The use of neoadjuvant lobar radioembolization prior to major hepatic resection for malignancy results in a low rate of post hepatectomy liver failure

BackgroundNeoadjuvant yttrium-90 transarterial radioembolization (TARE) is increasingly being used as a strategy to facilitate resection of otherwise unresectable tumors due to its ability to generate both tumor response and remnant liver hypertrophy. Perioperative outcomes after the use of neoadjuvant lobar TARE remain underinvestigated.MethodsA single center retrospective review of patients who underwent lobar TARE prior to major hepatectomy for primary or metastatic liver cancer between 2007 and 2018 was conducted. Baseline demographics, radioembolization parameters, pre- and post-radioembolization volumetrics, intra-operative surgical data, adverse events, and post-operative outcomes were analyzed.ResultsTwenty-six patients underwent major hepatectomy after neoadjuvant lobar TARE. The mean age was 58.3 years (17–88 years). 62% of patients (n=16) had primary liver malignancies while the remainder had metastatic disease. Liver resection included right hepatectomy or trisegmentectomy, left or extended left hepatectomy, and sectorectomy/segmentectomy in 77% (n=20), 8% (n=2), and 15% (n=4) of patients, respectively. The mean length of stay was 8.3 days (range, 3–33 days) and there were no grade IV morbidities or 90-day mortalities. The incidence of post hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) was 3.8% (n=1). The median time to progression after resection was 4.5 months (range, 3.3–10 months). Twenty-three percent (n=6) of patients had no recurrence. The median survival was 28.9 months (range, 16.9–46.8 months) from major hepatectomy and 37.6 months (range, 25.2–53.1 months) from TARE.ConclusionsMajor hepatectomy after neoadjuvant lobar radioembolization is safe with a low incidence of PHLF.     

What to expect when you're expecting a hepatopancreatobiliary surgeon: self-reported experiences of HPB surgeons from different training pathways

BackgroundHepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery fellowship training has multiple paths. Prospective trainees and employers must understand the differences between training pathways. This study examines self-reported fellowship experiences and current scope of practice across three pathways.MethodsAn online survey was disseminated to 654 surgeons. These included active Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (AHPBA) members and recent graduates of HPB, transplant–HPB and HPB–heavy surgical oncology fellowships.ResultsA total of 416 (64%) surgeons responded. Most respondents were male (89%) and most were practising in an academic setting (83%). 290 (70%) respondents underwent formal fellowship training. Although fellowship experiences varied, current practice was largely similar. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and ultrasound were the most commonly identified areas of training deficiencies and were, respectively, cited as such by 47% and 34% of HPB-, 49% and 50% of transplant-, and 52% and 25% of surgical oncology-trained respondents. Non-HPB cases performed in current practice included gastrointestinal (GI) and general surgery cases (56% and 49%, respectively) for HPB-trained respondents, transplant and general surgery cases (87% and 21%, respectively) for transplant-trained respondents, and GI surgery and non-HPB surgical oncology cases (70% and 28%, respectively) for surgical oncology-trained respondents.ConclusionsFellowship training in HPB surgery varies by training pathway. Training in MIS and ultrasound is deficient in each pathway. The ultimate scope of non-transplant HPB practice appears similar across training pathways. Thus, training pathway choice is best guided by the training experience desired and non-HPB components of anticipated practice.     

Variables associated with subjective cognitive change among Iraq and Afghanistan war Veterans with blast-related mild traumatic brain injury

Introduction: This study investigated variables associated with subjective decline in executive function among Veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and New Dawn (OEF/OIF/OND) following a history of blast-related mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI).

Method: Fifty-six male U.S. Veterans (M_Age = 35.3 ± 8.8 years) with a history of blast-related mTBI (6.6 ± 3.2 years post injury) completed a battery of self-report questionnaires and neuropsychological measures. Participants rated current and retrospectively estimated pre-mTBI executive function difficulties on the Frontal Systems Behavior Scale (FrSBe). A difference score (post- minus pre-mTBI ratings) was the dependent variable (?FrSBe). Linear regression models examined variables predicting ?FrSBe, including: pre-injury characteristics (education, premorbid intelligence), injury-related characteristics (number of blast exposures, losses of consciousness), post-injury clinical symptoms (PTSD Checklist–Military version; Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index), and post-injury neuropsychological performances on executive function measures (Trail Making Test Part B; Controlled Oral Word Association Test; Auditory Consonant Trigrams; Wisconsin Card Sorting Test).

Results: While 11% of participants had a clinically elevated pre-injury FrSBe total score, 82% had a clinically elevated post-injury FrSBe total score. Only self-reported PTSD symptom severity independently predicted perceived change in executive function.

Conclusions: Many OEF/OIF/OND Veterans with a history of blast-related mTBI experience subjective decline in executive function following injury. Perceived executive function decline was associated with higher PTSD symptom severity, aligning with previous research associating PTSD with cognitive complaints. Results did not support a correspondence between perceived cognitive change and neuropsychological performances.