Skip to main content

Efficacy and safety of different options for liver regeneration of future liver remnant in patients with liver malignancies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract

Background

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).

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Introduction

Surgical resection remains the most critical potentially curative treatment for patients with primary liver cancer or metastatic liver malignancies [1, 2]. However, patients’ selection for hepatectomy is limited as the risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF), which is life-threatening with severe morbidity and high mortality [3]. The most important method to prevent PHLF is the evaluation of the minimal safe future liver remnant (FLR), which should be 25–30% of the total functional liver volume (TFLV) in patients with a normal liver in the current consensus [4]. Moreover, the minimal requirement FLR volume should be more than 40% of TFLV for patients with chronic hepatitis or cirrhosis [5].

The liver has a powerful regenerative capacity, enabling it to meet the challenge of hepatectomy. To overcome PHLF, some strategies have been developed to induce liver hypertrophy as insufficient FLR before liver resection. Kinoshita et al. reported the first percutaneous transhepatic portal vein embolization (PVE) to promote liver hypertrophy with minimally invasive in 1986 [6], which has become the gold standard for inducing liver hypertrophy with satisfying safety and efficacy [7]. PVE is commonly performed by the percutaneous transhepatic approach. The procedure of PVE includes access to the portal vein and embolization of target vessels [8]. The hypertrophy of segments two or three could reach 52.4% or 32.2% [9]. However, hypertrophy can be diverse, ranging from 28 to 46% at 4 weeks after PVE, which may cause an insufficient increase of future liver remnants and delay the treatment of tumors [8].

Adam et al. introduced two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) for bi-lobar unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) in 2000 [10]. The highest number of tumors was resected in the first step, and the remaining tumors were resected after a period of liver regeneration. However, only 16 of 398 (4%) became eligible for TSH in patients with conventionally irresectable colorectal metastasis [10]. Portal vein ligation (PVL) was first introduced as a treatment for unresectable liver cancer. It gradually turned into the first step of TSH for treating bi-lobar liver disease, which required laparotomy [11]. PVE and PVL are the standard first-step of TSH [12, 13]. PVL was performed as an occlusion of the target flux of the portal vein. The principle of PVL was like PVE but with more invasive [14]. However, the time to hepatectomy between PVL and tumor resection was more than 30 days [12], which might cause the progress of liver malignancies. Associating Liver Partition and Portal vein ligation for Staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) was firstly reported in 2011 and presented in a milestone study by Schnitzbauer et al. in 2012 [13]. ALPPS includes classical first stage hepatectomy in that all accessible lesions are resected, associated with the transection line of the second stage and the PVL of the diseased liver that should be resected in the “second stage” [14]. The superiority of this procedure is the second procedure’s high success rate, reaching up to 99% of cases [15]. ALPPS has a short time gap between the two stages, but high mortality limits its application [16]. Guiu et al. first reported seven patients treated with liver venous deprivation (LVD) with safety and high efficacy for liver hypertrophy [17]. LVD is a complete trans-hepatic procedure. Combining simultaneous PVE and hepatic vein embolization (HVE) [18]. It showed a 63.3% FLR volume and a 64.3% FLR function increase after extended LVD on day 21 [17].

As the studies show variable efficacy and safety for different options that induce liver hypertrophy for insufficient FLR, a network meta-analysis (NMA) is essential to compare different treatments according to studies published. Herein, we aim to compare the efficacy and safety of PVE, PVL, TSH, LVD, and ALPPS for liver regeneration of future liver remnants in patients with liver malignancies.

Methods

This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.

Search strategies and selection criteria

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from the database inception up through Feb 2022 for abstracts and full-text articles published comparing different procedures to induce liver hypertrophy in patients with unsatisfied future liver remnants. Keywords for the data search included portal vein embolization, portal vein ligation, ALPPS, two-stage hepatectomy, liver venous deprivation, and future liver remnant. Consensus-based discussions were taken to resolve the authors’ disagreements (FMY and LF).

Studies including prospective and retrospective trials that compared the efficacy and safety of PVE, PVL, TSH, ALPPS, or LVD were selected. We excluded single-arm studies or other combination studies. We chose the most recent or complete study when duplicate publications or studies published in the same center with patients overlapped.

Two reviewers (FMY and LF) of us assessed independently, i.e., the data from each study were subjected to external assessment. The basic information of studies included the author, publication year, study design, disease distribution of patients recruited, cohort, number of patients, countries or regions, age, FLR volume before treatment, and the FLR/TFLV rate. The primary outcome was the efficacy of different procedures, including standardized FLR increase [(post-FLR-beforeFLR)/beforeFLR], time to hepatectomy, resection rate, and R0 resection margin rate. The secondary outcome was the safety of different treatments, including the rate of Clavien-Dindo≥3a and 90-day mortality. The protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022354195).

Risk of bias and certainty of evidence

Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the methodological quality of cohort or case-control studies included, which included the following factors: assessment of studies selection, comparability of cohorts, and assessment of outcome [19]. A score≥7 was defined as a high-quality study. For included RCTs, the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the quality, which included the following domains: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting [20]. Two authors (WZ and LF) evaluated the studies independently and agreed after discussion.

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis was conducted using Stata software (version 16, Stata Corp. LP, College Station, TX, USA). Review Manager 5.3 software (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) was used to evaluate the risk bias and transform the data that did not report the mean and variances. The heterogeneity of direct and indirect evidence was according to the inconsistency factor and the value of heterogeneity. The studies in the loop were considered consistent if the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the inconsistency factor included 0. The assessment of heterogeneity was according to the I2 test, and cutoff values of less than 25%, 25 to 75%, and greater than 75% represented low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively. P value was used to evaluate global consistency. Network meta-analyses (NMA) of different treatments were according to a random-effects model. League tables and forest plots were generated for back-transformed network estimates. Odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals were used to compare different treatment options.

Results

Search strategy and study selection

A total of 19618 titles and abstracts were identified through database searching; 476 records remained after review of the title or abstracts as duplicates and not relative clinical studies. With a detailed review of the abstract, 33 studies, including 32 full-text articles and one abstract, met the selection standard. Twenty-seven studies were included in quantitative synthesis after removing six records with insufficient information about study endpoints (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram of screening and selection strategy

Baseline characteristics for patients included

Of the 27 studies recruited, 3 studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [21,22,23], 3 were prospective trials (PTs) [12, 24, 25], and 21 were retrospective trials (RTs) [18, 26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45] (Table 1). All the participants collected were patients with liver malignancies, including colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cholangiocarcinoma (CCC), neuroendocrine tumor liver metastasis (NETLM), and gallbladder cancer (GBC). The comparative cohort of the studies included ALPPS, PVE, PVL, TSH, and LVD, which compared with each other. As TSH included PVE and/or PVL, they could not differentiate each other in papers compared to TSH with other treatments, so we conducted the conclusions using TSH as original literature. The country distributions of the studies included were mostly European countries, North American, and Asian countries. Age in these trials ranged from 55 to 67 years old, FLR volume before treatments ranged from 200ml to 550ml, and FLR/TFLV ranged from 17 to 33%. Twenty-three of the 27 studies scored ≥ 7 and were high quality (Fig. 2A). The methodological quality of the RCTs was low bias and high quality (Fig. 2B, C).

Table 1 Baseline characteristics for patients included
Fig. 2
figure 2

Quality evaluation of studies included. A Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort or case-control studies. B Risk of bias graph for randomized controlled trials. C Risk of bias summary for randomized controlled trials

Efficacy of different treatments

Standardized future liver remnant increase

Sixteen studies were collected when evaluating standardized future liver remnant increase after different treatment options [18, 22, 23, 25,26,27, 29, 32, 33, 36, 37, 40, 41, 43,44,45]. The network plot showed that PVE and ALPPS were the most frequently included techniques in most studies (Fig. 3A). There was no significant inconsistency between the loop ALPPS-PVE-LVD (Fig. 3B). The studies included did not show any global inconsistency (Fig. 3C). The funnel plot demonstrated low publication bias (Fig. 3D).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Network meta-analysis of standardized future liver remnant increase. A Network plot of studies included, B inconsistency test of the loop, C global inconsistency between studies, D Funnel plot, E forest plot of network analysis, and F league table of network analysis

When considering network meta-analysis of sFLR, the forest plot and league table showed that ALPPS demonstrated the highest regeneration rate when compared to PVE (55.25%, 95% CI 45.27–65.24%), or LVD (43.26%, 95% CI 22.05–64.47%), or TSH (30.53%, 95% CI 16.84–44.21%), or PVL (58.42%, 95% CI 37.62–79.23%). LVD seemed to have a higher regeneration rate when compared to PVE (11.99%, 95% CI −6.70–30.69%) or PVL (15.16%, 95% CI −11.04–41.37%), although there were no significant differences between them (Fig. 3E, F).

Time to hepatectomy

Sixteen studies were included when evaluating the time to hepatectomy between different treatment options [12, 18, 22, 23, 25,26,27, 32,33,34,35,36,37, 40, 42, 43]. The network plot showed that PVE and ALPPS were the most frequently included techniques in most studies (Fig. 4A). There was no significant inconsistency between the loop ALPPS-PVE-LVD (Fig. 4B). The studies included did not show any global inconsistency (Fig. 4C). The funnel plot demonstrated low publication bias (Fig. 4D).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Network meta-analysis of time to hepatectomy. A Network plot of studies included B inconsistency test of the loop, C global inconsistency between studies, D funnel plot, E forest plot of network analysis, and F league table of network analysis

When considering network meta-analysis of time to hepatectomy, ALPPS showed a significantly shorter time 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). However, there were no significant differences between PVE, LVD, TSH, and PVL (Fig. 4E, F).

Resection rate

Twenty-seven studies were included when evaluating the resection rate between different treatment options [12, 18, 21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45]. The network plot showed that PVE and ALPPS were the most frequently included techniques in most studies (Fig. 5A). There was no significant inconsistency between the loop ALPPS-PVE-TSH, ALPPS-PVE-LVD, PVE-TSH-PVL, ALPPS-TSH-PVL, and ALPPS-PVE-PVL (Fig. 5B). The studies included did not show any global inconsistency (Fig. 5C). The funnel plot demonstrated that the publication bias was not good enough (Fig. 5D), and multiple studies were at the bottom of the funnel.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Network meta-analysis of resection rate. A Network plot of studies included B inconsistency test of the loop, C global inconsistency between studies, D funnel plot, E forest plot of network analysis, and F league table of network analysis

When considering network meta-analysis of the resection rate of different treatments, ALPPS was considered 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). Although ALPPS presented a higher resection rate when compared with LVD (OR =2.20; 95% CI 0.83–5.86), the result did not demonstrate a significant difference (Fig. 5E, F).

R0 resection margin rate

Six studies were included when evaluating the R0 marge rate between different procedures [12, 23, 30, 34, 37, 39]. The network plot showed that LVD and ALPPS were the most frequently included techniques in most studies (Fig. 6A). There was no significant inconsistency between the loop ALPPS-PVE-TSH, ALPPS-PVE-LVD, ALPPS-LVD-TSH, and PVE-LVD-TSH (Fig. 6B). The studies included did not show any global inconsistency (Fig. 6C). The funnel plot demonstrated that ted the publication bias was not good enough (Fig. 6D); multiple studies were at the bottom or outside of the funnel.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Network meta-analysis of R0 marge rate. A Network plot of studies included B inconsistency test of the loop, C global inconsistency between studies, D funnel plot, E forest plot of network analysis, and F league table of network analysis

When considering the network meta-analysis of the R0 marge rate of different treatments, there was no significant difference between ALPPS, PVE, LVD, and TSH in the forest plot and league table (Fig. 6E, F).

Safety comparison of different treatments

Clavien-Dindo≥3a complication rate

Sixteen studies were included when evaluating clavien-Dindo≥3a complication rate between different options [18, 23,24,25,26,27,28, 30,31,32,33,34,35, 37,38,39]. The network plot showed that PVE and ALPPS were the most frequently included techniques in most studies (Fig. 7A). There was no significant inconsistency between the loop ALPPS-TSH-PVL, ALPPS-PVE-LVD, ALPPS-PVE-TSH, and ALPPS-PVE-PVL (Fig. 7B). The studies included did not show any global inconsistency (Fig. 7C). The funnel plot demonstrated that the publication bias was high (Fig. 7D), as multiple studies were at the bottom of the funnel and the correlation line was not straight enough.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Network meta-analysis of Clavien-Dindo≥3a complication rate. A Network plot of studies included B inconsistency test of the loop, C global inconsistency between studies, D funnel plot, E forest plot of network analysis, and F league table of network analysis

When considering the network meta-analysis of Clavien-Dindo≥3a complication rate of different treatments, there was no significant difference between ALPPS, PVE, LVD, PVL, and TSH in the forest plot and league table. However, ALPPS had the trend of a higher Clavien-Dindo≥3a complication rate compared to other treatments (Fig. 7E, F).

90-day mortality

Thirteen studies were included when evaluating a 90-day mortality between different treatment options [18, 21,22,23, 27, 28, 33, 34, 36, 38,39,40, 43]. The network plot showed that PVE and ALPPS were the most frequently included techniques (Fig. 8A). There was no significant inconsistency between the loop ALPPS-PVE-LVD (Fig. 8B). The studies included did not show any global inconsistency (Fig. 8C). The funnel plot demonstrated that the publication bias was high (Fig. 8D), as multiple studies were at the bottom of the funnel and correlation line was not straight enough.

Fig. 8
figure 8

Network meta-analysis of 90-day mortality. A Network plot of studies included B inconsistency test of the loop, C global inconsistency between studies, D funnel plot, E forest plot of network analysis, and F league table of network analysis

When considering the network meta-analysis of 90-day mortality of different treatments, there was no significant difference between ALPPS, PVE, LVD, PVL, and TSH in the forest plot and league table; ALPPS and PVL were considered to have the trend of the highest 90-day mortality, although there were no significant differences between all groups (Fig. 8E, F).

Discussion

This study explores the efficacy and safety of different treatments inducing liver regeneration for patients with insufficient FLR. Standardized future liver remnant increase rate, time to hepatectomy, resection rate, and R0 marge rate were selected to evaluate different options’ efficacy; Clavien-Dindo≥3a complication rate and 90-day mortality were chosen as the evaluation of different treatments’ safety. It is also an updated network meta-analysis for the publication before, which demonstrated just 90-day mortality between ALPPS and other procedures for hepatic hypertrophy [46]. Other publications about the comparison meta-analysis also compare two treatments, PVE and PVL [47], ALPPS, and TSH [48]. Moreover, apart from the FLR volume, the liver function before hepatectomy plays a critical role in predicting PHLF. For instance, ALT and total bilirubin are independent risk factors for PHLF [49], modified albumin-bilirubin grade, Child-Pugh classification, and international normalized ratio are found to be related to PHLF [50].

For the patient’s candidates for partial hepatectomy without enough FLR, the most effective and lowest-risk treatment might be the best option. However, it takes a long time and many effects for the surgeons to explore the most appropriate method for these patients, as if the patients successfully resected the liver malignancies, they would get much more survival time [7]. Although PVL was initially invented to promote liver hypertrophy, it required a surgical procedure with portal pedicle dissection, which could cause high risk and low compliance in candidate patients. PVE has extended time to be set up as the standard procedure for the candidate patients. However, PVE can result in tumor progression in both embolized and non-embolized livers as a long time to hepatectomy [51]. To overcome the defects of PVE or PVL, ALPPS was developed to induce rapid liver hypertrophy to allow liver resection. It included PVL and an in situ splitting of the liver parenchyma, leaving the hepatic artery, bile duct, and hepatic vein intact until the second step of the operation. However, it demonstrated 44% morbidity and 12% mortality, limiting its spread globally [13]. Subsequently, LVD was introduced to defeat the drawbacks; it was a minimally invasive percutaneous procedure that simultaneously abrogated both portal inflow and hepatic venous outflow to accelerate liver hypertrophy [52], which might make a balance between insufficient FLR and tumor progression. However, LVD presented low efficacy on liver hypertrophy and comparable complications [18].

In our study, when considering liver hypertrophy rate, we used standardized future liver remnant increase rate to compare different treatments, as data insufficiency for pure volume increase of the FLR and additional total functional liver volume for each patient. NMA results suggested that ALPPS had the highest regeneration rate compared to PVE; LVD had the trend of higher liver regeneration than PVL or PVE, although there was no significant difference. It was in accordance with the results published before [46, 47]. The reason might be related to no portal vein rerouting in the first stage of ALPPS, which existed in non-ALPPS procedures [14]. When considering the time to hepatectomy, NMA demonstrated ALPPS showed a significantly shorter time when compared to other options. However, there were no significant differences between PVE, LVD, TSH, and PVL. It was in line with the comparison between the ALPPS cohort compared to the PVO cohort [46]. ALPPS reduces the time for the spread of cancer within the short period required for hypertrophy by partitioning the cancer-bearing liver [15]. ALPPS was considered the highest resection rate compared to TSH, PVL, or PVE according to network meta-analysis of the resection rate of different treatments. Although ALPPS presented a higher resection rate when compared with LVD, the result did not demonstrate a significant difference. It indicated that LVD might have a comparable effect on the resection rate compared to ALPPS. There was no significant difference in R0 marge rate between ALPPS, PVE, LVD, and TSH in the forest plot and league. ALPPS ranks as the most promising procedure for liver regeneration from the endpoints discussed. However, safety is also one of the most important factors that we should consider.

We also explored the safety of different treatments but did not find any significant difference between ALPPS, PVE, LVD, PVL, and TSH in the forest plot and league table. However, ALPPS had the trend of higher Clavien-Dindo≥3a complication rate and 90-day mortality compared to other treatments, although there was no significant difference. The results were in keeping with a previous study [46].

Apart from surgical treatment, cell-based therapy has a promising future in promoting liver regeneration. The progress in the bioengineering of stem cells and organoid generation accelerated cell therapy for liver injury [53]. Stem cells have the potential to proliferate and differentiate into substantial mature cells, which indicates the tissue or organ restoration or repairing function in vivo without immune rejection [54]. Stem cells, including induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), embryonic stem cells (ESCs), endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs), and liver progenitor cells (LPCs) are confirmed to differentiate into hepatocytes or hepatocyte-like cells in preclinical or clinical studies of liver disease [55,56,57], whereas the efficacy is controversial although the liver function is ameliorated from some stem cells [58]. Numerous protocols are confirmed to generate hepatocytes from iPSCs. iPSCs-derived hepatocytes are promising for the application of disease modeling, drug toxicity testing, and cell transplantation [59]. Hepatic stem/progenitor cells or multipotent stem cell transplantation could lead to donor cell-mediated repopulation of the liver in experimental models of liver injury [56], whereas hepatic progenitor cells (HPCs) are susceptible to malignant transformation by oncogenic mutation cells in an undifferentiated condition within liver microenvironment [60]. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are used to repair the liver injury and promote liver regeneration. However, the limitations of MSCs administration in liver injury include aberrant differentiation, low engraftment, microvasculature occlusion, and potential tumorigenicity [54, 61]. MSC-based secretome is an alternative cell-free strategy to avoid the potential risk of MSCs, which may contribute to attenuate liver injury and promote hepatocyte regeneration [54].

This network review provides the results of the available evidence for the efficacy and safety of different treatments, but there are still several limitations. Of the studies selected, only 3 were RCTs, 3 were prospective studies, and others were retrospective studies. Therefore, an insufficient sample and selection bias will likely be significant in retrospective and non-randomized prospective studies. Secondly, the impact of different options on recurrence and survival could not be evaluated as a lack of long-term follow-up data. Thirdly, there was inconsistency in the definition of the surgical procedures, which would limit the applicability of these data. Furthermore, the first step of TSH is PVE or PVL; there were no consistent definitions between different studies and could not distinguish the PVE and PVL group in TSH, which might cause selection bias about TSH.

Conclusion

Our present network study demonstrated that ALPPS has a higher regeneration rate, short time to hepatectomy, and higher resection rate compared to PVL, PVE, or TSH. LVD had the trend of higher liver regeneration than PVL or PVE ranking second to ALPPS and comparable resection rate of ALPPS. There was no significant difference between ALPPS, PVE, LVD, and TSH when considering the R0 marge rate. ALPPS had the trend of higher Clavien-Dindo≥3a complication rate and 90-day mortality compared to other treatments, although there was no significant difference. However, there needs to be more RCTs to verify this evidence.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed in the present study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

FLR:

Future liver remnant

NMA:

Network meta-analysis

RCTs:

Randomized controlled trials

PTs:

Prospective trials

RTs:

Retrospective trials

ALPPS:

Associating Liver Partition and Portal vein ligation for Staged hepatectomy

PVE:

Portal vein embolization

LVD:

Liver venous deprivation

TSH:

Two-stage hepatectomy

PVL:

Portal vein ligation

PHLF:

Post-hepatectomy liver failure

CRLM:

Colorectal cancer liver metastasis

HCC:

Hepatocellular carcinoma

CCC:

Cholangiocarcinoma

NETLM:

Neuroendocrine tumor liver metastasis

GBC:

Gallbladder cancers

References

  1. Reig M, Forner A, Rimola J, Ferrer-Fàbrega J, Burrel M, Garcia-Criado Á, et al. BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update. J Hepatol. 2022;76(3):681–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Tsilimigras DI, Brodt P, Clavien PA, Muschel RJ, D'Angelica MI, Endo I, et al. Liver metastases. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021;7(1):27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pufal K, Lawson A, Hodson J, Bangash M, Patel J, Weston C, et al. Role of liver support systems in the management of post hepatectomy liver failure: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2021;25(2):171–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kishi Y, Vauthey JN. Issues to be considered to address the future liver remnant prior to major hepatectomy. Surg Today. 2021;51(4):472–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Shindoh J, Tzeng CW, Vauthey JN. Portal vein embolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver. Cancer. 2012;1(3-4):159–67.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kinoshita H, Sakai K, Hirohashi K, Igawa S, Yamasaki O, Kubo S. Preoperative portal vein embolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Surg. 1986;10(5):803–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Del Basso C, Gaillard M, Lainas P, Zervaki S, Perlemuter G, Chagué P, et al. Current strategies to induce liver remnant hypertrophy before major liver resection. World J Hepatol. 2021;13(11):1629–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chansangrat J, Keeratibharat N. Portal vein embolization: rationale, techniques, outcomes and novel strategies. Hepat Oncol. 2021;8(4):Hep42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ito J, Komada T, Suzuki K, Matsushima M, Nakatochi M, Kobayashi Y, et al. Evaluation of segment 4 portal vein embolization added to right portal vein for right hepatic trisectionectomy: a retrospective propensity score-matched study. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2020;27(6):299–306.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Adam R, Laurent A, Azoulay D, Castaing D, Bismuth H. Two-stage hepatectomy: a planned strategy to treat irresectable liver tumors. Ann Surg. 2000;232(6):777–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Shinkawa H, Takemura S, Tanaka S, Kubo S. Portal vein embolization: history and current indications. Visc Med. 2017;33(6):414–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Broering DC, Hillert C, Krupski G, Fischer L, Mueller L, Achilles EG, et al. Portal vein embolization vs. portal vein ligation for induction of hypertrophy of the future liver remnant. J Gastrointest Surg. 2002;6(6):905–13 discussion 13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Schnitzbauer AA, Lang SA, Goessmann H, Nadalin S, Baumgart J, Farkas SA, et al. Right portal vein ligation combined with in situ splitting induces rapid left lateral liver lobe hypertrophy enabling 2-staged extended right hepatic resection in small-for-size settings. Ann Surg. 2012;255(3):405–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Memeo R, Conticchio M, Deshayes E, Nadalin S, Herrero A, Guiu B, et al. Optimization of the future remnant liver: review of the current strategies in Europe. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2021;10(3):350–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Eshmuminov D, Raptis DA, Linecker M, Wirsching A, Lesurtel M, Clavien PA. Meta-analysis of associating liver partition with portal vein ligation and portal vein occlusion for two-stage hepatectomy. Br J Surg. 2016;103(13):1768–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Chan KS, Low JK, Shelat VG. Associated liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy: a review. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5:37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Guiu B, Chevallier P, Denys A, Delhom E, Pierredon-Foulongne MA, Rouanet P, et al. Simultaneous trans-hepatic portal and hepatic vein embolization before major hepatectomy: the liver venous deprivation technique. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(12):4259–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chebaro A, Buc E, Durin T, Chiche L, Brustia R, Didier A, et al. Liver venous deprivation or associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy?: a retrospective multicentric study. Ann Surg. 2021;274(5):874–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale Cohort Studies. https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.

  20. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hasselgren K, Røsok BI, Larsen PN, Sparrelid E, Lindell G, Schultz NA, et al. ALPPS improves survival compared with TSH in patients affected of CRLM: survival analysis from the randomized controlled trial LIGRO. Ann Surg. 2021;273(3):442–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jiao LR, Fajardo Puerta AB, Gall TMH, Sodergren MH, Frampton AE, Pencavel T, et al. Rapid induction of liver regeneration for major hepatectomy (REBIRTH): a randomized controlled trial of portal vein embolisation versus ALPPS assisted with radiofrequency. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11(3):302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sandström P, Røsok BI, Sparrelid E, Larsen PN, Larsson AL, Lindell G, et al. ALPPS improves resectability compared with conventional two-stage hepatectomy in patients with advanced colorectal liver metastasis: results from a scandinavian multicenter randomized controlled trial (LIGRO Trial). Ann Surg. 2018;267(5):833–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Huang G. Associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy versus portal vein embolization in staged hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized comparative study. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(15_suppl):4578.

  25. Kobayashi K, Yamaguchi T, Denys A, Perron L, Halkic N, Demartines N, et al. Liver venous deprivation compared to portal vein embolization to induce hypertrophy of the future liver remnant before major hepatectomy: a single center experience. Surgery. 2020;167(6):917–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Chan A, Zhang WY, Chok K, Dai J, Ji R, Kwan C, et al. ALPPS versus portal vein embolization for hepatitis-related hepatocellular carcinoma: a changing paradigm in modulation of future liver remnant before major hepatectomy. Ann Surg. 2021;273(5):957–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Heil J, Korenblik R, Heid F, Bechstein WO, Bemelmans M, Binkert C, et al. Preoperative portal vein or portal and hepatic vein embolization: DRAGON collaborative group analysis. Br J Surg. 2021;108(7):834–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Sparrelid E, Hasselgren K, Røsok BI, Larsen PN, Schultz NA, Carling U, et al. How should liver hypertrophy be stimulated? A comparison of upfront associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) and portal vein embolization (PVE) with rescue possibility. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2021;10(1):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Guiu B, Quenet F, Panaro F, Piron L, Cassinotto C, Herrerro A, et al. Liver venous deprivation versus portal vein embolization before major hepatectomy: future liver remnant volumetric and functional changes. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2020;9(5):564–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Baumgart J, Jungmann F, Bartsch F, Kloth M, Mittler J, Heinrich S, et al. Two-stage hepatectomy and ALPPS for advanced bilateral liver metastases: a tailored approach balancing risk and outcome. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;23(12):2391–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Panaro F, Giannone F, Riviere B, Sgarbura O, Cusumano C, Deshayes E, et al. Perioperative impact of liver venous deprivation compared with portal venous embolization in patients undergoing right hepatectomy: preliminary results from the pioneer center. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2019;8(4):329–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Robles-Campos R, Brusadin R, López-Conesa A, López-López V, Navarro-Barrios Á, López-Espín JJ, et al. Long-term outcome after conventional two-stage hepatectomy versus tourniquet-ALPPS in colorectal liver metastases: a propensity score matching analysis. World J Surg. 2019;43(9):2281–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Chia DKA, Yeo Z, Loh SEK, Iyer SG, Bonney GK, Madhavan K, et al. Greater hypertrophy can be achieved with associating liver partition with portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy compared to conventional staged hepatectomy, but with a higher price to pay? Am J Surg. 2018;215(1):131–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Adam R, Imai K, Castro Benitez C, Allard MA, Vibert E, Sa Cunha A, et al. Outcome after associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy and conventional two-stage hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases. Br J Surg. 2016;103(11):1521–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Matsuo K, Murakami T, Kawaguchi D, Hiroshima Y, Koda K, Yamazaki K, et al. Histologic features after surgery associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy versus those after hepatectomy with portal vein embolization. Surgery. 2016;159(5):1289–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Croome KP, Hernandez-Alejandro R, Parker M, Heimbach J, Rosen C, Nagorney DM. Is the liver kinetic growth rate in ALPPS unprecedented when compared with PVE and living donor liver transplant? A multicentre analysis. HPB (Oxford). 2015;17(6):477–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ratti F, Schadde E, Masetti M, Massani M, Zanello M, Serenari M, et al. Strategies to increase the resectability of patients with colorectal liver metastases: a multi-center case-match analysis of ALPPS and conventional two-stage hepatectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(6):1933–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tanaka K, Matsuo K, Murakami T, Kawaguchi D, Hiroshima Y, Koda K, et al. Associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS): short-term outcome, functional changes in the future liver remnant, and tumor growth activity. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41(4):506–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Schadde E, Ardiles V, Slankamenac K, Tschuor C, Sergeant G, Amacker N, et al. ALPPS offers a better chance of complete resection in patients with primarily unresectable liver tumors compared with conventional-staged hepatectomies: results of a multicenter analysis. World J Surg. 2014;38(6):1510–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Shindoh J, Vauthey JN, Zimmitti G, Curley SA, Huang SY, Mahvash A, et al. Analysis of the efficacy of portal vein embolization for patients with extensive liver malignancy and very low future liver remnant volume, including a comparison with the associating liver partition with portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy approach. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217(1):126–33 discussion 33-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. van Lienden KP, Hoekstra LT, Bennink RJ, van Gulik TM. Intrahepatic left to right portoportal venous collateral vascular formation in patients undergoing right portal vein ligation. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2013;36(6):1572–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Knoefel WT, Gabor I, Rehders A, Alexander A, Krausch M, Schulte am Esch J, et al. In situ liver transection with portal vein ligation for rapid growth of the future liver remnant in two-stage liver resection. Br J Surg. 2013;100(3):388–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Robles R, Marín C, Lopez-Conesa A, Capel A, Perez-Flores D, Parrilla P. Comparative study of right portal vein ligation versus embolisation for induction of hypertrophy in two-stage hepatectomy for multiple bilateral colorectal liver metastases. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38(7):586–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Aussilhou B, Lesurtel M, Sauvanet A, Farges O, Dokmak S, Goasguen N, et al. Right portal vein ligation is as efficient as portal vein embolization to induce hypertrophy of the left liver remnant. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12(2):297–303.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Capussotti L, Muratore A, Baracchi F, Lelong B, Ferrero A, Regge D, et al. Portal vein ligation as an efficient method of increasing the future liver remnant volume in the surgical treatment of colorectal metastases. Arch Surg. 2008;143(10):978–82 discussion 82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Gavriilidis P, Sutcliffe RP, Roberts KJ, Pai M, Spalding D, Habib N, et al. No difference in mortality among ALPPS, two-staged hepatectomy, and portal vein embolization/ligation: a systematic review by updated traditional and network meta-analyses. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2020;19(5):411–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Isfordink CJ, Samim M, Braat M, Almalki AM, Hagendoorn J, Borel Rinkes IHM, et al. Portal vein ligation versus portal vein embolization for induction of hypertrophy of the future liver remnant: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Oncol. 2017;26(3):257–67.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Shen YN, Guo CX, Wang LY, Pan Y, Chen YW, Bai XL, et al. Associating liver partition and portal vein ligation versus 2-stage hepatectomy: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(35):e12082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Wang J, Zhang Z, Shang D, Liao Y, Yu P, Li J, et al. A novel nomogram for prediction of post-hepatectomy liver failure in patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter study. J Hepatocell Carcinoma. 2022;9:901–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Xu MH, Xu B, Zhou CH, Xue Z, Chen ZS, Xu WX, et al. An mALBI-Child-Pugh-based nomogram for predicting post-hepatectomy liver failure grade B-C in patients with huge hepatocellular carcinoma: a multi-institutional study. World J Surg Oncol. 2022;20(1):206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Beppu T, Yamamura K, Okabe H, Imai K, Hayashi H. Oncological benefits of portal vein embolization for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2021;5(3):287–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Guiu B, Herrero A, Panaro F. Liver venous deprivation: a bright future for liver metastases-but what about hepatocellular carcinoma? Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2021;10(2):270–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Chawla S, Das A. Preclinical-to-clinical innovations in stem cell therapies for liver regeneration. Curr Res Transl Med. 2022;71(1):103365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hu C, Zhao L, Zhang L, Bao Q, Li L. Mesenchymal stem cell-based cell-free strategies: safe and effective treatments for liver injury. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2020;11(1):377.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Miceli M, Baldi D, Cavaliere C, Soricelli A, Salvatore M, Napoli C. Peripheral artery disease: the new frontiers of imaging techniques to evaluate the evolution of regenerative medicine. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2019;17(7):511–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Kakinuma S, Nakauchi H, Watanabe M. Hepatic stem/progenitor cells and stem-cell transplantation for the treatment of liver disease. J Gastroenterol. 2009;44(3):167–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Nikokiraki C, Psaraki A, Roubelakis MG. The potential clinical use of stem/progenitor cells and organoids in liver diseases. Cells. 2022;11(9):1410.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Alison MR, Choong C, Lim S. Application of liver stem cells for cell therapy. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2007;18(6):819–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Subba Rao M, Sasikala M, Nageshwar RD. Thinking outside the liver: induced pluripotent stem cells for hepatic applications. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(22):3385–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Olivera-Salazar R, García-Arranz M, Sánchez A, Olmedillas-López S, Vega-Clemente L, Serrano LJ, et al. Oncological transformation in vitro of hepatic progenitor cell lines isolated from adult mice. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):3149.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Margiana R, Markov A, Zekiy AO, Hamza MU, Al-Dabbagh KA, Al-Zubaidi SH, et al. Clinical application of mesenchymal stem cell in regenerative medicine: a narrative review. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2022;13(1):366.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledged the authors of the studies included in this study.

Funding

The study was supported by the Jiangxi Provincial Department of Science and Technology [grant number 20203BBGL73144].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version. FMY designed the study, FMY and LF searched the literature, and evaluated and extracted the data from each study. WZ and LF evaluated the bias of studies. WZ and FMY drafting of the manuscript. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Wei Zhang or Long Feng.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University. As this study was a network meta-analysis, informed consent was waived.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yi, F., Zhang, W. & Feng, L. Efficacy and safety of different options for liver regeneration of future liver remnant in patients with liver malignancies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. World J Surg Onc 20, 399 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-022-02867-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-022-02867-w

Keywords

  • Associating Liver Partition and Portal vein ligation for Staged hepatectomy
  • Portal vein embolization
  • Portal vein ligation
  • Liver venous deprivation
  • Two-stage hepatectomy
  • Future liver remnant
  • Network meta-analysis