Heithem Jeddou

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to define robust benchmark values for the surgical treatment of perihilar cholangiocarcinomas (PHC) to enable unbiased comparisons. BACKGROUND: Despite ongoing efforts, postoperative mortality and morbidity remains high after complex liver surgery for PHC. Benchmark data of best achievable results in surgical PHC treatment are however still lacking. METHODS: This study analyzed consecutive patients undergoing major liver surgery for PHC in 24 high-volume centers in 3 continents over the recent 5-year period (2014-2018) with a minimum follow-up of 1 year in each patient. Benchmark patients were those operated at high-volume centers (≥50 cases during the study period) without the need for vascular reconstruction due to tumor invasion, or the presence of significant co-morbidities such as severe obesity (body mass index ≥35), diabetes, or cardiovascular diseases. Benchmark cutoff values were derived from the 75th or 25th percentile of the median values of all benchmark centers. RESULTS: Seven hundred eight (39%) of a total of 1829 consecutive patients qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cut-offs included: R0 resection ≥57%, postoperative liver failure (International Study Group of Liver Surgery): ≤35%; in-hospital and 3-month mortality rates ≤8% and ≤13%, respectively; 3-month grade 3 complications and the CCI: ≤70% and ≤30.5, respectively; bile leak-rate: ≤47% and 5-year overall survival of ≥39.7%. Centers operating mostly on complex cases disclosed better outcome including lower post-operative liver failure rates (4% vs 13%; P = 0.002). Centers from Asia disclosed better outcomes. CONCLUSION: Surgery for PHC remains associated with high morbidity and mortality with now the availability of benchmark values covering 21 outcome parameters, which may serve as key references for comparison in any future analyses of individuals, group of patients or centers.

OBJECTIVE: To define benchmark values for liver transplantation (LT) in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) enabling unbiased comparisons. BACKGROUND: Transplantation for PHC is used with reluctance in many centers and even contraindicated in several countries. Although benchmark values for LT are available, there is a lack of specific data on LT performed for PHC. METHODS: PHC patients considered for LT after Mayo-like protocol were analyzed in 17 reference centers in 2 continents over the recent 5-year period (2014-2018). The minimum follow-up was 1 year. Benchmark patients were defined as operated at high-volume centers (≥50 overall LT/year) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, with a tumor diameter <3 cm, negative lymph nodes, and with the absence of relevant comorbidities. Benchmark cutoff values were derived from the 75th to 25th percentiles of the median values of all benchmark centers. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four consecutive patients underwent LT after completion of the neoadjuvant treatment. Of those, 89.6% qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cutoffs were 90-day mortality ≤5.2%; comprehensive complication index at 1 year of ≤33.7; grade ≥3 complication rates ≤66.7%. These values were better than benchmark values for other indications of LT. Five-year disease-free survival was largely superior compared with a matched group of nodal negative patients undergoing curative liver resection (n=106) (62% vs 32%, P <0.001). CONCLUSION: This multicenter benchmark study demonstrates that LT offers excellent outcomes with superior oncological results in early stage PHC patients, even in candidates for surgery. This provocative observation should lead to a change in available therapeutic algorithms for PHC.

OBJECTIVE: To compare HOPE and NRP in liver transplantation from cDCD. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Liver transplantation after cDCD is associated with higher rates of graft loss. Dynamic preservation strategies such as NRP and HOPE may offer safer use of cDCD grafts. METHODS: Retrospective comparative cohort study assessing outcomes after cDCD liver transplantation in 1 Swiss (HOPE) and 6 French (NRP) centers. The primary endpoint was 1-year tumor-death censored graft and patient survival. RESULTS: A total of 132 and 93 liver grafts were transplanted after NRP and HOPE, respectively. NRP grafts were procured from younger donors (50 vs 61 years, P < 0.001), with shorter functional donor warm ischemia (22 vs 31 minutes, P < 0.001) and a lower overall predicted risk for graft loss (UK-DCD-risk score 6 vs 9 points, P < 0.001). One-year tumor-death censored graft and patient survival was 93% versus 86% (P = 0.125) and 95% versus 93% (P = 0.482) after NRP and HOPE, respectively. No differences in non-anastomotic biliary strictures, primary nonfunction and hepatic artery thrombosis were observed in the total cohort and in 32 vs. 32 propensity score-matched recipients CONCLUSION:: NRP and HOPE in cDCD achieved similar post-transplant recipient and graft survival rates exceeding 85% and comparable to the benchmark values observed in standard DBD liver transplantation. Grafts in the HOPE cohort were procured from older donors and had longer warm ischemia times, and consequently achieved higher utilization rates. Therefore, randomized controlled trials with intention-to-treat analysis are needed to further compare both preservation strategies, especially for high-risk donor-recipient combinations.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and its most aggressive form, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), are causing a rise in the prevalence of hepatocellular carcinoma. Data about NAFLD/NASH and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) are few and contradictory, coming from population registries that do not correctly distinguish between NAFLD and NASH. We evaluated the prevalence of NAFLD and NASH in peritumoral tissue of resected iCCA (n = 180) and in needle biopsies of matched liver donors. Data of iCCA patients were subsequently analysed to compare NASH-related iCCA (Group A), iCCA arisen in a healthy liver (Group B) or in patients with classical iCCA risk factors (Group C). NASH was found in 22.5% of 129 iCCA patients without known risk factors and in 6.2% of matched controls (risk ratio 3.625, 95% confidence interval 1.723–7.626, p &lt; 0.001), while NAFLD was equally represented in both groups. The overall survival of NASH-related iCCA was inferior to that of patients with healthy liver (38.5 vs. 48.1 months, p = 0.003) and similar to that of patients with known risk factors (31.9 months, p = 0.948), regardless of liver fibrosis. The multivariable Cox regression confirmed NASH as a prognostic factor (hazard ratio 1.773, 95% confidence interval 1.156–2.718, p = 0.009). We concluded that NASH (but not NAFLD) is a risk factor for iCCA and might affect its prognosis. Dissecting NASH from NAFLD by histology is necessary to correctly assess the actual role of these conditions. Prevention protocols for NASH patients should also consider the risk for iCCA and not only HCC. Mechanistic studies aimed to find a direct pathogenic link between NASH and iCCA could add further relevant information.