BACKGROUND:Liver resection classifications have traditionally been based on the number of segments resected. However, with advancements in techniques and the diffusion of minimally invasive surgery (MiLS), these classifications may no longer adequately represent the complexities of modern liver surgery. This study evaluates five liver resection classifications using a multicenter Italian database of hepatocellular carcinoma resections with the main focus of catching surgical outcomes, rather than technical complexity. METHODS:The study included 3280 resections (2436 open, 844 MiLS) from 25 Italian centers. Five classifications were assessed: Minor-Major, Segment-based, GK-LLR, S-L OLR, and CLISCO. Outcomes included morbidity, liver failure, and 90-day mortality. Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests were used for comparisons. RESULTS:All classifications showed increased morbidity and mortality with higher complexity. For open resections, Minor-Major and Segment-based classifications successfully stratified patients for all outcomes, outperforming other systems. However, all classifications performed poorly for MiLS patients. DISCUSSION:Minor-Major and Segment-based classifications remain the most accurate for predicting risks in open liver resections. The poor performance for MiLS patients highlights the need for a separate risk stratification tool for this approach. Current classifications do not always accurately represent the technical complexity and technological evolution in liver resection, particularly for MiLS procedures.

PURPOSE:Single large hepatocellular carcinoma >5cm (SLHCC) traditionally requires a major liver resection. Minor resections are often performed with the goal to reduce morbidity and mortality. Aim of the study was to establish if a major resection should be considered the best treatment for SLHCC or a more limited resection should be preferred. METHODS:A multicenter retrospective analysis of the HE.RC.O.LE.S. Group register was performed. All collected patients with surgically treated SLHCC were divided in 5 groups of treatment (major hepatectomy, sectorectomy, left lateral sectionectomy, segmentectomy, non-anatomical resection) and compared for baseline characteristics, short and long-term results. A propensity-score weighted analysis was performed. RESULTS:535 patients were enrolled in the study. Major resection was associated with significantly increased major complications compared to left lateral sectionanectomy, segmentectomy and non-anatomical resection (all p<0.05) and borderline significant increased major complications compared to sectorectomy (p=0.08). Left lateral sectionectomy showed better overall survival compared to major resection (p=0.02), while other groups of treatment resulted similar to major hepatectomy group for the same item. Absence of oncological benefit after major resection and similar outcomes among the 5 groups of treatment was confirmed even in the sub-population excluding patients with macrovascular invasion. CONCLUSION:Major resection was associated to increased major post-operative morbidity without long-term survival benefit; when technically feasible and oncologically adequate, minor resections should be preferred for the surgical treatment of SLHCC.

Background:The outcomes of liver surgery worldwide remain unknown. The true population-based outcomes are likely different to those vastly reported that reflect the activity of highly specialized academic centers. The aim of this study was to measure the true worldwide practice of liver surgery and associated outcomes by recruiting from centers across the globe. The geographic distribution of liver surgery activity and complexity was also evaluated to further understand variations in outcomes.Methods:LiverGroup.org was an international, prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study following the Global Surgery Collaborative Snapshot Research approach with a 3-month prospective, consecutive patient enrollment within January-December 2019. Each patient was followed up for 90 days postoperatively. All patients undergoing liver surgery at their respective centers were eligible for study inclusion. Basic demographics, patient and operation characteristics were collected. Morbidity was recorded according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications. Country-based and hospital-based data were collected, including the Human Development Index (HDI). (NCT03768141).Results:A total of 2159 patients were included from six continents. Surgery was performed for cancer in 1785 (83%) patients. Of all patients, 912 (42%) experienced a postoperative complication of any severity, while the major complication rate was 16% (341/2159). The overall 90-day mortality rate after liver surgery was 3.8% (82/2,159). The overall failure to rescue rate was 11% (82/ 722) ranging from 5 to 35% among the higher and lower HDI groups, respectively.Conclusions:This is the first to our knowledge global surgery study specifically designed and conducted for specialized liver surgery. The authors identified failure to rescue as a significant potentially modifiable factor for mortality after liver surgery, mostly related to lower Human Development Index countries. Members of the LiverGroup.org network could now work together to develop quality improvement collaboratives.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of a liver transplantation (LT) program on the outcomes of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Background: Surgical treatment of HCC includes both hepatic resection (HR) and LT. However, the presence of cirrhosis and the possibility of recurrence make the management of this disease complex and probably different according to the presence of a LT program. Methods: Patients undergoing HR for HCC between January 2005 and December 2019 were identified from a national database of HCC. The main study outcomes were major surgical complications according to the Comprehensive Complication Index, posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF), 90-day mortality, overall survival, and disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes were salvage liver transplantation (SLT) and postrecurrence survival. Results: A total of 3202 patients were included from 25 hospitals over the study period. Three of 25 (12%) had an LT program. The presence of an LT program within a center was associated with a reduced probability of PHLF (odds ratio=0.38) but not with overall survival and disease-free survival. There was an increased probability of SLT when HR was performed in a transplant hospital (odds ratio=12.05). Among transplant-eligible patients, those who underwent LT had a significantly longer postrecurrence survival. Conclusions: This study showed that the presence of a LT program was associated with decreased PHLF rates and an increased probability to receive SLT in case of recurrence.

BACKGROUND:Despite second-line transplant(SLT) for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma(rHCC) leads to the longest survival after recurrence(SAR), its real applicability has never been reported. The aim was to compare the SAR of SLT versus repeated hepatectomy and thermoablation(CUR group).METHODS:Patients were enrolled from the Italian register HE.RC.O.LE.S. between 2008 and 2021. Two groups were created: CUR versus SLT. A propensity score matching (PSM) was run to balance the groups.RESULTS:743 patients were enrolled, CUR = 611 and SLT = 132. Median age at recurrence was 71(IQR 6575) years old and 60(IQR 53-64, p < 0.001) for CUR and SLT respectively. After PSM, median SAR for CUR was 43 months(95%CI = 37 - 93) and not reached for SLT(p < 0.001). SLT patients gained a survival benefit of 9.4 months if compared with CUR. MilanCriteria(MC)-In patients were 82.7% of the CUR group. SLT(HR 0.386, 95%CI = 0.23 - 0.63, p < 0.001) and the MELD score(HR 1.169, 95%CI = 1.07 - 1.27, p < 0.001) were the only predictors of mortality. In case of MC-Out, the only predictor of mortality was the number of nodules at recurrence(HR 1.45, 95%CI= 1.09 - 1.93, p = 0.011).CONCLUSION:It emerged an important transplant under referral in favour of repeated hepatectomy or thermoablation. In patients with MC-Out relapse, the benefit of SLT over CUR was not observed.

Importance:Clear indications on how to select retreatments for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are still lacking.Objective:To create a machine learning predictive model of survival after HCC recurrence to allocate patients to their best potential treatment.Design, Setting, and Participants:Real-life data were obtained from an Italian registry of hepatocellular carcinoma between January 2008 and December 2019 after a median (IQR) follow-up of 27 (12-51) months. External validation was made on data derived by another Italian cohort and a Japanese cohort. Patients who experienced a recurrent HCC after a first surgical approach were included. Patients were profiled, and factors predicting survival after recurrence under different treatments that acted also as treatment effect modifiers were assessed. The model was then fitted individually to identify the best potential treatment. Analysis took place between January and April 2021.Exposures:Patients were enrolled if treated by reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, chemoembolization, or sorafenib.Main Outcomes and Measures:Survival after recurrence was the end point.Results:A total of 701 patients with recurrent HCC were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 71 [9] years; 151 [21.5%] female). Of those, 293 patients (41.8%) received reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, 188 (26.8%) received sorafenib, and 220 (31.4%) received chemoembolization. Treatment, age, cirrhosis, number, size, and lobar localization of the recurrent nodules, extrahepatic spread, and time to recurrence were all treatment effect modifiers and survival after recurrence predictors. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the predictive model was 78.5% (95% CI, 71.7%-85.3%) at 5 years after recurrence. According to the model, 611 patients (87.2%) would have benefited from reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, 37 (5.2%) from sorafenib, and 53 (7.6%) from chemoembolization in terms of potential survival after recurrence. Compared with patients for which the best potential treatment was reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, sorafenib and chemoembolization would be the best potential treatment for older patients (median [IQR] age, 78.5 [75.2-83.4] years, 77.02 [73.89-80.46] years, and 71.59 [64.76-76.06] years for sorafenib, chemoembolization, and reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, respectively), with a lower median (IQR) number of multiple recurrent nodules (1.00 [1.00-2.00] for sorafenib, 1.00 [1.00-2.00] for chemoembolization, and 2.00 [1.00-3.00] for reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation). Extrahepatic recurrence was observed in 43.2% (n = 16) for sorafenib as the best potential treatment vs 14.6% (n = 89) for reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation as the best potential treatment and 0% for chemoembolization as the best potential treatment. Those profiles were used to constitute a patient-tailored algorithm for the best potential treatment allocation.Conclusions and Relevance:The herein presented algorithm should help in allocating patients with recurrent HCC to the best potential treatment according to their specific characteristics in a treatment hierarchy fashion.

Objective: The aim of the study was to compare SURG vs SOR regarding the OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in a real-world clinical scenario. Background data: The treatment for advanced nonmetastatic HCC belonging to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C (BCLC C) is still controversial. Methods: BCLC C patients without extrahepatic spread and tumoral invasion of the main portal trunk were considered. Surgical patients were obtained from the HE.RC.O.LE.S. Register, whereas sorafenib patients were obtained from the ITA.LI.CA register The inverse probability weighting (IPW) method was adopted to balance the confounders between the 2 groups. Results: Between 2008 and 2019, 478 patients were enrolled: 303 in SURG and 175 in SOR group. Eastern Cooperative Oncological Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS), presence of cirrhosis, steatosis, Child-Pugh grade, hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus, alcohol intake, collateral veins, bilobar disease, localization of the tumor thrombus, number of nodules, alpha-fetoprotein, age, and Charlson Comorbidity index were weighted by IPW to create two balanced pseudo-populations: SURG = 374 and SOR = 263. After IPW, 1–3–5 years OS was 83.6%, 68.1%, 55.9% for SURG, and 42.3%, 17.8%, 12.8% for SOR (P < 0.001). Similar trends were observed after subgrouping patients by ECOG-PS = 0 and ECOG-PS >0, and by the intrahepatic location of portal vein invasion. At Cox regression, sorafenib treatment (hazard ratio 4.436; 95% confidence interval 3.19–6.15; P < 0.001) and Charlson Index (hazard ratio 1.162; 95% confidence interval 1.06–1.27; P = 0.010) were the only independent predictors of mortality. PFS at 1–3–5 years were 65.9%, 40.3%, 24.3% for SURG and 21.6%, 3.5%, 2.9% for SOR (P = 0.007). Conclusions: In BCLC C patients without extrahepatic spread but with intrahepatic portal invasion, liver resection, if feasible, was followed by better OS and PFS compared with sorafenib.

BACKGROUND:We aimed to evaluate, in a large Western cohort, perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes of salvage hepatectomy (SH) for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) after primary hepatectomy (PH) or locoregional treatments.METHODS:Data were collected from the Hepatocarcinoma Recurrence on the Liver Study Group (He.RC.O.Le.S.) Italian Registry. After 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis (PSM), two groups were compared: the PH group (patients submitted to resection for a first HCC) and the SH group (patients resected for intrahepatic rHCC after previous HCC-related treatments).RESULTS:2689 patients were enrolled. PH included 2339 patients, SH 350. After PSM, 263 patients were selected in each group with major resected nodule median size, intraoperative blood loss and minimally invasive approach significantly lower in the SH group. Long-term outcomes were compared, with no difference in OS and DFS. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed only microvascular invasion as an independent prognostic factor for OS.CONCLUSION:SH proved to be equivalent to PH in terms of safety, feasibility and long-term outcomes, consistent with data gathered from East Asia. In the awaiting of reliable treatment-allocating algorithms for rHCC, SH appears to be a suitable alternative in patients fit for surgery, regardless of the previous therapeutic modality implemented.

BackgroundBenchmark analysis for open liver surgery for cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is still undefined.MethodsPatients were identified from the Italian national registry HE.RC.O.LE.S. The Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC) method was employed to identify the benchmarks. The outcomes assessed were the rate of complications, major comorbidities, post-operative ascites (POA), post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF), 90-day mortality. Benchmarking was stratified for surgical complexity (CP1, CP2 and CP3).ResultsA total of 978 of 2698 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. 431 (44.1%) patients were treated with CP1 procedures, 239 (24.4%) with CP2 and 308 (31.5%) with CP3 procedures. Patients submitted to CP1 had a worse underlying liver function, while the tumor burden was more severe in CP3 cases. The ABC for complications (13.1%, 19.2% and 28.1% for CP1, CP2 and CP3 respectively), major complications (7.6%, 11.1%, 12.5%) and 90-day mortality (0%, 3.3%, 3.6%) increased with the surgical difficulty, but not POA (4.4%, 3.3% and 2.6% respectively) and PHLF (0% for all groups).ConclusionWe propose benchmarks for open liver resections in HCC cirrhotic patients, stratified for surgical complexity. The difference between the benchmark values and the results obtained during everyday practice reflects the room for potential growth, with the aim to encourage constant improvement among liver surgeons.

Background and aims: We investigated the clinical impact of the newly defined metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) in patients undergoing hepatectomy for HCC (MAFLD-HCC) comparing the characteristics and outcomes of patients with MAFLD-HCC to viral- and alcoholic-related HCC (HCV-HCC, HBV-HCC, A-HCC). Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients included in the He.RC.O.Le.S. Group registry was performed. The characteristics, short- and long-term outcomes of 1315 patients included were compared according to the study group before and after an exact propensity score match (PSM). Results: Among the whole study population, 264 (20.1%) had MAFLD-HCC, 205 (15.6%) had HBV-HCC, 671 (51.0%) had HCV-HCC and 175 (13.3%) had A-HCC. MAFLD-HCC patients had higher BMI (p < 0.001), Charlson Comorbidities Index (p < 0.001), size of tumour (p < 0.001), and presence of cirrhosis (p < 0.001). After PSM, the 90-day mortality and severe morbidity rates were 5.9% and 7.1% in MAFLD-HCC, 2.3% and 7.1% in HBV-HCC, 3.5% and 11.7% in HCV-HCC, and 1.2% and 8.2% in A-HCC (p = 0.061 and p = 0.447, respectively). The 5-year OS and RFS rates were 54.4% and 37.1% in MAFLD-HCC, 64.9% and 32.2% in HBV-HCC, 53.4% and 24.7% in HCV-HCC and 62.0% and 37.8% in A-HCC (p = 0.345 and p = 0.389, respectively). Cirrhosis, multiple tumours, size and satellitosis seems to be the independent predictors of OS. Conclusion: Hepatectomy for MAFLD-HCC seems to have a higher but acceptable operative risk. However, long-term outcomes seems to be related to clinical and pathological factors rather than aetiological risk factors. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd, BASO similar to The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.

Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer (GIRCG), during the 2013 annual Consensus Conference to gastric cancer, stated that laparoscopic or robotic approach should be limited only to early gastric cancer (EGC) and no further guidelines were currently available. However, accumulated evidences, mainly from eastern experiences, have supported the application of minimally invasive surgery also for locally advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The aim of our study is to give a snapshot of current surgical propensity of expert Italian upper gastrointestinal surgeons in performing minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of gastric cancer in order to answer to the question if clinical practice overcome the recommendation. Experts in the field among the Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer (GIRCG) were invited to join a web 30-item survey through a formal e-mail from January 1st, 2020, to June 31st, 2020. Responses were collected from 46 participants out of 100 upper gastrointestinal surgeons. Percentage of surgeons choosing a minimally invasive approach to treat early and advanced gastric cancer was similar. Additionally analyzing data from the centers involved, we obtained that the percentage of minimally invasive total and partial gastrectomies in advanced cases augmented with the increase of surgical procedures performed per year (p = 0.02 and p = 0.04 respectively). It is reasonable to assume that there is a widening of indications given by the current national guideline into clinical practice. Propensity of expert Italian upper gastrointestinal surgeons was to perform minimally invasive surgery not only for early but also for advanced gastric cancer. Of interest volume activity correlated with the propensity of surgeons to select a minimally invasive approach.

Objective: The aim of the study was to compare SURG vs SOR regarding the OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in a real-world clinical scenario. Background data: The treatment for advanced nonmetastatic HCC belonging to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C (BCLC C) is still controversial. Methods: BCLC C patients without extrahepatic spread and tumoral invasion of the main portal trunk were considered. Surgical patients were obtained from the HE.RC.O.LE.S. Register, whereas sorafenib patients were obtained from the ITA.LI.CA register The inverse probability weighting (IPW) method was adopted to balance the confounders between the 2 groups. Results: Between 2008 and 2019, 478 patients were enrolled: 303 in SURG and 175 in SOR group. Eastern Cooperative Oncological Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS), presence of cirrhosis, steatosis, Child-Pugh grade, hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus, alcohol intake, collateral veins, bilobar disease, localization of the tumor thrombus, number of nodules, alpha-fetoprotein, age, and Charlson Comorbidity index were weighted by IPW to create two balanced pseudo-populations: SURG = 374 and SOR = 263. After IPW, 1-3-5 years OS was 83.6%, 68.1%, 55.9% for SURG, and 42.3%, 17.8%, 12.8% for SOR (P < 0.001). Similar trends were observed after subgrouping patients by ECOG-PS = 0 and ECOG-PS >0, and by the intrahepatic location of portal vein invasion. At Cox regression, sorafenib treatment (hazard ratio 4.436; 95% confidence interval 3.19-6.15; P < 0.001) and Charlson Index (hazard ratio 1.162; 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.27; P = 0.010) were the only independent predictors of mortality. PFS at 1-3-5 years were 65.9%, 40.3%, 24.3% for SURG and 21.6%, 3.5%, 2.9% for SOR (P = 0.007). Conclusions: In BCLC C patients without extrahepatic spread but with intrahepatic portal invasion, liver resection, if feasible, was followed by better OS and PFS compared with sorafenib.

We read with interest the original article “impact of preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) on 30-day outcome of patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for malignancy” by Werba et al. 1 Werba G. Napolitano M.A. Sparks A.D. Lin P.P. Johnson L.B. Vaziri K. Impact of preoperative biliary drainage on 30 Day outcomes of patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for malignancy. HPB. 2022; 24: 478-488https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2021.08.942 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (5) Google Scholar Authors retrospectively analysed a large cohort of patients from a national dataset (NSQIP) and suggested that PBD was not associated with an increase of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Nevertheless, we have few points to raise.

The pathology of most autoimmune diseases is well described. However, the exact event that triggers the onset of the inflammatory cascade leading to disease is less certain and most autoimmune diseases are complex idiopathic diseases with no single gene known to be causative. In many cases, a relation to an infectious disease is described, and it is thought that microbes can play a direct role in induction of autoimmunity, for instance by molecular mimicry or bystander activation of autoreactive T cells. In contrast, less attention has been given to the possibility that modified self-antigens can be immunogenic and lead to autoimmunity against wildtype self-antigens. In theory, modified self-antigens can arise by random errors and mutations during protein synthesis and would be recognized as foreign antigens by naïve B and T lymphocytes. Here, it is postulated that the initial auto-antigen is not a germline self-antigen, but rather a mutated self-antigen. This mutated self-antigen might interfere with peripheral tolerance if presented to the immune system during an infection. The infection lead to bystander activation of naïve T and B cells with specificity for mutated self-antigen and this can lead to epitopespreading in which T and B cells with specificity for wildtype self-antigens are activated as a result of general inflammation.

Liver surgery is the first line treatment for hepatocarcinoma. Hepatocarcinoma Recurrence on the Liver Study (HERCOLES) Group was established in 2018 with the goal to create a network of Italian centres sharing data and promoting scientific research on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the surgical field. This is the first national report that analyses the trends in surgical and oncological outcomes. Register data were collected by 22 Italian centres between 2008 and 2018. One hundred sixty-four variables were collected, regarding liver functional status, tumour burden, radiological, intraoperative and perioperative data, histological features and oncological follow-up. 2381 Patients were enrolled. Median age was 70 (IQR 63–75) years old. Cirrhosis was present in 1491 patients (62.6%), and Child-A were 89.9% of cases. HCC was staged as BCLC0-A in almost 50% of cases, while BCLC B and C were 20.7% and 17.9% respectively. Major liver resections were 481 (20.2%), and laparoscopy was employed in 753 (31.6%) cases. Severe complications occurred only in 5%. Postoperative ascites was recorded in 10.5% of patients, while posthepatectomy liver failure was observed in 4.9%. Ninety-day mortality was 2.5%. At 5 years, overall survival was 66.1% and disease-free survival was 40.9%. Recurrence was intrahepatic in 74.6% of cases. Redo-surgery and thermoablation for recurrence were performed up to 32% of cases. This is the most updated Italian report of the national experience in surgical treatment for HCC. This dataset is consistently allowing the participating centres in creating multicentric analysis which are already running with a very large sample size and strong power.

BACKGROUND:Management of recurrence after surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) is still a debate. The aim was to compare the Survival after Recurrence (SAR) of curative (surgery or thermoablation) versus palliative (TACE or Sorafenib) treatments for patients with rHCC.METHODS:This is a multicentric Italian study, which collected data between 2007 and 2018 from 16 centers. Selected patients were then divided according to treatment allocation in Curative (CUR) or Palliative (PAL) Group. Inverse Probability Weighting (IPW) was used to weight the groups.RESULTS:1,560 patients were evaluated, of which 421 experienced recurrence and were then eligible: 156 in CUR group and 256 in PAL group. Tumor burden and liver function were weighted by IPW, and two pseudo-population were obtained (CUR = 397.5 and PAL = 415.38). SAR rates at 1, 3 and 5 years were respectively 98.3%, 76.7%, 63.8% for CUR and 91.7%, 64.2% and 48.9% for PAL (p = 0.007). Median DFS was 43 months (95%CI = 32-74) for CUR group, while it was 23 months (95%CI = 18-27) for PAL (p = 0.017). Being treated by palliative approach (HR = 1.75; 95%CI = 1.14-2.67; p = 0.01) and having a median size of the recurrent nodule>5 cm (HR = 1.875; 95%CI = 1.22-2.86; p = 0.004) were the only predictors of mortality after recurrence, while time to recurrence was the only protective factor (HR = 0.616; 95%CI = 0.54-0.69; p<0.001).CONCLUSION:Curative approaches may guarantee long-term survival in case of recurrence.

BACKGROUND:We aimed to assess the ability of comprehensive complication index (CCI) and Clavien-Dindo complication (CDC) scale to predict excessive length of hospital stay (e-LOS) in patients undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS:Patients were identified from an Italian multi-institutional database and randomly selected to be included in either a derivation or validation set. Multivariate logistic regression models and ROC curve analysis including either CCI or CDC as predictors of e-LOS were fitted to compare predictive performance. E-LOS was defined as a LOS longer than the 75th percentile among patients with at least one complication. RESULTS:A total of 2669 patients were analyzed (1345 for derivation and 1324 for validation). The odds ratio (OR) was 5.590 (95%CI 4.201; 7.438) for CCI and 5.507 (4.152; 7.304) for CDC. The AUC was 0.964 for CCI and 0.893 for CDC in the derivation set and 0.962 vs. 0.890 in the validation set, respectively. In patients with at least two complications, the OR was 2.793 (1.896; 4.115) for CCI and 2.439 (1.666; 3.570) for CDC with an AUC of 0.850 and 0.673, respectively in the derivation cohort. The AUC was 0.806 for CCI and 0.658 for CDC in the validation set. CONCLUSIONS:When reporting postoperative morbidity in liver surgery, CCI is a preferable scale.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate correlation between centers’ volume and incidence of failure to rescue (FTR) following liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Summary Background Data: FTR, defined as the probability of postoperative death among patients with major complication, has been proposed to assess quality of care during hospitalization. Perioperative management is challenging in cirrhotic patients and the ability to recognize and treat a complication may be fundamental to rescue patients from the risk of death. Methods: Patients undergoing liver resection for HCC between 2008 and 2018 in 18 Centers enrolled in the He.Rc.O.Le.S. Italian register. Early results included major complications (Clavien ≥3), 90-day mortality, and FTR and were analyzed according to center's volume. Results: Among 1935 included patients, major complication rate was 9.4% (8.6%, 12.3%, and 7.0% for low-, intermediate- and high-volume centers, respectively, P = 0.001). Ninety-day mortality rate was 2.6% (3.7%, 4.2% and 0.9% for low-, intermediate- and high-volume centers, respectively, P < 0.001). FTR was significantly higher at low- and intermediate-volume centers (28.6% and 26.5%, respectively) than at high-volume centers (6.1%, P = 0.002). Independent predictors for major complications were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) >2, portal hypertension, intraoperative blood transfusions, and center's volume. Independent predictors for 90-day mortality were ASA >2, Child-Pugh score B, BCLC stage B-C, and center's volume. Center's volume and BCLC stage were strongly associated with FTR. Conclusions: Risk of major complications and mortality was related with comorbidities, cirrhosis severity, and complexity of surgery. These factors were not correlated with FTR. Center's volume was the only independent predictor related with severe complications, mortality, and FTR.

Background Intensive medical treatment increases resection rate of liver metastases in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). The effectiveness of liver metastasectomies was evaluated in patients with MCRC who were treated with previously reported FIr-B/FOx (triplet chemotherapy plus bevacizumab). Patients and Methods Fifty patients with MCRC enrolled in the reported phase II study were classified according to involved metastatic sites (liver-only metastatic site, multiple metastatic sites) and the extent of liver metastases (single, multiple). Surgical resectability of liver metastases was evaluated at baseline and every 3 cycles of FIr-B/FOx treatment. The resection rate of liver metastases, activity, and efficacy were evaluated; progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared by using the log-rank test. Results Patients with liver MCRC were 33 of 50 consecutive unselected patients with MCRC: liver limited, 22 patients; multiple metastatic sites, 11 patients. Liver metastasectomies were performed in 13 patients: 26% of 50 patients with MCRC, 39% of 33 patients with liver MCRC. In patients with liver-only MCRC, a secondary liver surgery was performed in 54%: 6 of 9 single and 6 of 13 multiple liver metastases. Also, 1 liver and lung metastasectomy was performed. Pathologic complete responses were achieved in 2 patients (15%). The conversion rate of unresectable liver metastases was 83%. Objective response rate, PFS, OS were, respectively: 84%, 11 and 23 months in 33 liver MCRC; 86%, 17 and 44 months in 22 liver-limited patients. PFS and OS were significantly increased in patients with liver-limited metastases compared with multiple metastatic sites and single compared with multiple liver metastases. Conclusion The FIr-B/FOx regimen may increase the resection rate of liver metastases and improve clinical outcome of patients with liver-only MCRC.

582 Background: Effectiveness of liver metastasectomies was evaluated in liver-MCRC patients treated with FIr-B/FOx association in a previous phase II study (Bruera et al, submitted 2010). METHODS Treatment schedule: 12h-timed-flat-infusion/5-Fluorouracil 900 mg/m2 days 1-2, 8-9, 15-16, 22-23; Irinotecan 160 mg/m2, Bevacizumab 5 mg/kg days 1, 15; Oxaliplatin 80 mg/m2 days 8, 22; every 4 weeks. Resection rate, activity, efficacy were analysed and compared in liver-only versus multiple metastatic sites and single versus multiple liver metastases. RESULTS Liver-MCRC were 33: liver-only 22 patients (67%); multiple metastatic sites 11 patients (33%). Liver metastasectomies were performed in 13 patients (11 R0, 84.6%): 26% of 50 MCRC patients enrolled in the FIr-B/FOx phase II study; 39% of liver-MCRC patients; 54% of liver-only, 6 of 9 (67%) single and 6 of 13 (46%) multiple liver metastases; one liver and lung metastasectomy. Pathologic complete responses (CRs) were 2 (15%); downsizing with modification of surgical resectability, 9 patients (41%); conversion rate of unresectable liver metastases, 83%. Overall activity, including 3 clinical CR, in liver-only patients, 68%. ORR, PFS, OS, respectively: in liver-MCRC patients, 84%, 11 and 23 months; in liver-only metastases, 86%, 17 and 44 months; in liver metastasectomies, 100%, 21 months (PFS from liver surgery 10 months) and 47 months. Significantly increased efficacy: PFS and OS in liver-only versus multiple metastatic sites (p 0.006 and 0.011, respectively) and single versus multiple liver metastasis (p 0.026 and 0.022, respectively). CONCLUSIONS FIr-B/FOx chemotherapy increases resection rate of liver metastases, thus significantly improving efficacy of liver-only MCRC patients. No significant financial relationships to disclose.