The guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer crudely state that the best local treatment should be selected from a ‘toolbox’ of techniques according to patient- and treatment-related factors. We created an interdisciplinary, consensus-based algorithm with specific resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). To pursue consensus, members of the multidisciplinary COLLISION and COLDFIRE trial expert panel employed the RAND appropriateness method (RAM). Statements regarding patient, disease, tumor and treatment characteristics were categorized as appropriate, equipoise or inappropriate. Patients with ECOG≤2, ASA≤3 and Charlson comorbidity index ≤8 should be considered fit for curative-intent local therapy. When easily resectable and/or ablatable (stage IVa), (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy is not indicated. When requiring major hepatectomy (stage IVb), neo-adjuvant systemic therapy is appropriate for early metachronous disease and to reduce procedural risk. To downstage patients (stage IVc), downsizing induction systemic therapy and/or future remnant augmentation is advised. Disease can only be deemed permanently unsuitable for local therapy if downstaging failed (stage IVd). Liver resection remains the gold standard. Thermal ablation is reserved for unresectable CRLM, deep-seated resectable CRLM and can be considered when patients are in poor health. Irreversible electroporation and stereotactic body radiotherapy can be considered for unresectable perihilar and perivascular CRLM 0-5cm. This consensus document provides per-patient and per-tumor resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of CRLM. These criteria are intended to aid tumor board discussions, improve consistency when designing prospective trials and advance intersociety communications. Areas where consensus is lacking warrant future comparative studies.

Drug-coated balloons in below-the-knee arteries in patients with critical limb ischemia conferred no benefit over conventional balloon angioplasty in 6-month primary patency, with poorer amputation... Background There is a paucity of randomized trials demonstrating superior efficacy of drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCBA) compared with conventional percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) f...

Liver malignancies are a major burden of disease worldwide. The long-term prognosis for patients with unresectable tumors remains poor, despite advances in systemic chemotherapy, targeted agents, and minimally invasive therapies such as ablation, chemoembolization, and radioembolization. Thus, the demand for new and better treatments for malignant liver tumors remains high. Surgical isolated hepatic perfusion (IHP) has been shown to be effective in patients with various hepatic malignancies, but is complex, associated with high complication rates and not repeatable. Percutaneous isolated liver perfusion (PHP) is a novel minimally invasive, repeatable, and safer alternative to IHP. PHP is rapidly gaining interest and the number of procedures performed in Europe now exceeds 200. This review discusses the indications, technique and patient management of PHP and provides an overview of the available data.

Introduction Percutaneous hepatic perfusion (PHP) with melphalan is an effective treatment for patients with hepatic metastases, but associated with high rates of bone marrow depression. To reduce systemic toxicity, improvements have been made to the filtration system. In pre-clinical studies, the Delcath System’s GEN2 filter was superior to the first-generation filters. In this clinical study, we analysed the pharmacokinetics and toxicity of PHP using the new GEN2 filter. Methods and Materials Starting February 2014, two prospective phase II studies were initiated in patients with hepatic metastases from ocular melanoma or colorectal cancer. In 10 PHP procedures performed in the first 7 enrolled patients, blood samples were obtained to determine filter efficiency and systemic drug exposure. PHP was performed with melphalan 3 mg/kg with a maximum of 220 mg. Complications were assessed according to CTCAE v4.03. Response was assessed according to RECIST 1.1. Results Pharmacokinetic analysis of blood samples showed an overall filter efficiency of 86% (range 71.1–95.5%). The mean filter efficiency decreased from 95.4% 10 min after the start of melphalan infusion to 77.5% at the end of the procedure (p = 0.051). Bone marrow depression was seen after up to 80.0% of 10 procedures, but was self-limiting and mostly asymptomatic. No hypotension-related complications or procedure-related mortality occurred. Conclusion The GEN2 filter has a higher melphalan filter efficiency compared to the first-generation filters and a more consistent performance. PHP with the GEN2 filter appears to have an acceptable safety profile, but this needs further validation in larger studies.

Interventional radiology (IR) procedures are associated with high rates of preparation and planning errors. In many centers, pre-procedural consultation and screening of patients is performed by referring physicians. Interventional radiologists have better knowledge about procedure details and risks, but often only get acquainted with the patient in the procedure room. We hypothesized that patient safety (PS) and patient satisfaction (PSAT) in elective IR procedures would improve by implementation of a pre-procedural visit to an outpatient IR clinic.