Myrddin Rees

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.

Evaluation of long-term survival after hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multifactorial model of 929 patients.

Objective:To identify risk factors associated with cancer-specific survival and develop a predictive model for patients undergoing primary hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer. Background:No published studies investigated collectively the inter-relation of factors related to patient cancer-specific survival after hepatectomy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Methods:Clinical, pathologic, and complete follow-up data were prospectively collected from 929 consecutive patients undergoing primary (n = 925) or repeat hepatic resection (n = 80) for colorectal liver metastases at a tertiary referral center from 1987 to 2005. Parametric survival analysis was used to identify predictors of cancer-specific survival and develop a predictive model. The model was validated using measures of discrimination and calibration. Results:Postoperative mortality and morbidity were 1.5% and 25.9%, respectively. 5-year and 10-year cancer-specific survival were 36% and 23%. On multivariate analysis, 7 risk factors were found to be independent predictors of poor survival: number of hepatic metastases >3, node positive primary, poorly differentiated primary, extrahepatic disease, tumor diameter ≥5 cm, carcinoembyonic antigen level >60 ng/mL, and positive resection margin. The first 6 of these criteria were used in a preoperative scoring system and the last 6 in the postoperative setting. Patients with the worst postoperative prognostic criteria had an expected median cancer-specific survival of 0.7 years and a 5-year cancer-specific survival of 2%. Conversely, patients with the best prognostic postoperative criteria had an expected median cancer-specific survival of 7.4 years and a 5-year cancer-specific survival of 64%. When tested both predictive models fitted the data well with no significant differences between observed and predicted outcomes (P > 0.05). Conclusion:Resection of liver metastases provides good long-term cancer-specific survival benefit, which can be quantified pre- or postoperatively using the criteria described. The “Basingstoke Predictive Index” may be used for risk-stratifying patients who may benefit from intensive surveillance and selection for adjuvant therapy and trials.

Surgical resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: a systematic review of published studies.

No consensus on the indications for surgical resection of colorectal liver metastases exists. This systematic review has been undertaken to assess the published evidence for its efficacy and safety and to identify prognostic factors. Studies were identified by computerised and hand searches of the literature, scanning references and contacting investigators. The outcome measures were overall survival, disease-free survival, postoperative morbidity and mortality, quality of life and cost effectiveness, and a qualitative summary of the trends across all studies was produced. Only 30 of 529 independent studies met all the eligibility criteria for the review, and data on 30-day mortality and morbidity only were included from a further nine studies. The best available evidence came from prospective case series, but only two studies reported outcomes for all patients undergoing surgery. The remainder reported outcomes for selected groups of patients: those undergoing hepatic resection or those undergoing curative resection. Postoperative mortality rates were generally low (median 2.8%). The majority of studies described only serious postoperative morbidity, the most common being bile leak and associated perihepatic abscess. Approximately 30% of patients remained alive 5 years after resection and around two-thirds of these are disease free. The quality of the majority of published papers was poor and ascertaining the benefits of surgical resection of colorectal hepatic metastases is difficult in the absence of randomised trials. However, it is clear that there is group of patients with liver metastases who may become long-term disease- free survivors following hepatic resection. Such survival is rare in apparently comparable patients who do not have surgical treatment. Further work is needed to more accurately define this group of patients and to determine whether the addition of adjuvant treatments results in improved survival.

Guidelines for resection of colorectal cancer liver metastases

There has been increasing recognition of the potential benefits of liver resection for colorectal metastases in the UK although this treatment has been established more widely in other Western countries. There are no randomised studies assessing outcome following resection compared with no treatment or other therapeutic modalities in patients with known resectable liver metastases as it is generally considered unethical not to offer surgery for resectable disease. There has been increased interest in more aggressive chemotherapy regimens that have been reported to not only control metastatic disease but also to render some advanced liver metastases resectable.1–4 Furthermore, other new modalities have become available that allow safe ablation of liver metastases without the need for surgical intervention. There is therefore a need to produce clear guidelines on the appropriate management of patients with colorectal cancer who have been shown to have hepatic metastases. These guidelines are intended to address a number of issues: 1. the principles under which patients with hepatic metastases should be managed; 2. which patients who have undergone attempted curative resection of the primary colorectal tumour should be offered surveillance; 3. what investigations are required to determine appropriate management; and 4. which treatment modality is most appropriate in a given clinical context. The process of formulating any clinical guidelines requires a guideline development group, a search strategy with review of the relevant literature, synthesis of evidence (and consensus methods for topics when evidence is lacking), followed by external review. A multidisciplinary meeting with representation from a number of interested bodies involving surgeons, gastroenterologists, oncologists, diagnostic and interventional radiologists, pathologists, general practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, nurse practitioners, and patients was held in the Pelican Centre in Basingstoke on 2–4 October 2003 (see appendix 1). The Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument was used to provide a framework for assessing …

Safe liver resection following chemotherapy for colorectal metastases is a matter of timing.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC) can improve the resectability of hepatic colorectal metastases (CRM). However, there is concern regarding its impact on operative risk. We reviewed 750 consecutive liver resections performed for CRM in a single unit (1996–2005) to evaluate whether NC affected morbidity and mortality. Redo hepatic resections or patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy following primary resection were excluded. A total of 245 resections were performed in patients not requiring NC (control group) (mean age 63, 67% male) and 252 in patients who had NC (mean age 62, 67% male). The mean (s.d.) duration of surgery was less in the control group (241(64) vs 255(64)min, P=0.014) as was the mean blood loss (390(264) vs 449(424)ml, P=0.069). Postoperative mortality (2 vs 2%) and morbidity (27 vs 29%, P=0.34) was similar between groups. More NC patients developed septic (2.4%) or respiratory (10.3%) complications compared to controls (0 and 5.3%, P<0.03), with significantly more surgical complications if the interval between stopping NC and undergoing surgery was ⩽4 weeks (11%), compared to 5–8 (5.5%) or 9–12 (2.6%) weeks (P=0.009). The data suggest that liver resection for CRM is safe following NC. Early hepatobiliary involvement in multidisciplinary cancer care may lead to avoidance of potential perioperative adverse events.

Repeat hepatic resection for recurrent colorectal liver metastases is associated with favourable long-term survival†

The management of patients with recurrent colorectal liver metastases (RCLM) remains controversial. This study aimed to determine whether repeat liver resection for RCLM could be performed with acceptable morbidity, mortality and long‐term survival.

Biopsy of resectable colorectal liver metastases causes tumour dissemination and adversely affects survival after liver resection

Liver resection is increasingly being performed for metastatic colorectal cancer. This study assessed the need for preoperative biopsy of suspected metastases and whether biopsy has any effect on long‐term survival.

Effect of specialist decision‐making on treatment strategies for colorectal liver metastases

One hundred and ten patients were treated with palliative chemotherapy, of whom 53 had liver‐only disease and had not been reviewed by a specialist liver surgeon. One scan was excluded as all reviewers felt it to be of insufficient quality to assess. Improved surgical technique and better chemotherapeutic manipulation of metastatic disease has increased the number of patients eligible for potentially curative resection of colorectal liver metastases. The rapid evolution in this field suggests that non‐specialist decision‐making may lead to inappropriate management. This study aimed to assess the management of colorectal liver metastases by non‐liver surgeons.

Quantification of risk of a positive (R1) resection margin following hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: An aid to clinical decision-making

BACKGROUND AND AIMS Margin involvement following liver resection for colorectal cancer is associated with early disease recurrence and shorter long-term survival. This study aimed to develop a predictive index for quantifying the likelihood of a positive resection margin (R1) for patients undergoing hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS Clinical, pathological and complete follow-up data were prospectively collected from 1005 consecutive liver resections performed in 929 patients for colorectal liver metastases with curative intent at a single centre between 1987 and 2005. Ninety-four resections in 81 patients with extra-hepatic disease were excluded, leaving 911 resections (844 primary and 67 repeat) in 848 patients for analysis. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of margin involvement and from the beta-coefficients generated, develop a predictive model that was validated using measures of discrimination and calibration. RESULTS There were 80 (8.8%) R1 resections, with a 5-year cancer-specific survival for R0 and R1 hepatic resections of 39.7% and 17.8%, respectively; p<0.001. On multivariate analysis, five risk factors were found to be independent predictors of an R1 resection: non-anatomical resection vs. anatomical resection (odds ratio (OR)=4.3, p=0.001), >3 hepatic metastases involving >50% of the liver vs. <3 metastases (OR=4.0, p<0.001); bilobar vs. unilobar disease (OR=2.9, p<0.001); repeat vs. primary hepatic resection (OR=3.1, p=0.006); abnormal vs. normal pre-operative liver function tests (OR=1.6, p=0.044). These five factors were used to develop a predictive model, which when tested, fitted the data well, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 78.1% (S.E.=2.7%). CONCLUSIONS This study describes an accurate model for quantifying the risk of a positive margin following hepatic resection for liver metastases. It may be used pre-operatively by multi-disciplinary teams to identify patients who may benefit from neoadjuvant therapy prior to liver surgery, thus minimizing the risk of a positive resection margin.

Prospective evaluation of the International Study Group for Liver Surgery definition of bile leak after a liver resection and the role of routine operative drainage: An international multicentre study

BACKGROUND The International Study Group for Liver Surgery (ISGLS) proposed a definition for bile leak after liver surgery. A multicentre international prospective study was designed to evaluate this definition. METHODS Data collected prospectively from 949 consecutive patients on specific datasheets from 11 international centres were collated centrally. RESULTS Bile leak occurred in 69 (7.3%) of patients, with 31 (3.3%), 32 (3.4%) and 6 (0.6%) classified as grade A, B and C, respectively. The grading system of severity correlated with the Dindo complication classification system (P < 0.001). Hospital length of stay was increased when bile leak occurred, from a median of 7 to 15 days (P < 0.001), as was intensive care stay (P < 0.001), and both correlated with increased severity grading of bile leak (P < 0.001). 96% of bile leaks occurred in patients with intra-operative drains. Drain placement did not prevent subsequent intervention in the bile leak group with a 5-15 times greater risk of intervention required in this group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION The ISGLS definition of bile leak after liver surgery appears robust and intra-operative drain usage did not prevent the need for subsequent drain placement.