Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is an increasingly recognised complication of cirrhosis whose incidence increases in parallel with the severity of cirrhosis. Several risk factors have been associated ...with the occurrence and progression of PVT. Although the negative effect of complete PVT on the surgical outcome of liver transplant recipients is clear, its impact on cirrhosis progression remains uncertain. Treatment options include anticoagulants and interventional thrombolytic therapies, which are chosen almost on a case-by-case basis depending on the characteristics of the patient and the thrombus. In this manuscript, we review current knowledge regarding the epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis and classification, natural history, clinical consequences and treatment of non-neoplastic PVT in cirrhosis.
Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a relatively frequent event in patients with cirrhosis. While different risk factors for PVT have been reported, such as decreased portal blood flow velocity (PBFV) ...and parameters related with severity of portal hypertension, these are based on retrospective studies assessing only a discrete number of parameters. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the incidence and risks factors for non-tumoral PVT development in a large prospective cohort of patients with cirrhosis.
We performed an exhaustive evaluation of clinical, biochemical, inflammatory and acquired/hereditary hemostatic profiles in 369 patients with cirrhosis without PVT who were prospectively followed-up. Doppler ultrasound was performed at baseline and every 6 months or whenever clinically indicated. PVT development was always confirmed by computed tomography.
Twenty-nine patients developed non-tumoral PVT, with an incidence of 1.6%, 6% and 8.4% at 1, 3 and 5 years, respectively. Low platelet count, PBFV <15 cm/sec and history of variceal bleeding were factors independently associated with a high PVT risk. No relationship between PVT development and any other clinical biochemical, inflammatory and acquired or hereditary hemostatic parameter was found.
In patients with cirrhosis, the factors predictive of PVT development were mainly those related to the severity of portal hypertension. Our results do not support the role of hemostatic alterations (inherited or acquired) and inflammatory markers in the prediction of PVT in patients with cirrhosis.
Patients with cirrhosis and more severe portal hypertension are at higher risk of non-tumoral portal vein thrombosis development. Acquired or inherited hemostatic disorders, as well as inflammatory status, do not seem to predict the development of portal vein thrombosis in patients with cirrhosis.
Display omitted
•Factors related to more severe portal hypertension are associated with higher risk of PVT in cirrhosis.•Acquired and inherited alterations of coagulation do not predict PVT development during follow-up.•Cirrhosis-associated inflammation or generation of NETs are not relevant factors predicting PVT development.
In clinical medicine, little is known about the use of allografts for portal vein (PV) reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Portal and caval systems are physiologically different, ...therefore the properties of allografts from caval and portal systems were studied here in a pig model.
PD with PV reconstruction with allogeneic venous graft from PV or inferior vena cava (IVC) was performed in 26 pigs. Biochemical analysis and ultrasonography measurements were performed during a 4-week monitoring period. Computer simulations were used to evaluate haemodynamics in reconstructed PV and explanted allografts were histologically examined.
The native PV and IVC grafts varied in histological structure but were able to adapt morphologically after transplantation. Computer simulation suggested PV grafts to be more susceptible to thrombosis development. Thrombosis of reconstructed PV occurred in four out of five cases in PV group.
This study supports the use of allografts from caval system for PV reconstruction in clinical medicine when needed.
Non-tumoral portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is present at liver transplantation in 5% to 26% of cirrhotic patients, and the prevalence of complex PVT as defined here (grade 4 Yerdel, and grade 3,4 ...Jamieson and Charco) has been reported in 0% to 2.2%. Adequate portal inflow is mandatory to ensure graft and patient survival after liver transplantation. With time, the proposed classifications of non-tumoral chronic PVT have evolved from being anatomy-based, to also incorporating functional parameters. However, none of the currently proposed classifications are directed towards decision-making, regarding the choice of inflow to the graft during transplantation and the outcomes thereof. The present scoping review i) addresses the limits of the currently available classifications in terms of surgical decisiveness, ii) clarifies the concept of physiological or non-physiological portal inflow reconstruction, and subsequently, iii) proposes a new classification of non-tumoral PVT in candidates for liver transplantation; to help tailor the surgical strategy to an individual patient, in order to provide portal inflow to the graft together with control of prehepatic portal hypertension whenever feasible.
Several treatments induce liver hypertrophy for patients with liver malignancies but insufficient future liver remnant (FLR). Herein, the aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of ...existing surgical techniques using network meta-analysis (NMA).
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from databases for abstracts and full-text articles published from database inception through Feb 2022. The primary outcome was the efficacy of different procedures, including standardized FLR (sFLR) increase, time to hepatectomy, resection rate, and R0 resection margin. The secondary outcome was the safety of different treatments, including the rate of Clavien-Dindo≥3a and 90-day mortality.
Twenty-seven studies, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three prospective trials (PTs), and twenty-one retrospective trials (RTs), and a total number of 2075 patients were recruited in this study. NMA demonstrated that the Associating Liver Partition and Portal vein ligation for Staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) had much higher sFLR increase when compared to portal vein embolization (PVE) (55.25%, 95% CI 45.27-65.24%), or liver venous deprivation(LVD) (43.26%, 95% CI 22.05-64.47%), or two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) (30.53%, 95% CI 16.84-44.21%), or portal vein ligation (PVL) (58.42%, 95% CI 37.62-79.23%). ALPPS showed significantly shorter time to hepatectomy when compared to PVE (-32.79d, 95% CI -42.92-22.66), or LVD (-34.02d, 95% CI -47.85-20.20), or TSH (-22.85d, 95% CI -30.97-14.72), or PVL (-43.37d, 95% CI -64.11-22.62); ALPPS was considered as the highest resection rate when compared to TSH (OR=6.09; 95% CI 2.76-13.41), or PVL (OR =3.52; 95% CI 1.16-10.72), or PVE (OR =4.12; 95% CI 2.19-7.77). ALPPS had comparable resection rate with LVD (OR =2.20; 95% CI 0.83-5.86). There was no significant difference between them when considering the R0 marge rate. ALPPS had a higher Clavien-Dindo≥3a complication rate and 90-day mortality compared to other treatments, although there were no significant differences between different procedures.
ALPPS demonstrated a higher regeneration rate, shorter time to hepatectomy, and higher resection rate than PVL, PVE, or TSH. There was no significant difference between them when considering the R0 marge rate. However, ALPPS developed the trend of higher Clavien-Dindo≥3a complication rate and 90-day mortality compared to other treatments.
OBJECTIVE:Associating Liver Partition and Portal vein ligation for Staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) has been tested in various indications and clinical scenarios, leading to steady improvements in safety. ...This report presents the current status of ALPPS.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA:ALPPS offers improved resectability, but drawbacks are regularly pointed out regarding safety and oncologic benefits.
METHODS:During the 12th biennial congress of the European African-Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (Mainz, Germany, May 23–26, 2017) an expert meeting “10th anniversary of ALPP” was held to discuss indications, management, mechanisms of regeneration, as well as pitfalls of this novel technique. The aim of the meeting was to make an inventory of what has been achieved and what remains unclear in ALPPS.
RESULTS:Precise knowledge of liver anatomy and its variations is paramount for success in ALPPS. Technical modifications, mainly less invasive approaches like partial, mini- or laparoscopic ALPPS, mostly aiming at minimizing the extensiveness of the first-stage procedure, are associated with improved safety. In fibrotic/cirrhotic livers the degree of future liver remnant hypertrophy after ALPPS appears some less than that in noncirrhotic. Recent data from the only prospective randomized controlled trial confirmed significant higher resection rates in ALPPS with similar peri-operative morbidity and mortality rates compared with conventional 2-stage hepatectomy including portal vein embolization. ALPPS is effective reliably even after failure of portal vein embolization.
CONCLUSIONS:Although ALPPS is now an established 2-stage hepatectomy additional data are warranted to further refine indication and technical aspects. Long-term oncological outcome results are needed to establish the place of ALPPS in patients with initially nonresectable liver tumors.
BACKGROUND
The efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus lenvatinib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT) have not been ...evaluated.
METHODS
In this open‐label, single‐center, randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04127396), participants with previously untreated HCC and type I‐IV PVTT were randomized 1:1 to receive TACE plus lenvatinib (arm L; orally once daily, 12 mg for body weight ≥60 kg or 8 mg for body weight <60 kg) or TACE plus sorafenib (arm S; 400 mg orally twice daily in 28‐day cycles). The primary end point was time‐to‐progression (TTP; time from randomization to disease progression) and secondary end points included objective response rate and toxicity. Prognostic factors were evaluated using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model.
RESULTS
Between December 30, 2018 and May 31, 2020, 64 patients were randomized (arm L, n = 32; arm S, n = 32); most patients had type I/II PVTT (71.9%), and the median target tumor diameter was 9.8 cm (range, 3.8‐21.8). After a median follow‐up of 16.1 months, patients in arm L had a higher median TTP (4.7 vs 3.1 months; hazard ratio HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32‐0.95; P = .029) and objective response rate (53.1% vs 25.0%, P = .039) versus arm S. Multivariable analysis showed that TACE plus lenvatinib was significantly associated with higher TTP versus TACE plus sorafenib (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28‐0.90; P = .021). Comparable safety profiles were observed in arms L and S.
CONCLUSIONS
TACE plus lenvatinib was safe, well tolerated, and had favorable efficacy versus TACE plus sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC with PVTT and large tumor burden.
LAY SUMMARY
Hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus has a poor prognosis.
In addition, most phase 3 trials of drugs for hepatocellular carcinoma exclude patients with major portal vein invasion, and treatment options for these patients are limited.
Transarterial chemoembolization has shown promising efficacy in these patients, especially in combination with systemic treatment or radiotherapy. However, transarterial chemoembolization plus lenvatinib has not been investigated in this setting.
This open‐label, single‐center, randomized trial showed that transarterial chemoembolization plus lenvatinib is safe, well tolerated, and has favorable efficacy versus transarterial chemoembolization plus sorafenib for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus.
Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus lenvatinib showed favorable efficacy versus TACE plus sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatoceullar carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus. TACE plus lenvatinib was safe and well tolerated by patients.
Background
Different approaches to surgical treatment of portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT) have been advocated. This study investigated the outcomes of different surgical approaches in ...hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with PVTT.
Methods
We reviewed prospectively collected data for all patients who underwent hepatectomy for HCC at our hospital between December 1989 and December 2010. Patients were excluded from analysis if they had extrahepatic disease, PVTT reaching the level of the superior mesenteric vein, or hepatectomy with a positive resection margin. The remaining patients were divided into three groups for comparison: group 1, with ipsilateral PVTT resected in a hepatectomy; group 2, with PVTT extending to or beyond the portal vein bifurcation, treated by en bloc resection followed by portal vein reconstruction; group 3, with PVTT extending to or beyond the portal vein bifurcation, treated by thrombectomy.
Results
A total of 88 patients, with a median age of 54 years, were included in the analysis. Group 2 patients were younger, with a median age of 43.5 years versus 57 in group 1 and 49 in group 3 (
p
= 0.017). Group 1 patients had higher preoperative serum alpha-fetoprotein levels, with a median of 8,493 ng/mL versus 63.25 in group 2 and 355 in group 3 (
p
= 0.004), and shorter operation time, with a median of 467.5 min versus 663.5 in group 2 and 753 in group 3 (
p
= 0.018). No patient had thrombus in the main portal vein. Two (2.8 %) hospital deaths occurred in group 1 and one (10 %) in group 2, but none in group 3 (
p
= 0.440). The rates of complication in groups 1, 2, and 3 were 31.9, 50.0, and 71.4 %, respectively (
p
= 0.079). The median overall survival durations were 10.91, 9.4, and 8.58 months, respectively (
p
= 0.962), and the median disease-free survival durations were 4.21, 3.78, and 1.51 months, respectively (
p
= 0.363). The groups also had similar patterns of disease recurrence (intrahepatic: 33.8 vs. 28.6 vs. 40.0 %; extrahepatic: 16.9 vs. 14.3 vs. 0 %; both: 28.2 vs. 42.9 vs. 40.0 %; no recurrence: 21.1 vs. 14.3 vs. 20.0 %;
p
= 0.836).
Conclusions
The three approaches have similar outcomes in terms of survival, complication, and recurrence. Effective adjuvant treatments need to be developed to counteract the high incidence of recurrence.
PDF
