Catherine Teh

BACKGROUND: The ongoing pandemic is having a collateral health effect on delivery of surgical care to millions of patients. Very little is known about pandemic management and effects on other services, including delivery of surgery. METHODS: This was a scoping review of all available literature pertaining to COVID-19 and surgery, using electronic databases, society websites, webinars and preprint repositories. RESULTS: Several perioperative guidelines have been issued within a short time. Many suggestions are contradictory and based on anecdotal data at best. As regions with the highest volume of operations per capita are being hit, an unprecedented number of operations are being cancelled or deferred. No major stakeholder seems to have considered how a pandemic deprives patients with a surgical condition of resources, with patients disproportionally affected owing to the nature of treatment (use of anaesthesia, operating rooms, protective equipment, physical invasion and need for perioperative care). No recommendations exist regarding how to reopen surgical delivery. The postpandemic evaluation and future planning should involve surgical services as an essential part to maintain appropriate surgical care for the population during an outbreak. Surgical delivery, owing to its cross-cutting nature and synergistic effects on health systems at large, needs to be built into the WHO agenda for national health planning. CONCLUSION: Patients are being deprived of surgical access, with uncertain loss of function and risk of adverse prognosis as a collateral effect of the pandemic. Surgical services need a contingency plan for maintaining surgical care in an ongoing or postpandemic phase.

Purpose Selective internal radiation therapy or radioembolization (RE) shows efficacy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) limited to the liver. This study compared the safety and efficacy of RE and sorafenib in patients with locally advanced HCC. Patients and Methods SIRveNIB (selective internal radiation therapy v sorafenib), an open-label, investigator-initiated, phase III trial, compared yttrium-90 ( 90 Y) resin microspheres RE with sorafenib 800 mg/d in patients with locally advanced HCC in a two-tailed study designed for superiority/detriment. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 and stratified by center and presence of portal vein thrombosis. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Efficacy analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses in the treated population. Results A total of 360 patients were randomly assigned (RE, 182; sorafenib, 178) from 11 countries in the Asia-Pacific region. In the RE and sorafenib groups, 28.6% and 9.0%, respectively, failed to receive assigned therapy without significant cross-over to either group. Median OS was 8.8 and 10.0 months with RE and sorafenib, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4; P = .36). A total of 1,468 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were reported (RE, 437; sorafenib, 1,031). Significantly fewer patients in the RE than sorafenib group had grade ≥ 3 AEs (36 of 130 [27.7%]) v 82 of 162 [50.6%]; P < .001). The most common grade ≥ 3 AEs were ascites (five of 130 [3.8%] v four of 162 [2.5%] patients), abdominal pain (three [2.3%] v two [1.2%] patients), anemia (zero v four [2.5%] patients), and radiation hepatitis (two [1.5%] v zero [0%] patients). Fewer patients in the RE group (27 of 130 [20.8%]) than in the sorafenib group (57 of 162 [35.2%]) had serious AEs. Conclusion In patients with locally advanced HCC, OS did not differ significantly between RE and sorafenib. The improved toxicity profile of RE may inform treatment choice in selected patients.

An international panel of multidisciplinary experts convened to develop recommendations for the management of patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer (CRC). The aim was to address the main issues facing the CRC hepatobiliary multidisciplinary team (MDT) when managing such patients and to standardize the treatment patients receive in different centers. Based on current evidence, the group agreed on a number of issues including the following: (a) the primary aim of treatment is achieving a long disease-free survival (DFS) interval following resection; (b) assessment of resectability should be performed with high-quality cross-sectional imaging, staging the liver with magnetic resonance imaging and/or abdominal computed tomography (CT), depending on local expertise, staging extrahepatic disease with thoracic and pelvic CT, and, in selected cases, fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with ultrasound (preferably contrast-enhanced ultrasound) for intraoperative staging; (c) optimal first-line chemotherapy-doublet or triplet chemotherapy regimens combined with targeted therapy-is advisable in potentially resectable patients; (d) in this situation, at least four courses of first-line chemotherapy should be given, with assessment of tumor response every 2 months; (e) response assessed by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (conventional chemotherapy) or nonsize-based morphological changes (antiangiogenic agents) is clearly correlated with outcome; no imaging technique is currently able to accurately diagnose complete pathological response but high-quality imaging is crucial for patient management; (f) the duration of chemotherapy should be as short as possible and resection achieved as soon as technically possible in the absence of tumor progression; (g) the number of metastases or patient age should not be an absolute contraindication to surgery combined with chemotherapy; (h) for synchronous metastases, it is not advisable to undertake major hepatic surgery during surgery for removal of the primary CRC; the reverse surgical approach (liver first) produces as good an outcome as the conventional approach in selected cases; (i) for patients with resectable liver metastases from CRC, perioperative chemotherapy may be associated with a modestly better DFS outcome; and (j) whether initially resectable or unresectable, cure or at least a long survival duration is possible after complete resection of the metastases, and MDT treatment is essential for improving clinical and survival outcomes. The group proposed a new system to classify initial unresectability based on technical and oncological contraindications.

OBJECTIVE: To establish consensus recommendations for the use of fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green (ICG) in hepatobiliary surgery. BACKGROUND: ICG fluorescence imaging has gained popularity in hepatobiliary surgery in recent years. However, there is varied evidence on the use, dosage, and timing of administration of ICG in clinical practice. To standardize the use of this imaging modality in hepatobiliary surgery, a panel of pioneering experts from the Asia-Pacific region sought to establish a set of consensus recommendations by consolidating the available evidence and clinical experiences. METHODS: A total of 13 surgeons experienced in hepatobiliary surgery and/or minimally invasive surgery formed an expert consensus panel in Shanghai, China in October 2018. By the modified Delphi method, they presented the relevant evidence, discussed clinical experiences, and derived consensus statements on the use of ICG in hepatobiliary surgery. Each statement was discussed and modified until a unanimous consensus was achieved. RESULTS: A total of 7 recommendations for the clinical applications of ICG in hepatobiliary surgery were formulated. CONCLUSIONS: The Shanghai consensus recommendations offer practical tips and techniques to augment the safety and technical feasibility of ICG fluorescence-guided hepatobiliary surgery, including laparoscopic cholecystectomy, liver segmentectomy, and liver transplantation.