ALPPS Offers a Better Chance of Complete Resection in Patients with Primarily Unresectable Liver Tumors Compared with Conventional‐Staged Hepatectomies: Results of a Multicenter Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Portal vein occlusion to increase the size of the future liver remnant (FLR) is well established, using portal vein ligation (PVL) or embolization (PVE) followed by resection 4-8 weeks later. Associating liver partition with portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) combines PVL and complete parenchymal transection, followed by hepatectomy within 1-2 weeks. ALPPS has been recently introduced but remains controversial. We compare the ability of ALPPS versus PVE or PVL for complete tumor resection. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing ALPPS or conventional staged hepatectomies using PVL or PVE at four high-volume HPB centres between 2003 and 2012 was performed. Patients with primary liver tumors and liver metastases were included. Primary endpoint was complete tumor resection. Secondary endpoints include 90-day mortality, complications, FLR increase, time to resection, and tumor recurrence. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients with ALPPS were compared with 83 patients with conventional-staged hepatectomies. Eighty-three percent (40/48 patients) of ALPPS patients achieved complete resection compared with 66 % (55/83 patients) in PVE/PVL (odds ratio 3.34, p = 0.027). Ninety-day mortality in ALPPS and PVE/PVL was 15 and 6 %, respectively (p = 0.2). Extrapolated growth rate was 11 times higher in ALPPS (34.8 cc/day; interquartile range (IQR) 26-49) compared with PVE/PVL (3 cc/day; IQR2-6; p = 0.001). Tumor recurrence at 1 year was 54 versus 52 % for ALPPS and PVE/PVL, respectively (p = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that ALPPS offers a better chance of complete resection in patients with primarily unresectable liver tumors at the cost of a high mortality. The technique is promising but should currently not be used outside of studies and registries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".