Ahn, Keun Soo

Objective: This study aims at establishing benchmark values for best achievable outcomes following open major anatomic hepatectomy for liver tumors of all dignities. Background: Outcomes after open major hepatectomies vary widely lacking reference values for comparisons among centers, indications, types of resections, and minimally invasive procedures. Methods: A standard benchmark methodology was used covering consecutive patients, who underwent open major anatomic hepatectomy from 44 high-volume liver centers from 5 continents over a 5-year period (2016–2020). Benchmark cases were low-risk non-cirrhotic patients without significant comorbidities treated in high-volume centers (≥30 major liver resections/year). Benchmark values were set at the 75th percentile of median values of all centers. Minimum follow-up period was 1 year in each patient. Results: Of 8044 patients, 2908 (36%) qualified as benchmark (low-risk) cases. Benchmark cutoffs for all indications include R0 resection ≥78%; liver failure (grade B/C) ≤10%; bile leak (grade B/C) ≤18%; complications ≥grade 3 and CCI ® ≤46% and ≤9 at 3 months, respectively. Benchmark values differed significantly between malignant and benign conditions so that reference values must be adjusted accordingly. Extended right hepatectomy (H1, 4-8 or H4-8) disclosed a higher cutoff for liver failure, while extended left (H1-5,8 or H2-5,8) were associated with higher cutoffs for bile leaks, but had superior oncologic outcomes, when compared to formal left hepatectomy (H1-4 or H2-4). The minimal follow-up for a conclusive outcome evaluation following open anatomic major resection must be 3 months. Conclusion: These new benchmark cutoffs for open major hepatectomy provide a powerful tool to convincingly evaluate other approaches including parenchymal-sparing procedures, laparoscopic/robotic approaches, and alternative treatments, such as ablation therapy, irradiation, or novel chemotherapy regimens.

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.

Background and Aims Existing therapeutic approaches to treat cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) have limited effectiveness, prompting further study to develop therapies for CCA. We report a mechanistic role for the heparan sulfate editing enzyme sulfatase 2 (SULF2) in CCA pathogenesis. Approach and Results In silico analysis revealed elevated SULF2 expression in human CCA samples, occurring partly through gain of SULF2 copy number. We examined the effects of knockdown or overexpression of SULF2 on tumor growth, chemoresistance, and signaling pathway activity in human CCA cell lines in vitro. Up‐regulation of SULF2 in CCA leads to increased platelet‐derived growth factor receptor beta (PDGFRβ)–Yes‐associated protein (YAP) signaling activity, promoting tumor growth and chemotherapy resistance. To explore the utility of targeting SULF2 in the tumor microenvironment for CCA treatment, we tested an anti‐SULF2 mouse monoclonal antibody, 5D5, in a mouse CCA xenograft model. Targeting SULF2 by monoclonal antibody 5D5 inhibited PDGFRβ–YAP signaling and tumor growth in the mouse xenograft model. Conclusions These results suggest that SULF2 monoclonal antibody 5D5 or related agents may be potentially promising therapeutic agents in CCA.

INTRODUCTION: The discontinuous BALAD and continuous BALAD-2 scores derived from bilirubin, albumin, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), Lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive AFP (AFP-L3), and des-gamma-carboxyprothrombin (DCP) are effective in predicting HCC patient mortality, but have not been validated in North America. We validated the BALAD and BALAD-2 scores in North America. METHODS: Data from 148 HCC patients seen from 2000–2015 with results for all five biomarkers at diagnosis were abstracted. Hazard ratios (HR) and C-statistics were calculated. RESULTS: 75 of the 148 patients died during a median follow-up of 33 months (0.3-145 months),. The 1-year and 3-year survival rates were 70.8% and 47.6%, respectively. 114 (77%) patients had cirrhosis with a median MELD of 9.5 (range 6.4-29.5). HCC etiologies were HCV (34%), NASH (34%), alcohol (14%), and HBV (10%). Primary treatments were liver transplant, 21 (14%), surgical resection, 32 (22%), local ablation, 10 (7%), transarterial chemoembolization or radioembolization, 47 (32%), chemotherapy, 11 (7%), best supportive care, 9 (6%), and unknown treatment, 18 (12%). MELD, tumor size (cm), ≥2 tumors, tumor number, and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio >4 significantly increased mortality with HR (95%CI) of 1.12 (1.06–1.18) per unit increase in MELD, 1.06 (1.0004–1.12) per cm increase in size, 1.21 (1.03–1.43) per number of tumor, and 1.93 (1.16–3.24). For the BALAD score analysis, 12, 49, 40, 31, 16 and 0 patients had BALAD scores of 0–5 respectively. The HR (95%CI) for death were 1.24 (0.42–3.67), 1.79 (0.61–5.26), 2.83 (0.95–8.38), and 7.19 (2.26–22.91) for BALAD scores 1, 2, 3, and 4 vs. BALAD 0. For the BALAD-2 analysis, 58, 35, 33, and 22 patients were BALAD-2 classes 1, 2, 3, and 4. The HR (95%CI) for death were 1.25 (0.65–2.40), 1.75 (0.94–3.23), and 6.20 (3.29–11.68) for BALAD-2 classes 2, 3, and 4 vs. BALAD-2 class 1. A multivariate model incorporating maximal tumor diameter, tumor number, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and BALAD had HR of 1.43 (1.14–1.81) per increase of 1 BALAD score. A similar multivariate model with BALAD-2 had HR of 1.50 (1.18–1.90) per increase of 1 BALAD-2 class. BALAD, BALAD-2 and BCLC had similar C-statistics of 0.69, 0.68, and 0.67. CONCLUSION: The BALAD score and BALAD-2 class at HCC diagnosis can predict survival of HCC patients in North America. AFP, AFP-L3, and DCP in the BALAD models incorporate HCC tumor biology and make the BALAD model distinguish from other previous predictive models.