with solitary lesions, 5 cm or less, located in liver segments 2 to 6. The laparoscopic approach to left lateral sectionectomy should be considered standard practice. Although all types of liver resection can be performed laparoscopically, major liver resections (eg, right or left hepatectomies) should be reserved for experienced surgeons facile with more advanced laparoscopic hepatic resections. Conversion should be performed for difficult resections requiring extended operating times, and for patient safety, and should be considered prudent surgical practice rather than failure. In emergent situations, efforts should be made to control bleeding before converting to a formal open approach. Utilization of a hand assist or hybrid technique may be faster, safer, and more efficacious. Indications for surgery for benign hepatic lesions should not be widened simply because the surgery can be done laparoscopically. Although data presented on colorectal metastases did not reveal an adverse effect of the laparoscopic approach on oncological outcomes in terms of margins or survival, adequacy of margins and ability to detect occult lesions are concerns. The pure laparoscopic technique of left lateral sectionectomy was used for adult to child donation while the hybrid approach has been the only one reported to date in the case of adult to adult right lobe donation. Laparoscopic liver surgery has not been tested by controlled trials for efficacy or safety. A prospective randomized trial appears to be logistically prohibitive; however, an international registry should be initiated to document the role and safety of laparoscopic liver resection. Conclusions:Laparoscopic liver surgery is a safe and effective approach to the management of surgical liver disease in the hands of trained surgeons with experience in hepatobiliary and laparoscopic surgery. National and international societies, as well as governing boards, should become involved in the goal of establishing training standards and credentialing, to ensure consistent standards and clinical outcomes.

Effect of Surgical Margin Status on Survival and Site of Recurrence After Hepatic Resection for Colorectal Metastases

Objective:To evaluate the influence of surgical margin status on survival and site of recurrence in patients treated with hepatic resection for colorectal metastases. Methods:Using a multicenter database, 557 patients who underwent hepatic resection for colorectal metastases were identified. Demographics, operative data, pathologic margin status, site of recurrence (margin, other intrahepatic site, extrahepatic), and long-term survival data were collected and analyzed. Results:On final pathologic analysis, margin status was positive in 45 patients, and negative by 1 to 4 mm in 129, 5 to 9 mm in 85, and ≥1 cm in 298. At a median follow-up of 29 months, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year actuarial survival rates were 97%, 74%, and 58%; median survival was 74 months. Tumor size ≥5 cm, >3 tumor nodules, and carcinoembryonic antigen level >200 ng/mL predicted poor survival (all P < 0.05). Median survival was 49 months in patients with positive margins and not yet reached in patients with negative margins (P = 0.01). After hepatic resection, 225 (40.4%) patients had recurrence: 21 at the surgical margin, 56 at another intrahepatic site, 82 at an extrahepatic site, and 66 at both intrahepatic and extrahepatic sites. Patients with negative margins of 1 to 4 mm, 5 to 9 mm, and ≥1 cm had similar overall recurrence rates (P > 0.05). Patients with positive margins were more likely to have surgical margin recurrence (P = 0.003). Adverse preoperative biologic factors including tumor number greater than 3 (P = 0.01) and a preoperative CEA level greater than 200 ng/mL (P = 0.04) were associated with an increased risk of positive surgical margin. Conclusions:A positive margin after resection of hepatic colorectal metastases is associated with adverse biologic factors and increased risk of surgical-margin recurrence. The width of a negative surgical margin does not affect survival, recurrence risk, or site of recurrence. A predicted margin of <1 cm after resection of hepatic colorectal metastases should not be used as an exclusion criterion for resection.

Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: The Importance of This Emerging Stage of Disease

BACKGROUND Patients with borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) include those with localized disease who have tumor or patient characteristics that preclude immediate surgery. There is no optimal treatment schema for this distinct stage of disease, so the role of surgery is undefined. STUDY DESIGN We defined patients with borderline resectable PA as fitting into one of three distinct groups. Group A comprised patients with tumor abutment of the visceral arteries or short-segment occlusion of the Superior Mesenteric Vein. In group B, patients had findings suggestive but not diagnostic of metastasis. Group C patients were of marginal performance status. Patients were treated initially with chemotherapy, chemoradiation, or both; those of sufficient performance status who completed preoperative therapy without disease progression were considered for surgery. RESULTS Between October 1999 and August 2006, 160 (7%) of 2,454 patients with PA were classified as borderline resectable. Of these, 125 (78%) completed preoperative therapy and restaging, and 66 (41%) underwent pancreatectomy. Vascular resection was required in 18 (27%) of 66 patients, and 62 (94%) underwent a margin-negative pancreatectomy. A partial pathologic response to induction therapy (< 50% viable tumor) was seen in 37 (56%) of 66 patients. Median survival was 40 months for the 66 patients who completed all therapy and 13 months for the 94 patients who did not undergo pancreatectomy (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS This is the first large report of borderline resectable PA and includes objective definitions for this stage of disease. Our neoadjuvant approach allowed for identification of the marked subset of patients that was most likely to benefit from surgery, as evidenced by the favorable median survival in this group.

Pancreaticoduodenectomy With Vascular Resection: Margin Status and Survival Duration

Major vascular resection performed at the time of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for adenocarcinoma remains controversial. We analyzed all patients who underwent vascular resection (VR) at the time of PD for any histology at a single institution between 1990 and 2002. Preoperative imaging criteria for PD included the absence of tumor extension to the celiac axis or superior mesenteric artery (SMA). Tangential or segmental resection of the superior mesenteric or portal veins was performed when the tumor could not be separated from the vein. As a separate analysis, all patients who underwent PD with VR for pancreatic adenocarcinoma were compared to all patients who underwent standard PD for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. A total of 141 patients underwent VR with PD. Superior mesenteric-portal vein resections included tangential resection with vein patch (n = 36), segmental resection with primary anastomosis (n = 35), and segmental resection with autologous interposition graft (n = 55). Hepatic arterial resections were performed in 10 patients, and resections of the anterior surface of the inferior vena cava were performed in 5 patients. PD was performed for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in 291 patients; standard PD was performed in 181 and VR in 110. Median survival was 23.4 months in the group that required VR and 26.5 months in the group that underwent standard PD (P = 0.177). A Cox proportional hazards model was constructed to analyze the effects of potential prognostic factors (VR, tumor size, T stage, N status, margin status) on survival. The need for VR had no impact on survival duration. In conclusion, properly selected patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head who require VR have a median survival of approximately 2 years, which does not differ from those who undergo standard PD and is superior to historical patients believed to have locally advanced disease treated nonoperatively.

Pathologic Response to Preoperative Chemotherapy: A New Outcome End Point After Resection of Hepatic Colorectal Metastases

PURPOSE The primary goal of this study was to evaluate whether pathologic response to chemotherapy predicts patient survival after preoperative chemotherapy and resection of colorectal liver metastases (CLM). The secondary goal of the study was to identify the clinical predictors of pathologic response. PATIENTS AND METHODS A retrospective review was performed of 305 patients who underwent preoperative irinotecan- or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, followed by resection of CLM. Pathologic response was systematically evaluated and reported as the mean of the percentage of cancer cells remaining within each tumor. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the predictors of pathologic response and survival. RESULTS Cumulative 5-year overall survival rates by pathologic response status were as follows: 75% complete response (no residual cancer cells), 56% major response (1% to 49% residual cancer cells), and 33% minor response (> or = 50% residual cancer cells; complete v major response, P = .037; major v minor response, P = .028). Multivariate analysis revealed that only surgical margin status (P = .050; hazard ratio [HR], 1.77) and pathologic response (major response: P = .034; HR, 4.80; minor response: P = .007; HR, 6.93) were independent predictors of survival. Multivariate analysis of the predictors of pathologic response revealed that carcinoembryonic antigen level < or = 5 ng/mL, tumor size < or = 3 cm, and chemotherapy with fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin and bevacizumab were independent predictors of pathologic response. CONCLUSION Pathologic response predicts survival after preoperative chemotherapy and resection of CLM. Degree of pathologic response represents a new outcome end point for prognosis after resection of CLM.

Impact of resection status on pattern of failure and survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Objective:To better understand the impact of a microscopically positive margin (R1) on patterns of disease recurrence and survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Summary Background Data:A positive resection margin after PD is considered to be a poor prognostic factor, and some have proposed that an R1 margin may be a biologic predictor of more aggressive disease. The natural history of patients treated with contemporary multimodality therapy who underwent a positive margin PD has not been described. Methods:We analyzed our experience from 1990 to 2004, which included the prospective use of a standardized system for pathologic analysis of all PD specimens. All patients who underwent PD met objective computed tomographic criteria for resection. Standard pathologic evaluation of the PD specimen included permanent section analysis of the final bile duct, pancreatic, and superior mesenteric artery (SMA) margins. First recurrences (all sites) were defined as local, regional, or distant. Survival and follow-up were calculated from the date of initial histologic diagnosis to the dates of first recurrence or death and last contact, respectively. Results:PD was performed on 360 consecutive patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Minimum follow-up was 12 months (median, 51.9 months). The resection margins were negative (R0) in 300 patients (83.3%) and positive (R1) in 60 (16.7%); no patients had macroscopically positive (R2) margins. By multivariate analysis (MVA), high mean operative blood loss and large tumor size were independent predictors of an R1 resection. Patients who underwent an R1 resection had a median overall survival of 21.5 months compared with 27.8 months in patients who underwent an R0 resection. After controlling for other variables on MVA, resection status did not independently affect survival. By MVA, only lymph node metastases, major perioperative complications, and blood loss adversely affected survival. Conclusions:There was no statistically significant difference in patient survival or recurrence based on R status. However, this series is unique in the incorporation of a standardized surgical technique for the SMA dissection, the prospective use of a reproducible system for pathologic evaluation of resection margins, the absence of R2 resections, and the frequent use of multimodality therapy.

Resection Prior to Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility and postoperative course of liver transplantation (LT) in cirrhotic patients who underwent liver resection prior to LT for HCC. Summary Background Data: Although LT provides longer survival than liver resection for treatment of small HCCs, donor shortage and long LT wait time may argue against LT. The feasibility and survival following LT after hepatic resection have not been previously examined. Methods: Between 1991 and 2001, among 107 patients who underwent LT for HCC, 88 met Mazzaferos criteria upon pathologic analysis of the explant. Of these, 70 underwent primary liver transplantation (PLT) and 18 liver resection prior to secondary liver transplantation (SLT) for recurrence (n = 11), deterioration of liver function (n = 4), or high risk for recurrence (n = 3). Perioperative and postoperative factors and long-term survival were compared. Results: Comparison of PLT and SLT groups at the time of LT revealed similar median age (53 vs. 55 years), sex, and etiology of liver disease (alcohol/viral B/C/other). In the SLT group, the mean time between liver resection and listing for LT was 20 months (range 1–84 months). Overall time on LT waiting list of the two groups was similar (3 vs. 5 months). Pathologic analysis after LT revealed similar tumor size (2.2 vs. 2.3 cm) and number (1.6 vs. 1.7). Perioperative and postoperative courses were not different in terms of operative time (551 vs. 530 minutes), blood loss (1191 vs. 1282 mL), transfusion (3 vs. 2 units), ICU (9 vs. 10 days) or hospital stay (32 vs. 31 days), morbidity (51% vs. 56%) or 30-day mortality (5.7% vs. 5.6%). During a median follow-up of 32 months (3 to 158 months), 3 patients recurred after PLT and one after SLT. After transplantation, 3- and 5-year overall survivals were not different between groups (82 vs. 82% and 59 vs. 61%). Conclusions: In selected patients, liver resection prior to transplantation does not increase the morbidity or impair long-term survival following LT. Therefore, liver resection prior to transplantation can be integrated in the treatment strategy for HCC.