Li, Zhihao

Background and Aims: The optimal treatment strategy for de novo perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) remains debated. This study compares outcomes between liver transplantation following neoadjuvant chemoradiation (RT+LT) and liver resection (LR), with (LR+VR) and without vascular resection (LR w/o VR). Approach and Results: This single-center, retrospective study included patients with de novo perihilar cholangiocarcinoma treated at the Mayo Clinic Rochester (1993–2023) with curative-intent surgery. Patients underwent either (1) LR, classified as LR+VR or LR w/o VR, or (2) RT+LT following the transplant protocol. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival were analyzed using as-treated and intention-to-treat approaches, incorporating competing risk analysis and direct matching. In the as-treated analysis, RT+LT showed superior median OS compared with LR w/o VR (78.0 vs. 58.2 mo, p =0.03) and LR+VR (25.8 mo, p <0.001). Considering dropout rates (RT+LT: 41%, LR: 28%), intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant OS difference between LR and RT + LT (31.7 vs. 38.5 mo, p =0.19). In matched as-treated analysis, RT + LT had no significant survival benefit over LR w/o VR (50.6 vs. 140.6 mo, p =0.08) or LR+VR (25.8 mo, p =0.11). Perioperative mortality was 4% (RT+LT), 7% (LR w/o VR), and 8% (LR + VR). Conclusions: Both LR and RT+LT achieve excellent oncological outcomes in selected patients with de novo perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Key challenges remain dropouts during neoadjuvant therapy in patients planned for LT and high perioperative mortality for patients undergoing LR. OS doubles in patients undergoing LR+VR compared with dropouts, supporting LR+VR as a viable option for patients who are ineligible for LT. Appropriate patient selection is crucial, as those not undergoing surgery suffer from a dismal prognosis.

Portal hypertension is a key factor in posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). While preoperative liver function tests like APRI+ALBI assess liver function, they only partially reflect portal hypertension severity. Elevated von Willebrand factor antigen (vWF-Ag) indicates endothelial dysregulation and correlates with portal hypertension. Combining vWF-Ag with APRI+ALBI may enhance PHLF prediction. A total of 534 patients who underwent liver resection at Mayo Clinic Rochester (2020–2024) were analyzed for PHLF incidence, postoperative morbidity, and 90-day mortality. Predictive probability for PHLF was assessed using receiver operating characteristic analysis and validated in an external Austrian cohort of 283 patients (2008–2017). vWF-Ag was then integrated into the existing APRI+ALBI multivariable model. PHLF grade B/C was reported in 56 patients (10.5%). The 90-day mortality rate was 0.9% (n=5). Using 2 cutoffs (182%, 240%), vWF-Ag was found to be an independent predictive factor for PHLF grade B/C that remained statistically significant upon multivariable analysis. The combination of preoperative APRI+ALBI and vWF-Ag increased the positive predictive value to 27.9% for PHLF grade B/C in the APRI+ALBI high and vWF-Ag high group. Incorporation of vWF-Ag into the established APRI+ALBI-based multivariable model revealed a superior AUC of 0.772 for PHLF risk stratification and was successfully validated in an independent cohort (AUC=0.834). The combination of vWF-Ag with APRI+ALBI demonstrates a favorable predictive potential for PHLF risk assessment. We provide 2 pathways for clinical assessment: (1) a cutoff-based system and (2) a more complex multivariable model that can be calculated in a specifically designed smartphone application.

Objective: To develop and validate a risk score for predicting post-transplant recurrence in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) patients. Background: pCCA is an aggressive malignancy with a poor prognosis. Although neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) followed by liver transplantation (LT) offers a potential cure for patients with unresectable, early-stage de novo or primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC)-associated pCCA, post-transplant recurrence negatively impacts survival. Currently, no risk stratification tools exist. Methods: This retrospective study included consecutive patients with unresectable de novo or PSC-associated pCCA who underwent neoadjuvant CRT followed by LT at Mayo Clinic (1993–2024). Predictors of post-transplant recurrence were identified using multivariable Cox regression with LASSO variable selection. The Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma Risk Estimation of Tumor Recurrence after Transplant (PRETREAT) risk score was created by assigning points from model coefficients. Score performance was evaluated by discrimination (c-statistic), internally validated with 10-fold cross-validation, and externally validated in a separate cohort. Survival outcomes were compared across 3 PRETREAT risk groups and between 2 time periods. Results: This study included 399 patients (development: 301; validation: 98). The 5-year cumulative incidence of post-transplant recurrence was 29.7% in the development cohort and 27.6% in the validation cohort. Multivariable analysis identified 4 independent predictors: macroscopic residual tumor on explant [hazard ratio (HR): 12.4], vascular encasement (HR: 2.18), lymphovascular invasion (HR: 2.04), and radial tumor diameter (HR: 1.02/mm). The PRETREAT score (0–22), based on these factors, demonstrated excellent performance in both internal and external validation (C-index 0.83 and 0.85, respectively). Patients were stratified into low-risk (0–7), moderate-risk (8–15), and high-risk (16–22) groups. The 5-year recurrence-free survival rates significantly differed across low-risk, moderate-risk, and high-risk groups (89.0%, 38.3%, and 15.4%, respectively; P<0.001). Over the last decade, overall survival improved significantly only in moderate-risk patients (70.4% vs 46.9%, P=0.024), without significant improvement in recurrence-free survival. Conclusions: The PRETREAT score provides a valuable tool for guiding post-transplant management of pCCA, enabling risk-stratified surveillance, and laying the foundation for future clinical trials.

Objective: To establish comprehensive recommendations on the management of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) and to identify areas in need of future investigation. Summary Background Data: The lack of consensus in management of pCCA across institutions worldwide impairs optimal patient care and best-achievable oncological outcome. A holistic and critical assessment of the body of evidence and collaborative guidance are required. Methods: The Consensus4pCCA conference developed unbiased consensus using the Zurich-Danish model. An impartial and multidisciplinary jury adopted comprehensive recommendations grounded on the work of eight expert panels answering predefined clinical questions and considering the best-quality evidence through a systematic review. The development of recommendations complied with GRADE and SIGN50 methodologies. Results: Seventy-one international experts considered 570 studies. Ten jury members concluded 71 recommendations covering definition and diagnosis, preoperative assessment and optimization, surgical resection, liver transplantation, and outcome reporting for pCCA patients. The consensus underscored that making patients amenable to high-quality curative resection and reducing its associated morbidity must be of highest priority. As such, multidisciplinary expertise and centralized care at all stages of disease management are critical to ensure both safety and oncological adequacy. To overcome the evidence-gap for rare diseases like pCCA, the jury urged large-scale registries to address open questions across the disease continuum and highlighted priorities for future investigation. Conclusion: The Consensus4pCCA represents an unprecedented commitment to collectively harmonize global treatment strategies for pCCA. This collective effort bridges the gap between expert opinions and clinical evidence and holds great promise to improve patient outcomes in the future.

Objective: To establish benchmark cutoffs for robotic liver resection (R-LR), encompassing both major and minor resections, and to determine the impact of patient selection on outcomes. Background: R-LR is a key advancement in minimally invasive liver surgery but lacks standardized benchmarks, especially for minor resections. While guidelines endorse R-LR, its role in optimizing outcomes remains unclear. This study establishes the first benchmarks for R-LR, enabling comparisons across surgical modalities and refining patient selection. Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study analyzed consecutive adult patients undergoing R-LR at 30 international centers (2020–2023). Benchmark centers had an annual case volume of ≥15 R-LR. Benchmark criteria included ASA ≤2, no major comorbidities, no prior liver resections, and Child-Pugh A status. Benchmark cutoffs for 14 key outcomes were set at the 50th and 75th percentiles of median values across benchmark centers. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of textbook outcomes. Results: Eighteen high-volume centers contributed 4028 cases with 2632 (65.3%) meeting benchmark criteria. Malignancy was the indication in 29.6%, most commonly hepatocellular carcinoma followed by colorectal liver metastases. Major liver resection was performed in 42.6%. The distribution of Iwate difficulty scores was low (25.4%), intermediate (53.9%), advanced (15.9%), and expert (4.9%). Benchmark cutoffs were established for minor and major resection, and stratified by Iwate low (0-3), intermediate (4-6) and high (7-12): Open conversion (≤6.5% minor, ≤10.5% major), major complications within 90 days (≤5.2% minor, ≤16.7% major), R1 resection (≤9.2% minor, ≤6.7% major). Benchmark cases performed at low-volume centers were able to achieve outcomes within the corresponding benchmark cutoffs. In fact, patient selection reflected by the proportion of benchmark patients, rather than case volume, was associated with textbook outcomes. Conclusions: This study defines R-LR benchmarks, emphasizing patient selection over center volume for optimal outcomes. Benchmark cutoffs guide training and support the expansion of R-LR.

Background. Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) affects outcomes in liver transplantation (LT). Existing risk models developed for deceased-donor LT depend on posttransplant factors and fall short in living-donor LT (LDLT), where pretransplant evaluations are crucial for preventing EAD and justifying the donor’s risks. Methods. This retrospective study analyzed data from 2944 adult patients who underwent LDLT at 17 centers between 2016 and 2020. We developed a logistic regression model to predict EAD based on this development cohort. We used data from 1020 patients at the King Faisal Transplant Center for external validation. Results. In the development cohort, 321 patients (10.9%) experienced EAD. These patients had poorer health status, more liver decompensation, and higher requirements of hospitalization than those without EAD. Multivariable logistic regression identified independent pretransplant predictors of EAD: laboratory Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.09), the necessity for hospitalization at the time of transplant (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 2.00-3.30), and graft weight in kilogram (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.17-0.45). Using these predictors, we developed the model for EAD after LDLT, which demonstrated strong discriminative ability in the development cohort with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.68-0.74). The model maintained high discrimination during internal validation (AUC, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.67-0.73) and showed a modest reduction in discriminative power in external validation (AUC, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.61-0.68). Conclusions. EAD post-LDLT is influenced by the recipient’s pretransplant health condition and the graft weight. Integrating the model for EAD after LDLT into the pretransplant process of pairing donors and recipients can enhance the safety and efficacy of LDLT.

Objective: To define benchmark values for adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Background: LDLT utilizes living-donor hemiliver grafts to expand the donor pool and reduce waitlist mortality. Although references have been established for donor hepatectomy, no such information exists for recipients to enable conclusive quality and comparative assessments. Methods: Patients undergoing LDLT were analyzed in 15 high-volume centers (≥10 cases/year) from 3 continents over 5 years (2016–2020), with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Benchmark criteria included a Model for End-stage Liver Disease ≤20, no portal vein thrombosis, no previous major abdominal surgery, no renal replacement therapy, no acute liver failure, and no intensive care unit admission. Benchmark cutoffs were derived from the 75th percentile of all centers’ medians. Results: Of 3636 patients, 1864 (51%) qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cutoffs, including posttransplant dialysis (≤4%), primary nonfunction (≤0.9%), nonanastomotic strictures (≤0.2%), graft loss (≤7.7%), and redo-liver transplantation (LT) (≤3.6%), at 1-year were below the deceased donor LT benchmarks. Bile leak (≤12.4%), hepatic artery thrombosis (≤5.1%), and Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI ® ) (≤56) were above the deceased donor LT benchmarks, whereas mortality (≤9.1%) was comparable. The right hemiliver graft, compared with the left, was associated with a lower CCI ® score (34 vs 21, P < 0.001). Preservation of the middle hepatic vein with the right hemiliver graft had no impact neither on the recipient nor on the donor outcome. Asian centers outperformed other centers with CCI ® score (21 vs 47, P < 0.001), graft loss (3.0% vs 6.5%, P = 0.002), and redo-LT rates (1.0% vs 2.5%, P = 0.029). In contrast, non-benchmark low-volume centers displayed inferior outcomes, such as bile leak (15.2%), hepatic artery thrombosis (15.2%), or redo-LT (6.5%). Conclusions: Benchmark LDLT offers a valuable alternative to reduce waitlist mortality. Exchange of expertise, public awareness, and centralization policy are, however, mandatory to achieve benchmark outcomes worldwide.