Primary liver cancer—including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC)—incidence is increasing and is an important source of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Management of these cancers, even when localized, is challenging due to the association with underlying liver disease and the complex anatomy of the liver. Although for ICC, surgical resection provides the only potential cure, for HCC, the risks and benefits of the multiple curative intent options must be considered to individualize treatment based upon tumor factors, baseline liver function, and the functional status of the patient. The principles of surgical resection for both HCC and ICC include margin-negative resections with preservation of adequate function of the residual liver. As the safety of surgical resection has improved in recent years, the role of liver resection for HCC has expanded to include selected patients with preserved liver function and small tumors (ablation as an alternative), tumors within Milan criteria (transplant as an alternative), and patients with large (>5 cm) and giant (>10 cm) HCC or with poor prognostic features (for whom surgery is infrequently offered) due to a survival benefit with resection for selected patients. An important surgical consideration specifically for ICC includes the high risk of nodal metastasis, for which portal lymphadenectomy is recommended at the time of hepatectomy for staging. For both diseases, onco-surgical strategies including portal vein embolization and parenchymal-sparing resections have increased the number of patients eligible for curative liver resection by improving patient outcomes. Multidisciplinary evaluation is critical in the management of patients with primary liver cancer to provide and coordinate the best treatments possible for these patients.

Preoperative portal vein embolization (PVE) is used to extend the indications for major hepatic resection, and it has become the standard of care for selected patients with hepatic malignancies treated at major hepatobiliary centers. To date, various techniques with different embolic materials have been used with similar results in the degree of liver hypertrophy. Regardless of the specific strategy used, both surgeons and interventional radiologists must be familiar with each other’s techniques to be able to create the optimal plan for each individual patient. Knowledge of the segmental anatomy of the liver is paramount to fully understand the liver segments that need to be embolized and resected. Understanding the portal vein anatomy and the branching variations, along with the techniques used to transect the portal vein during hepatic resection, is important because these variables can affect the PVE procedure and the eventual surgical resection. Comprehension of the advantages and disadvantages of approaches to the portal venous system and the various embolic materials used for PVE is essential to best tailor the procedures for each patient and to avoid complications. Before PVE, meticulous assessment of the portal vein branching anatomy is performed with cross-sectional imaging, and embolization strategies are developed based on the patient’s anatomy. The PVE procedure consists of several technical steps, and knowledge of these technical tips, potential complications and how to avoid the complications in each step is of great importance for safe and successful PVE, and ultimately successful hepatectomy. Because PVE is used as an adjunct to planned hepatic resection, priority must always be placed on safety, without compromising the integrity of the future liver remnant, and close collaboration between interventional radiologists and hepatobiliary surgeons is essential to achieve successful outcomes.

Background: Surgery is the only curative option for patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NET) and is also indicated for debulking of liver metastasis. Intraoperative carcinoid crisis (CC) is thought to be a potentially lethal complication. Though perioperative octreotide is often recommended for prevention, recent NET society guidelines raised concerns regarding limited data supporting its use. We sought to evaluate existing evidence characterizing CC and evaluating the efficacy of prophylactic octreotide. Methods: A systematic review was performed on studies including patients having surgery for well-differentiated NET and/or NET liver metastasis (2000–2021), and reporting data on the incidence, risk factors, or prognosis of CC, and/or use of prophylactic octreotide. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models. Results: Eight studies met inclusion criteria (n = 943 operations). The pooled incidence of CC was 19% (95% CI [0.06–0.36]). Liver metastasis (odds ratio 2.85 [1.49–5.47]) and gender (male 0.58 [0.34–0.99]) were the only significant risk factors. The occurrence of CC was associated with increased risk of major postoperative complications (2.12 [1.03–4.35]). The use of prophylactic octreotide was not associated with decreased risk of CC (0.73 [0.32–1.66]). Notably, there was no standard prophylactic octreotide strategy used. Conclusions: Intraoperative carcinoid crisis is a common complication occurring in up to 20% of patients with midgut NET and/or liver metastasis undergoing surgery. Prophylactic octreotide may not provide an efficient way to prevent this complication. Future studies should focus on prospective evaluation of well-defined prophylactic protocols using a standardized definition for CC.