Lesurtel, Mickaël

Importance Total pancreatectomy (TP) is indicated for advanced pancreatic cancer or multifocal tumors. Furthermore, TP may be performed to avoid the risk of pancreatic fistula in selected patients to improve the perioperative risk profile. Objective To define reference values for TP based on a low-risk cohort treated at expert centers. Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter study analyzed outcomes from patients undergoing primary TP for malignant or benign lesions from 25 international expert centers from January 2017 to November 2023. Low-risk patients undergoing TP (LR-TP) were without vascular resections or significant comorbidities. Exposures TP. Main Outcomes and Measures Twenty reference values were derived from the 75th or the 25th percentile of the median values of all centers. Outcomes of LR-TP were compared with a cohort of TP with vascular resection, TP due to high-risk pancreatic anastomosis, and the benchmark values for low-risk pancreatoduodenectomy. Results Of 994 patients, 333 (33.5%; median [IQR] age, 66 [58-72] years; 171 male [51.4%]) qualified as the LR-TP cohort. Reference values included blood loss (≤1000 mL), major complications (≤37%), 3-month postoperative mortality (<6%), and retrieved lymph nodes (≥29). Compared with TP with vascular resections, reference cutoffs were not met for major complications (51% vs LR-TP ≤37%) and 90-day mortality (11% vs LR-TP ≤6%). For TP due to high-risk anastomosis, failure to rescue rate (38% vs ≤6%) and 90-day mortality (11% vs LR-TP ≤6%) were not met. Compared with pancreatoduodenectomy, reference values for postoperative mortality were 3 times higher for LR-TP (≤2% vs ≤6%) and less for resected lymph nodes (≥16 vs ≥29). Conclusions and Relevance This case-control study provided global reference values for TP, indicating significantly higher postoperative morbidity and mortality compared with pancreatoduodenectomy. Perioperative morbidity of TP was especially increased in patients with vascular resections. These reference values can serve for quality control of pancreatic surgery.

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.

Abstract Background Posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) contributes significantly to morbidity and mortality after liver surgery. Standardized assessment of preoperative liver function is crucial to identify patients at risk. These European consensus guidelines provide guidance for preoperative patient assessment. Methods A modified Delphi approach was used to achieve consensus. The expert panel consisted of hepatobiliary surgeons, radiologists, nuclear medicine specialists, and hepatologists. The guideline process was supervised by a methodologist and reviewed by a patient representative. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane library, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry. Evidence assessment and statement development followed Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology. Results Based on 271 publications covering 4 key areas, 21 statements (at least 85 per cent agreement) were produced (median level of evidence 2− to 2+). Only a few systematic reviews (2++) and one RCT (1+) were identified. Preoperative liver function assessment should be considered before complex resections, and in patients with suspected or known underlying liver disease, or chemotherapy-associated or drug-induced liver injury. Clinical assessment and blood-based scores reflecting liver function or portal hypertension (for example albumin/bilirubin, platelet count) aid in identifying risk of PHLF. Volumetry of the future liver remnant represents the foundation for assessment, and can be combined with indocyanine green clearance or LiMAx® according to local expertise and availability. Functional MRI and liver scintigraphy are alternatives, combining FLR volume and function in one examination. Conclusion These guidelines reflect established methods to assess preoperative liver function and PHLF risk, and have uncovered evidence gaps of interest for future research.

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 European Guidelines Meeting on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery was held in Southampton on February 10 and 11, 2017 with the aim of presenting and validating clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery. Background: The exponential growth of laparoscopic liver surgery in recent years mandates the development of clinical practice guidelines to direct the speciality's continued safe progression and dissemination. Methods: A unique approach to the development of clinical guidelines was adopted. Three well-validated methods were integrated: the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology for the assessment of evidence and development of guideline statements; the Delphi method of establishing expert consensus, and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument for the assessment of the methodological quality and external validation of the final statements. Results: Along with the committee chairman, 22 European experts; 7 junior experts and an independent validation committee of 11 international surgeons produced 67 guideline statements for the safe progression and dissemination of laparoscopic liver surgery. Each of the statements reached at least a 95% consensus among the experts and were endorsed by the independent validation committee. Conclusion: The European Guidelines Meeting for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery has produced a set of clinical practice guidelines that have been independently validated for the safe development and progression of laparoscopic liver surgery. The Southampton Guidelines have amalgamated the available evidence and a wealth of experts’ knowledge taking in consideration the relevant stakeholders’ opinions and complying with the international methodology standards.