Background: Despite advances in treatment, the prognosis of resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma remains poor. Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) has gained great interest in hopes of improving survival. However, the results of available studies based on different treatment approaches, such as chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy, showed contrasting results. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to clarify the benefit of NAT compared to upfront surgery (US) in primarily resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Methods: A PRISMA literature review identified 139 studies, of which 15 were finally included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. All data from eligible articles was summarized in a systematic summary and then used for the meta-analysis. Specifically, we used HR for OS and DFS and risk estimates (odds ratios) for the R0 resection rate and the N+ rate. The risk of bias was correctly assessed according to the nature of the studies included. Results: From the pooled HRs, OS for NAT patients was better, with an HR for death of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72–0.90) at a significance level of less than 1%. In the sub-group analysis, no difference was found between patients treated with chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy exclusively. The meta-analysis of seven studies that reported DFS for NAT resulted in a pooled HR for progression of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.56–0.79) with a significance level of less than 1%. A significantly lower risk of positive lymph nodes (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.32–0.63) and an improved R0 resection rate (OR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.23–2.36) were also found in patients treated with NAT, despite high heterogeneity. Conclusions: NAT is associated with improved survival for patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma; however, the optimal treatment strategy has yet to be defined, and further studies are required.

Body composition profiling is gaining attention as a pre-operative factor that can play a role in predicting the short- and long- term outcomes of patients undergoing oncologic liver surgery. Existing evidence is mostly limited to retrospective and single-institution series and in many of these studies, the evaluation of body composition is based on parameters which are derived from CT-scan imaging. Among body composition phenotypes, sarcopenia is the most well studied but this is only one of the possible profiles which can impact the outcomes of oncologic hepatic surgery. Interest has recently grown in studying the effect of sarcopenic obesity, central obesity, or visceral fat amount, myosteatosis, and bone mineral density on -such patients. The objective of this review is to summarize the current evidence on whether imaging-based parameters of body composition have an impact on the outcome of patients undergoing liver surgery for each of the most frequent indications for liver resection in clinical practice: hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).

Background: Robotic (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) provide similar short-term outcomes, but data focused on recurrence and survival are still lacking. We hypothesized non-inferior oncologic results of RLR compared to LLR for HCC of stage BCLC 0-A. Methods: RLRs and LLRs on patients with HCC of stage BCLC 0-A and preserved liver function (Child A or B if cirrhosis) were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to mitigate selection bias. The primary endpoints were recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were incidence, pattern, and treatment of recurrences. Results: After 1:1 PSM, two groups (RLR = 68; LLR = 68) of patients with similar characteristics, liver function and HCC features were obtained: median age 71-years, males 73.5%, underlying cirrhosis 91.2% (Child A, 96.8%, MELD ≤ 9, 96.0%), portal hypertension 22.1%, single-HCC 90.4%. Two- and 5-year RFS were 78.0 vs 59.0% and 54.0 vs 53.0% (p = 0.107), while OS was 97.0 vs 90.0% and 87.0 vs 90.0% (p = 0.951) for RLR vs LLR, respectively. Incidence of HCC recurrence was similar (35.3 vs 39.7%; p = 0.723). Recurrences developed mostly within the liver (29.4 vs 30.9%; p = 1.000) and within 2 years after hepatectomy (19.1 vs 32.4%, p = 0.116) in RLR vs LLRs. Curative-intent treatment of recurrences did not differ (liver transplantation 19.6%, redo-resection 15.7%, locoregional treatments 52.9%) except for a tendency toward more redo-resections for recurrences after RLR. Conclusions: Oncologic outcomes of RLR were not inferior to those of LLR in selected HCC patients of stage BCLC 0-A with underlying cirrhosis. Both techniques guaranteed similar salvageability in case of HCC recurrence.

Repeat hepatectomies are challenging due to adhesions and altered anatomy. Robotic surgery, with enhanced dexterity and visualization, may expand the role of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) in this setting. The aim of this study was to explore the safety and efficacy of robotic repeat hepatectomy. We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing repeat robotic (R-RLR), laparoscopic (L-RLR), and open liver resections (O-RLR) performed between January 2019 and December 2024. The primary outcome was postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included conversion to laparotomy, use of Pringle maneuver, blood loss, hospital stay and postoperative mortality. For oncologic efficacy, rates of negative surgical margins (R0) or equivalent (R1 vascular), recurrences and survival were assessed. Forty-two patients underwent repeat hepatectomy (O-RLR = 15, L-RLR = 13, R-RLR = 14). Over time, O-RLR and L-RLR declined in favor of R-RLR. Main indications were colorectal liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma. Groups had similar age and comorbidities; however, cirrhosis and portal hypertension were more frequent in R-RLR. Mean Iwate scores were 6 (O-RLR), 4 (L-RLR), and 5 (R-RLR) (p = 0.240). Postoperative morbidity was significantly lower in L-RLR (7.6%) and R-RLR (7.7%) compared to O-RLR (40%) (p = 0.030). Mean Comprehensive Complication Index was 11.7 (O-RLR), 0.7 (L-RLR), and 0.6 (R-RLR) (p = 0.025). Two L-RLR cases required conversion. Pringle maneuver, blood loss, and hospital stay decreased progressively from O-RLR to L-RLR to R-RLR. There was no postoperative mortality.R0 resection was achieved in 73% (O-RLR), 100% (L-RLR), and 78.5% (R-RLR); R1 vascular rates were 13.3%, 0%, and 21.5%, respectively (p = 0.14). The three groups had similar overall and hepatic recurrence rates; survival (recurrence-free and overall) was also similar. Repeat robotic hepatectomy is safe and provides good oncologic outcomes. The robotic approach may allow MILS in more complex cases, including patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension.

The management of de novo kidney tumors (DKTs) after liver transplantation (LT) is challenging due to previous transplant surgery and calcineurin inhibitors (CNI)-related nephrotoxicity. Minimally invasive renal-sparing strategies like robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) are favored, but a transperitoneal approach may be limited by the previous transplant surgery and the location of the DKT; in such cases, CT-guided cryoablation may be an alternative option. In this retrospective cohort study, we aimed to compare RPN and cryoablation for the treatment of DKT in LT recipients. The primary endpoints were the efficacy (R0 resection in RPN, absence of the tumor at first follow-up for cryoablation) and the safety of the procedures (postoperative morbidity and increase in creatine level). The periprocedural costs and the oncologic efficacy (recurrence and overall survival) were the secondary endpoints. Twelve LT recipients (91.7% males, mean age 65 years) underwent RPN (n = 6) or cryoablation (n = 6) for DKT; the median interval between LT and diagnosis of DKT was 142.5 vs. 117.5 months, respectively. Efficacy was obtained in all patients after RPN and cryoablation. Postoperative morbidity was 16.7% in each group, and the postoperative increase in creatinine values was similar. Hospital stay was shorter following cryoablation vs. RPN (3.1 vs. 6.7 days; p = 0.03). The mean procedural costs were higher for RPN. There was no mortality and none of the patients had signs of recurrence after a median follow-up of 40.5 months. Both RPN and CT-guided cryoablation were safe and effective for the treatment of selected patients with DKT after LT. When applicable, cryoablation may be cost-effective and provide faster recovery.