Portal Vein Branch Embolization in Patients with Primary Inoperable Liver Tumors

Česká verzia

Authors: V. Třeška; T. Skalický; A. Sutnar; V. Liška; J. Ferda ^* ; H. Mírka ^*; F. Šlauf ^*; P. Duras ^*; B. Kreuzberg ^*
Authors place of work: Chirurgická klinika FN a LF UK v Plzni, přednosta: prof. MUDr. Vladislav Třeška, DrSc. ; Radiodiagnostická klinika FN a LF UK v Plzni, přednosta: doc. MUDr. Boris Kreuzberg, CSc. ^*
Published in the journal: Rozhl. Chir., 2010, roč. 89, č. 9, s. 556-560.
Category: Monothematic special - Original

Summary

Introduction:
Portal vein embolization (PVE) is indicated in patiens with insufficient liver remnants following liver resections for tumor disorders. Therefore, due to PVE, the number of primary operable patiens is higher. Insufficient growth of the liver parenchyma or malignant progression remain the PVE cons.

Aim of the study:
To date outcomes of PVE are assessed based on the authors’ own experience and literature data. In particular, the authors focus on difficulties with PVE, i.e. its failures.

Methods:
40 patients (35 with colorectal carcinoma metastases, 2 with breast carcinoma metastates and one with ovarian carcinoma metastases, 2 with hepatocellular carcinoma) were indicated for PVE due to insufficient liver reserve following planned liver resection.

Results:
Liver resections were completed in 22 subjects, 42.6 days (mean value) after PVE. In14 (35%) subjects, the liver resection could not be performed (11x tumor progression, 3x insufficient liver tissue growth). In four subjects, only radiofrequency ablation was performed. At year one, two and three after the procedure, the survival rate is 83.7, 69.7 and 52.3% (resp.)of the subjects, while the survival rate following exploration and in unoperated subjects was 22.2% (25 subjects) (p< 0.001). A one-year, resp. two-year relapse – free survival rate was 30.3, resp. 7%.

Conclusion:
PVE has become an established procedure in stage liver procedures, due to its potential to facilitate operability of primary and secondary liver tumors. In order to improve the outcomes, attention must be paid to the post- PVE growth of the liver parenchyma and further assessment of oncological treatment approaches during the pre- and post- PVE period, with the aim to reduce liver and extra-liver malignant progression rates prior to the liver resection procedure.

Key words:
liver tumors – portal vein branch embolization – outcomes

Zdroje

1. Třeška, V., Skalický, T., Sutnar, A., Liška V. Chirurgická léčba jaterních metastáz kolorektálního karcinomu. Rozhl. Chir., 2009; 88: 69–75.

2. Makuuchi, M., Thai, B. L., Takayasu, K. Preoperative portal vein embolization to increase safety of major hepatectomy for hilar bile duct carcinoma: a preliminary report. Surgery, 1990; 107: 521–527.

3. Aussilhou, B., Lesurtel, M., Sauvanet, A. Right portal vein ligation is a efficient as portal vein embolization to induce hypertrophy of the left liver remont. J. Gastrointest. Surg., 2008; 12: 297–303.

4. Yokoyama, Y., Nagino, M., Nimura, Y. Mechanisms of hepatic regeneration following portal vein embolization and partial hepatectomy: a review. World J. Surg., 2007; 31: 367–374.

5. Jaeck, D., Oussoultzoglou, E., Rosso, E. A two-stage hepatectomy procedure combined with portal vein embolization to achieve curative resection for initially unresectable multiple and bilobar colorectal liver metastases. Ann. Surg., 2004; 240: 1037–1049.

6. Covey, A. M., Tuorto, S., Brody, L. A. Safety and efficacy of preoperative portal vein embolization with polivynyl alkohol in 58 patients with liver metastases. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol., 2005; 185: 1620–1626.

7. Wicherts, D. A., de Haas, R. J., Andreani, P., Sotirov, D., Salloum, C., Castaing, D., Adam, R., Azoulay, D. Impact of portal vein embolization on long-term survival of patients with primarily unresectable colorectal liver metastases. Br. J. Surg., 2010; 97: 240–250.

8. Jaeck, D., Bachellier, P., Nakano, H. One or two-stage hepatectomy combined with portal vein embolization for initially nonresectable colorectal liver metastases. Am. J. Surg., 2003; 185: 221–229.

9. Gulik, T., Esschert, J. W., Graaf, W., Lienden, K. P., Busch, O. R. C., Heger, M., Delden, O. M., Laméris, J., Gouma, D. J. Controversies in the use of portal vein embolization. Dig. Surg., 2008; 25: 436–444.

10. Goere, D., Farges, O., Leporrier, J. Chemotherapy does not impal hypertrophy of the left liver after right portal vein obstruction. J. Gastrointest. Surg., 2006; 10: 365–370.

11. Belghiti, J., Benhaim, L. Portal vein occlusion prior to extensit resection in colorectal liver metastasis: A necessity rather than an option. Ann. Surg. Oncol., 2009; 16: 1098–1099.

12. Tanaka, K., Kumamoto, T., Matsuyama, R., Takeda, K., Nagano, Y., Endo, I. Influence of chemotherapy on liver regeneration induced by portal vein embolization or first hepatectomy of a staged procedure for colorectal liver metastases. J. Gastrointest. Surg., 2010; 14: 359–368.

13. Furst, G., Schulte, E. J., Hosch, S. B. Portal vein embolization and autologous CD 133+ bone marrow stem cells for liver regeneration: initial experience. Radiology, 2007; 234: 171–179.

14. Neumann, U. P., Seehofer, D., Neuhaus, P. The surgical treatment of hepatic metastases in colorectal carcinoma. Dtsch. Arztebl. Int., 2010; 107: 335–342.

15. Chaudhury, P., Hassanain, M., Bouganim, N., Salman, A., Kavan, P., Metrakos, P. Perioperative chemotherapy with bevacizumab and liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis. HPB (Oxford), 2010; 12: 37–42.

16. Furst, G., Schulte, E. J., Hosch, S. B. Portal vein embolization and autologous CD 133+ bone marrow stem cells for liver regeneration: initial experience. Radiology, 2007; 234: 171–179.