In conclusion, PSH resection for bilobar multiple CLMs represents a valid alternative to NON-PSH resection in selected patients with a reduced morbidity and comparable oncological results.

Purpose: Using a standardized specimen protocol analysis, this study aimed to evaluate the resection margin status of patients who underwent resection for either distal cholangiocarcinoma (DC) or pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This allowed a precise millimetric analysis of each inked margin. Methods: From 2010 to 2018, 355 consecutively inked specimens from patients with PDAC (n = 288) or DC (n = 67) were prospectively assessed. We assessed relationships between the tumor and the following margins: transection of the pancreatic neck, bile duct, posterior surface, margin toward superior mesenteric artery, and the surface of superior mesenteric vein/portal vein groove. Resection margins were evaluated using a predefined cut-off value of 1 mm; however, clearances of 0 and 1.5 mm were also evaluated. Results: Patients with DC were mostly men (64% vs. 49%, p = 0.028), of older age (68 yo vs. 65, p = 0.033), required biliary stenting more frequently (93% vs. 77%, p < 0.01), and received less neoadjuvant treatment (p < 0.001) than patients with PDAC. The venous resection rate was higher among patients with PDAC (p = 0.028). Postoperative and 90-day mortality rates were comparable. Patients with PDAC had greater tumor size (28.6 vs. 24 mm, p = 0.01) than those with DC. The R1 resection rate was comparable between the two groups, regardless of the clearance margin. Among the three types of resection margins, a venous groove was the most frequent in both entities. In multivariate analysis, the R1 resection margin did not influence patient survival in either PDAC or DC. Conclusion: Our standardized specimen protocol analysis showed that the R1 resection rate was comparable in PDAC and DC.

Sorafenib improves survival and is superior to the BSC in cases of untreatable posttransplant hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence.

Background & Aims: The main restriction in the development of adult-adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation (LDLT) is the risk of morbidity and mortality for donors, which raises ethical questions. The objectives of this study are to review published studies dealing with morbidity and mortality in LDLT and to identify the proposed management and strategies for preventing donor mortality and morbidity in LDLT.Methods: The Medline database was searched from 2000 to 2017 using the MeSH terms “liver transplantation” and “morbidity” or “mortality” in combination with keywords “living donor liver transplantation”.Results: Among the 382 articles obtained, 43 articles were relevant for morbidity, 15 for mortality and 6 for both morbidity and mortality. Twenty-three papers reported donor deaths. The major cause of death was sepsis (30%). Morbidity ranged from 10% to 78.3% depending on the studies.Conclusions: The living donors’ morbidity and mortality is high, currently representing the main restriction in the development of LDLT. Some promising techniques, such as the donor portal vein flow modulation could lead to the further development of LDLT.