Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a rare and heterogeneous biliary cancer, whose incidence and related mortality is increasing. This study investigates the clinical course of CCA and subtypes (intrahepatic [iCCA], perihilar [pCCA], and distal [dCCA]) in a pan-European cohort. The ENSCCA Registry is a multicenter observational study. Patients were included if they had a histologically proven diagnosis of CCA between 2010-2019. Demographic, histomorphological, biochemical, and clinical studies were performed. Overall, 2,234 patients were enrolled (male/female=1.29). iCCA (n = 1,243) was associated with overweight/obesity and chronic liver diseases involving cirrhosis and/or viral hepatitis; pCCA (n = 592) with primary sclerosing cholangitis; and dCCA (n = 399) with choledocholithiasis. At diagnosis, 42.2% of patients had local disease, 29.4% locally advanced disease (LAD), and 28.4% metastatic disease (MD). Serum CEA and CA19-9 showed low diagnostic sensitivity, but their concomitant elevation was associated with increased risk of presenting with LAD (odds ratio 2.16; 95% CI 1.43-3.27) or MD (odds ratio 5.88; 95% CI 3.69-9.25). Patients undergoing resection (50.3%) had the best outcomes, particularly with negative-resection margin (R0) (median overall survival [mOS] = 45.1 months); however, margin involvement (R1) (hazard ratio 1.92; 95% CI 1.53-2.41; mOS = 24.7 months) and lymph node invasion (hazard ratio 2.13; 95% CI 1.55-2.94; mOS = 23.3 months) compromised prognosis. Among patients with unresectable disease (49.6%), the mOS was 10.6 months for those receiving active palliative therapies, mostly chemotherapy (26.2%), and 4.0 months for those receiving best supportive care (20.6%). iCCAs were associated with worse outcomes than p/dCCAs. ECOG performance status, MD and CA19-9 were independent prognostic factors. CCA is frequently diagnosed at an advanced stage, a proportion of patients fail to receive cancer-specific therapies, and prognosis remains dismal. Identification of preventable risk factors and implementation of surveillance in high-risk populations are required to decrease cancer-related mortality. This is, to date, the largest international (pan-European: 26 hospitals and 11 countries) observational study, in which the course of cholangiocarcinoma has been investigated, comparing the 3 subtypes based on the latest International Classification of Diseases 11^th Edition (ICD-11) (i.e., intrahepatic [2C12], perihilar [2C18], or distal [2C15] affected bile ducts), which come into effect in 2022. General and tumor-type specific features at diagnosis, risk factors, biomarker accuracy, as well as patient management and outcomes, are presented and compared, outlining the current clinical state of cholangiocarcinoma in Europe.

Background: Posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) contributes significantly to morbidity and mortality after liver surgery. Standardized assessment of preoperative liver function is crucial to identify patients at risk. These European consensus guidelines provide guidance for preoperative patient assessment. Methods: A modified Delphi approach was used to achieve consensus. The expert panel consisted of hepatobiliary surgeons, radiologists, nuclear medicine specialists, and hepatologists. The guideline process was supervised by a methodologist and reviewed by a patient representative. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane library, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry. Evidence assessment and statement development followed Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology. Results: Based on 271 publications covering 4 key areas, 21 statements (at least 85 per cent agreement) were produced (median level of evidence 2− to 2+). Only a few systematic reviews (2++) and one RCT (1+) were identified. Preoperative liver function assessment should be considered before complex resections, and in patients with suspected or known underlying liver disease, or chemotherapy-associated or drug-induced liver injury. Clinical assessment and blood-based scores reflecting liver function or portal hypertension (for example albumin/bilirubin, platelet count) aid in identifying risk of PHLF. Volumetry of the future liver remnant represents the foundation for assessment, and can be combined with indocyanine green clearance or LiMAx® according to local expertise and availability. Functional MRI and liver scintigraphy are alternatives, combining FLR volume and function in one examination. Conclusion: These guidelines reflect established methods to assess preoperative liver function and PHLF risk, and have uncovered evidence gaps of interest for future research.

Introduction: Despite important advances in many areas of hepatobiliary surgical practice during the past decades, posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) still represents an important clinical challenge for the hepatobiliary surgeon. The aim of this review is to present the current body of evidence regarding different aspects of PHLF.Methods: A literature review was conducted to identify relevant articles for each topic of PHLF covered in this review. The literature search was performed using Medical Subject Heading terms on PubMed for articles on PHLF in English until May 2022.Results: Uniform reporting on PHLF is lacking due to the use of various definitions in the literature. There is no consensus on optimal preoperative assessment before major hepatectomy to avoid PHLF, although many try to estimate future liver remnant function. Once PHLF occurs, there is still no effective treatment, except liver transplantation, where the reported experience is limited.Discussion: Strict adherence to one definition is advised when reporting data on PHLF. The use of the International Study Group of Liver Surgery criteria of PHLF is recommended. There is still no widespread established method for future liver remnant function assessment. Liver transplantation is currently the only effective way to treat severe, intractable PHLF, but for many indications, this treatment is not available in most countries.

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.

Background: The risk of death after surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is high; nearly one in every five patients dies within 90 days after surgery. When the oncological benefit is limited, a high-risk resection may not be justified. This retrospective cohort study aimed to create two preoperative prognostic models to predict 90-day mortality and overall survival (OS) after major liver resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.Methods: Separate models were built with factors known before surgery using multivariable regression analysis for 90-day mortality and OS. Patients were categorized in three groups: favourable profile for surgical resection (90-day mortality rate below 10 per cent and predicted OS more than 3 years), unfavourable profile (90-day mortality rate above 25 per cent and/or predicted OS below 1.5 years), and an intermediate group.Results: A total of 1673 patients were included. Independent risk factors for both 90-day mortality and OS included ASA grade III–IV, large tumour diameter, and right-sided hepatectomy. Additional risk factors for 90-day mortality were advanced age and preoperative cholangitis; those for long-term OS were high BMI, preoperative jaundice, Bismuth IV, and hepatic artery involvement. In total, 294 patients (17.6 per cent) had a favourable risk profile for surgery (90-day mortality rate 5.8 per cent and median OS 42 months), 271 patients (16.2 per cent) an unfavourable risk profile (90-day mortality rate 26.8 per cent and median OS 16 months), and 1108 patients (66.2 per cent) an intermediate risk profile (90-day mortality rate 12.5 per cent and median OS 27 months).Conclusion: Preoperative risk models for 90-day mortality and OS can help identify patients with resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma who are unlikely to benefit from surgical resection. Tailored shared decision-making is particularly essential for the large intermediate group.

Background: Lymph node metastasis and positive resection margins have been reported to be major determinants of overall survival (OS) and poor recurrence-free survival (RFS) for patients who underwent resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA). However, the prognostic value of positive lymph nodes independently from resection margin status on OS has not been evaluated. Methods: From the European Cholangiocarcinoma (ENSCCA) registry, patients who underwent resection for pCCA between 1994 and 2021 were included in this retrospective cohort study. The primary outcome was OS stratified for resection margin and lymph node status. The secondary outcome was recurrence-free survival. Results: A total of 325 patients from 11 different centers and six European countries were included. Of these, 194 (59.7%) patients had negative resection margins. In 113 (34.8%) patients, positive lymph nodes were found. Lymph node status, histological grade, and ECOG performance status were independent prognostic factors for survival. The median OS for N0R0, N0R1, N+R0, and N+R1 was 38, 30, 18, and 12 months, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusion: These data indicate that in the presence of positive regional lymph nodes, resection margin status does not determine OS or RFS in patients with pCCA. Achieving negative margins in patients with positive nodes should not come at the expense of more extensive surgery and associated higher mortality.