Advanced surgical treatments for CRC liver mets
DocTalk
2021
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
Liver
Surgery
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro from the University of Rochester Medical Center presents  “Why Liver Surgeons have mCRC Running Scared” in this Doc Talk, recorded for COLONTOWN in April, 2021.
Transcript
Betsy Post 0:02
Welcome everyone. My name is Betsy Post. I am here as a member of COLONTOWN and really, really excited about tonight’s program. So we’re really happy to have Dr Hernandez with us tonight from the University of Rochester, and he’s going to talk all about why liver surgeons have metastatic colorectal cancer, liver metastasis, running scared, and about a lot of the advanced surgical treatment options for liver mets. So we’re so glad you could all join us. So I just want to thank Dr Hernandez very much and give you a little bit of information about his background. I know he’s going to do that as well. So just a little bit about our speaker tonight, his experience, his extensive education and background. So he is the chief of the Division of transplantation at the University of Rochester. For all the Canadians out there, he came to North America via Mexico and then Canada, and then he has all these qualifications around the world. In Japan, for example, he’s published over 110 peer reviewed publications, and impressively, also on the editorial board for the Annals of Surgery. Also, just wanting everyone to know that these are some additional qualifications, and we’re going to hear about alps tonight. A lot of people had questions about that. He was actually the first person to perform Alps in North America. So he is a recognized team leader, innovator and mentor. We’re so pleased to have him. We thank him so much for his time, not only tonight, but everything he does for COLONTOWN and all of our patients and caregivers every day. So I’m going to turn it over to him, Dr Hernandez, thank you so much for being here.
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro 2:08
Well, hello everyone. This is, I am Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro, it’s a pleasure to be here. Thank you Betsy for the nice introduction. I have the opportunity of being talking with Julie Kim Lindsey, and I have been witness of over the last few months what has been happening with COLONTOWN, and just observing the communication that all the patients have. And it’s impressive to see this, and I think the work that the leadership of COLONTOWN, including Betsy, do, it’s an it’s outstanding. I want to congratulate them, and especially Betsy, she’s an outstanding advocate for patients and the support that she’s giving. And I think this is a beautiful, innovative and great initiative for for giving hope to patients and guiding them. So I feel pleased and happy to be sharing this time with you. So thank you for coming and making a space in your lives, for giving this talk I’m going to be sharing my screen with all of you, and I think probably Julie already told you what’s going to be the way of doing this, that you can ask questions at the end. So can you see my presentation?
Betsy Post 3:39
Yes, yes, we can see,
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro 3:42
So, so first of all, all the things that I’m going to say, okay, are based on evidence. If I’m going to give an opinion, I’m going to say, This is my thoughts, my opinion. So all the information that I trying to bring with to you, it’s based on evidence in the literature, because I want to be very clear and very transparent, and I don’t want, I’m not using this platform to try to be biased, which I don’t. I think it’s terrible to be biased and and I love helping patients when it’s possible in the operating room, but I think a surgeon should know when, sometimes we shouldn’t operate patients, and what we try to do is to give the best for the best for patients. A little bit about my practice, my practice. I’m a liver surgeon. I have lived in five countries, and I was trained in three countries. And interestingly, I did two parts, which is hepatobiliary, which is the liver cancer component, and liver transplantation. And also I did an extra training in living donor liver transplantation. It’s not common in the United States to have a training in the same person. In both areas of liver cancer and liver transplantation, normally there’s a big barrier that you can see in one side the surgical oncologist and in the other side of transplants. And sometimes there’s some conflicts of between both. So I have that opportunity that I was trained in another way, and I moved to the US around five years ago. I was working many, many years in Canada. The objective of this presentation, for me is to share the evidence based on the information that we have in the literature, and share it with the patients and the caregivers and what I think it’s also the best option for each one. I think personalized medicine is the way of doing things. Each patient is different. Each case is different. So we cannot generalize. And I always tell to my patients when they come to see me in a clinic or when I see them in zoom meetings. Now that we have too many zoom meetings, that my goal I might is develop my best strategy to reach the best outcome in each particular case. I’m in the same boat with all of you and trying to get and do the best. Let’s start with basic things, colorectal cancer, metastasis. This colon cancer is not uncommon, the third most common cancer in the world. You are a very well educated group that I am very impressed, and I have seen you that your knowledge is pretty high on the people that post here. So it’s a very common cancer, and around more than half of the patients at some moment develop liver metastases, whether it’s at the moment that they diagnose or later on, even if they remove the cancer and they give chemo, there’s chance of developing liver metastases. We know that these liver metastases can be only one side, but also the metastasis from colon can go to other places, bones, lungs, even the brain, but the vast majority of this time is only in one site, majority of the time, and from that majority of the time, the organ that is going to be more affected is the liver compared to other organs. The peritoneum is the layer that covers the abdomen, and sometimes it goes there. So we have make a lot of progress over the last two decades, and we have a lot of treatments nowadays for that. And this is the area where I’m focusing completely here. So what is the objective of the treatment for colorectal liver metastasis? And this is something that I want you all to keep in mind always, the objective is to remove all the tumors while leaving enough liver to prevent postoperative liver failure. If someone has 90% of the liver occupied with cancer, I can go and resect it, but if I leave the patient with 10% that’s not going to do well, you know that. So we have to create a strategy on how we’re able to remove the tumors. There’s nothing so far, at this moment better than surgery. There’s nothing again, I’m going to repeat it. There’s nothing so far better than surgery. That has been proved, liver tumors, perhaps, is one of the areas in medicine which has too many novel therapeutics, chemotherapy, the hepatic artery pump. I’m going to talk about that Y90, TACE, ablation, radiation, immunotherapy, we have a lot of things that, and we’re grateful for having that, because those are going to be tools that are going to help us to move to see if we can remove the tumors and later on, surgery or resection is a standard of case. Unfortunately, only around 20% of the patients who have liver metastases are resectable at that moment. Just to mention, I know that a lot of patients here in this group, they go for the ablation, TACE, Y90 there are evidence that ablation could help, not as much as surgery, but can help, especially with those small tumors which are below three centimeters, TACE which is like a directed chemotherapy. Is it hasn’t been shown too much advances, perhaps more response that about with Y90 is has been used for more years in other type of tumors, in the liver, primary tumors, with very good results. External radiation also helps some patients. Not too much evidence, but we can use it. We know more about external radiation with other types of tumors as well, and hepatic artery infusion has created a lot of patients, and it had a boom because it starts showing a lot of conversions. Those patients who were unresectable are able to get a little high conversion with the hepatic artery infusion. And I will talk more about these. This is what doctors, oncologists and surgeons, see many times. And we see more younger people presenting in the clinic with this. This is a CT scan with multiple metastases. You don’t need to be a doctor, a physician, to be able to know that all the segments of the liver are occupied with with cancer, unfortunately, and a lot of the patients that say, well, there’s no option for you. Wait a moment, there could be options. Let’s start mentioning we know what will happen. And this is real data. What will happen if to this patient that we have here, we only give chemotherapy, and that’s it. Chemo. We know that you will help. It will prolong a little bit the survival. And this is what happened. This is the patients, all right, and these horizontal line, it’s going to be the months. So right here we know that is, this is one year, two years, three years. So around five to 10% of the patients who receive chemotherapy only, no surgery only, will be alive at five years. So unfortunately, we will lose a lot during that time. So this is not going to be the answer. This is going to help us. It’s an instrument to help us to get some place. Now I mentioned to you the concept of resectability, so when can you resect? And this is a study when I was in Canada that I participated, and we sent 10 different scenario to top Canadian surgeons. I was participating in that study many years ago, and different patients with different metastasis for example, this one only has two. This one has several. This one only having this left side. And then we asked them, Is this resectable or not? We didn’t give any information about the age or chemotherapy. Just, is this respectable based on chemotherapy? And this is impressive. This is the results all over the place. So in patient number four, a lot of doctors said yes, all the ones say no. And you can see, the more complex the case, the more discrepancy in the results. This is telling a lot to the patients, right? So we did an international study, huge, and probably you will recognize some of your big names here, Magna Angelica, Tanabe Pollic. These are American surgeons, and a lot of international –?– was participating here myself, Schimol Shy in Cincinnati. This is Pol Dock, the big guy in liver transplants in Norway. Yuman Fong. So a lot of doctors here participating and exactly the same, and they were around the world experts and the and the conclusion was, there was a minimal agreement on the therapeutic strategies, a lot of inconsistencies, and patients should consider second and third opinions. And this is something I don’t know, if you have metastasis only in the left side or right side, just location. And they tell you, we’re going to give you key one resected. You know that can be done by many, many surgeons. But if the case is more complex, wait a moment. You need to listen to more. You need to have a better option, that is my advice. And when patients come to see me, I invite them to see other surgeons, and I give names and I give contact information for them, because I want to be sure that that the patient is convinced that they want to do things with me. So when we do surgery combined with chemotherapy. This is data coming from Memorial Sloan Kettering center, and we see here around five years. The difference is, remember, only five to 10% were alive. At five years with chemotherapy, only here, around 50% of the patients will be alive. And if we look at 10 years, perhaps 36% so we can clearly see how surgery will be a huge progress in patients who have liver metastases are are the patients going to be cured or not? Very few are going to be cured. Perhaps around 30% of the patients are going to be cured when we remove the liver metastasis with surgery and combined with chemotherapy. And we all always as patients, we hope we are one of those, but sometimes comes back, we know that 70% chances that it will come back. So why we were able to reach these these good results so far, and I think it has been the evolution of chemotherapy. Many years ago, we didn’t have the good results that we have with chemotherapy, and the response rate nowadays, patients who receive chemotherapy respond around 80% or some of them are have more difficult genetics, and they can and they don’t respond that very well, but we have a lot. I don’t want to, I’m not a medical oncologist, but I know a lot. About this, but FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, bevacizumab, Vectibix, a lot of FOLFIRINOX and a lot of medications that we can use nowadays, and the communication between the surgeon and medical oncologist should be a priority now. We need to be conscious as well. The more chemo we receive, the more injury we’re going to have in the liver. For example, FOLFIRI can create a fatty liver. FOLFOX can create congestion in the liver. Sometimes patients start very strong chemotherapy with a combination of those of two FOLFIRINOX, and then, of course, you have two and you can have some fibrosis. And there’s some patients that they have been alive two, three years of chemotherapy, and they already have some damage in their liver. And there, there’s other things that we can do to help them. So now, can we convert patients with chemotherapy when they are unresectable? And remember, the objective is, can we go to surgery? So if this patient is unresectable, can we convert it and make it resectable? The answer is yes, we can do that, and it’s around 36% of the time. We can make these patients resectable, and their results long term, perhaps, are not as good as the 50% at five years. But this is a study from a huge group, Rene Adam in Paris, France, where they look at those patients were initially unresectable. They give chemo. They got resected. And these patients, 33 survival at five years. So to make it easy to understand this, if we have 100 patients right now on resectable, we get chemo. All of them, we convert them to resectable, we go to the operating room and we operate. 100 patients. 33 will be alive at five years, and in the majority of them, 80% the cancer will be back, but we wouldn’t be able to get these survival if the patient will only give chemotherapy. So there is a huge advantage of surgery. Now I mentioned about the hepatic artery pump, and we know that there’s a higher conversion rate for those patients who were unresectable, and they go to resection. Now, remember, the vast majority of the patients, they receive systemic chemotherapy, like FOLFOX FOLFIRI, plus hepatic artery infusion, and the hepatic artery infusion has pretty good results, and people likes to compare them, and I did this slide, or one of my residents helped me to create this slide. And if we give chemo alone, I mentioned the highest tumor response is 80% the hepatic artery infusion, 92% so you will say, Well, maybe I will go here instead of this one. I have 12% higher chances, and 47% of the patients are able to undergo surgery. If you are unresectable, well, perhaps you want to be here, yes, probably yes. But there’s some, I think, that we have to remember. There are some downsides. And sometimes you don’t need to have too much chemotherapy. With the with the hepatic artery infusion, there are some complications that can happen. And this, this is data coming from Memorial Sloan Kettering Center, which are the big center using this. And there’s a complication rate up to 36% of patients. And there can be a lot of inflammation in the vessels of the of the liver, the portal being the artery, some clots, and a lot of problems that we have seen, and I with the bile docs, that patients can have big problems with hepatic artery infusion on top of the dysfunction that are there. And interestingly, the best results has been in MSK Center. I don’t know if it’s because it’s in a specific area in New York City, and they have these missing results, but it has been very difficult to replicate those results in other places. The results that they have there are kind of very unique. Not sure why. And they train people, they go to other places, they start doing it, and they don’t have the same results. They similar. They go a little bit, but not as more, as good as them. Let’s talk about a topic that a lot of this talk. I let me tell you, I based the talk on what I have seen in the conversation. What happened with a patient received chemotherapy, the patient had, whether is a hepatic artery infusion, or the patient had a systemic chemotherapy, or both, and then the tumor disappears. Patients get excited, and that’s true. It’s good. We want those to get smaller, shrink, to be able to go through surgery, but suddenly, boom, disappear. Are they really gone? Is that true? What is the evidence of that? So if the CT scan is not. Up there, I do an MRI. The MRI is able, sometimes to see more than the CT scan. However, wait a moment, I don’t want you to go with your doctor, ‘so you have to do an MRI’. Sometimes insurance, it’s a problem, or there are some other little things there. But there’s studies that we have done on under the microscopist to review is that tumor disappeared, and with very evidence. And here I put in the article where it comes and this is from 2021 so very recent article is between 47 to 64% of the time. The tumors still exist, despite we don’t see them here, but they are still in the liver. So practically, this is like flipping a coin. This is flipping a coin, the cancer still will be there at least 46-60 something percent. This study from this is kind of the father of the new chemotherapy, Norbinger from France, and he has all these patients who they respond with the metastasis disappear when they operate. These patients, 20 patients, they were able to find the metastases. So they were there in the operating room and when and then the portion of liver that they removed, they were able to see that there were, in some of them, still cancer cells in those spots that were going to CT scan and MRI. So the conclusion was that only 17% of the patients that they operated, they didn’t they really disappear. So this is an important message, not because the cancer is disappearing. The CT scan means that it’s gone. It’s a very important message that I want. Let’s flip and change to a passionate thing that I like. And this is the liver, the surgery. And you know that a surgeon can go and remove 60% of your liver, and with the 40% most likely you will survive. If I go and remove 80% that patient is not going to do well, especially in patients who receive chemotherapy because there’s damage in the liver, or patients who have some cirrhosis or patients who have drug this, they not gonna do well. So what do we do when the portion of the liver that we have to remove is more than 70% and we want that other part of the liver to grow, we use portal vein embolization. And there were people from the group asking, When do you use portal vein embolization? When do you use two stage hepatectomy? When you used Alps? So this is what I’m going to answer here. This is an example of this patient before and after. So this patient received portal vein embolization. This size was small, because you can see a tumor here. So they want to reset all this part of the liver, and then this was going to be small, and then they did embolization, and after six weeks, look at the growth of the liver here and here compared to the top. So now we can go safely and operate the patient and the patient, hopefully is cancer free. That is portal vein embolization, we have to be sure that there’s no tumors in the left side, correct. Because if there are tumors in the left side, maybe we will make those tumors to grow if we do the embolization. So we have to be cautious.
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro 23:27
Now, what is the two stage hepatectomy? We can use the embolization. So, for example, this patient has a big tumor, and we can embolize the vein. And in this other case, has multiple tumors. This is more common in liver metastasis. And we can go in the first stage. We open the patient, we remove with surgery these three lesions. Some surgeons maybe do ablation, not gonna criticize that. If surgery could be possible, it’s better. And then we, ligate the portal vein or embolize it. And then we have to wait six to eight weeks, right? And then, you know, this left side of liver will grow back, and it’s going to be very big. We already resected the tumors and they’re not gone. And then we go back again to surgery and remove the right side, and the patient is free of cancer. That is what is called the two stage hepatectomy. Two operations with a time around two months of that. Now, unfortunately, around 30% of the time when we attempt to do this, it fails. It fails because during the time that we’re waiting the tumor progress, or sometimes the liver is not growing the way that we want. Sometimes there’s too much damage of chemotherapy. So this is what it came the Alps procedure. And this is story of Alps. This is a surgeon Hans Schlitt in Germany who was trying to do the operation cutting the right side of the liver, and then he he find that when he was coming across the liver, the left side was too small. He called one of his colleague and said, Come to the O.R.. Should we do this? And they said, No, the patient is going to die because it’s too small the liver. But at that moment, they already cut the right portal vein, and the liver was divided partially, but it has the artery still in the right side. So they said, Okay, this liver is not going to die. Let’s close the patient. And then they close the patient, and they talk to the family, and the patient was going to be unfortunately, perhaps only palliative. The patient was in hospital, and one week later, the patient developed fever, and they said, well, probably patient has an abscess. They did a CT scan, and bang, the left side of the liver was the double the size, and this was just because they cut part of the liver and they like a portal rate, and that is how Alps was born. And then the Germans did three more cases, and then the Swiss started doing this, and it went big time. And this is an example of what I’m saying. Imagine this is a patient liver. Metastasis are the white things. We divide the liver in the first operation. This is a right portal vein. I use a stapler myself. And then this is the artery. So this right side of the liver still have function as a liver because it has the artery, but not the vein. So all the flow from the vein goes to the left side, where we remove the cancer. And in just 10 days, seven days, it’s impressive, the growth so fast of liver, and then we go back in just one week or 10 days, and remove the right side of the liver. This has been highly criticized, because the reason of this is first it was it took too much time for being accepted in the US. I have the opportunity of doing this first time in in Canada, and I will share with you my experience. And this is what happened. This is a patient where you can see metastasis in the left side and in the right side. This patient needed a right hepatectomy, and I needed to remove this one. So I was going to do it a two stage hepatectomy, the old fashioned way. I didn’t know about Alps. I have no idea that that exists, because it was just happening at that moment. And then I went to the part of the liver was 20% in the left side, so I knew. And I said, All right, I went to the operating room, removed the left side of the liver, the tumor. Now I knew that the left side was free, and I did a portal vein embolization, expecting the left side is going to grow. And then in six weeks, I was going to go back to the operating room and operate on the patient. I went to Miami to a conference, and the Germans were presenting about Alps, and I was, “Wow, I don’t believe what they’re saying, that the liver doesn’t grow that quick”, I came back to my center in Canada, and I did the CT scan of my patient. And the patient, this is didn’t grow the left side. It was only from 20 to 23% so I said, Oh, my God, what I’m going to do. The cancer is not progressed. How can I help this patient? So then they said, Wow, should I do an Alps? I told the patient, while I do transplant, they do live in donor. I think I can do this. The patient trusted me and I did it. And look how it grows from this portion to this. The patient survived seven years and two months, and he had was able to travel to be with his grandchildren and everything. I was already in Rochester, and then I went to visit him, and it was impressive what happened to him. And I published this when I moved to Rochester, and showing that these patients, when we do Alps, they don’t have the best outcomes that we would like to have. But instead of having 10% survival at five years, they can have they they can survive around 30, 30% at five years, better than 5% the cancer will come back in the majority of them, because they have already very advanced disease. And the quality of life of this patient was very good, when we compared to the general population. I’m going to skip this. This is the same thing International, Dr Clavin and myself this. And this is the Alps group. And this is almost 1000 cases of Alps showing the similar survival. Let’s switch very quickly to the important things about genetics, KRAS, TP53 a lot of people and a lot of physicians say, Well, if you have a lot of mutations, that’s a bad thing. Yes, it’s true. We know that it’s more we have to be more cautious with this. This is a paper where the group from MD Anderson, Tom Aloia and Dr Vauthey. They did a lot of studies, and the more mutations that the patient have, of course, is going to be the prognosis, not as good if, but if they’re all the patients have wild type, that means no mutation. The patients are going to do much better if they go for surgery. So this is an important thing, but the worst thing is that there are three mutations or not. So we cannot take rules here just because you have one mutation that’s bad. And I want to say something here. I believe more in the phenotype than the genotype. There are some patients that even can have BRAF mutation, and they do well on chemotherapy. Why not operate on them? I think the only thing that I personally do, and this is my opinion, that’s not based on evidence. Okay, this is the first time that I’m saying something that is not based on evidence, is I just wait more more chemo to that patient and then justify going to the operating room. Those ones who have BRAF, there are some treatments like the waterbreak treatment that is happening with BRAF that I think the study will finish in 2024/25 and hopefully we can have good results for that. And this is what I was saying. So just summarizing a lot of the things that I’m saying, imagine that these are patients who have on receptive or resectable colorectal metastasis. And these are 100 patients. If we only give chemotherapy at five years, only, these ones will survive. If we go chemotherapy and surgery, our number of patients will increase and will have a better outcome. Those ones will receive a hepatic artery infusion, it will grow a little bit more, not much, but they’re more there’s more conversion rate. And then let’s talk about the new kid on the block. I’m passionate about this, and I want to be very clear, this is not for all the patients. This is about transplantation. And people get scared about transplantation. Transplantation sounds like a big thing for a lot of patients, and they said, I don’t want to go through this. And let me tell you, this has been performed in this country. The first liver transplant happened in Denver in this late 60s. We have been doing live donor liver transplantation for almost 30 years, and we are very cautious. Immunosuppression has changed a lot, and I will talk very quick about that. And patients need immunosuppression after the transplant, but the outcomes and the survivals are very good. So not sure if you know. But Norway is the group of surgeons in Oslo who has brought this topic again. This is Pal Dag. I brought him to Rochester because I wanted to push this program on liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis, because I always thought that we could do this, but it was very difficult to develop this in Canada or North America, in North America, in the US, because we have too many regulations. So a lot of things happen in Europe. A lot of innovation happened in Europe. And then we brought it here, and then it goes boom here, and this is what’s going to happen. I can promise you this is going to happen with liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis. So Pal that came here, and we went to the Niagara Falls in the helicopter, and we were having fun with him, and he kind of guides me how we should be doing this. He has a unique opportunity. Why he was able to do this in Norway is because they have too many organs available. They don’t have such a big weight in this like the ones that we have in some other Europeans and North American countries and and it has been a lot of innovation over the last 30 years in transplantation and chemotherapy. So that he said, Well, can we do and help these patients who have unresectable liver metastases, and can we do liver transplant? And these were patients who didn’t have metastasis in the lungs, who didn’t have mets in other places, only in the liver, and they have received some chemotherapy and they have responded. It was a very like kind of flexible criteria that they used at the beginning. To be honest, I think it was too, too much freedom in that. But it was so impressive. Look at this. This is survival of these patients at five years 60% I don’t think I have shown any graph before with surgery showing up better than 64 that 50% this is impressive. Hard to believe. How come this is happening. Yes, it happened. Majority of the patients, the cancer came back. This gray line is the cancer came back. But interestingly, the cancer does not come back in the liver. That often. I will explain that as well in few slides. So when he analyzed all the patients, this is a small. Portion of patients, probably 20-something patients, and they what came with this Oslo score, and they said, If the tumor is less than five and a half centimeters, if the CEA is below 80, is the patient responded to chemotherapy, and if there was more than two years from the diagnosis to the transplant, each one of these has one point, and then if you have zero points or one point, all the patients were alive at five years, if you have two or three points, almost 80% so it was very hard to believe. And this is why, with such a small portion of patients, he was able to publish this in one in the second highest impact factor journal in surgery, and he showed these results impressively. Then he came more strict, because he said, in the in the first trial, he say, I discovered these are the patients we’re going to do well. So now he did the same, but more strict his criteria, with that Oslo score, and all the patients have these survival, 80% at five years, if you follow that criteria, now the cancer is going to come back, perhaps even 30% 25% of the patient might be cured and the cancer won’t come back. And what happened with those that comes back, you can go and resect it again, and there’s no evidence of disease, and the line goes up here. So it was pretty impressive. And, and I trust him, he’s a good gentleman. And this is, this is real, and this is what I do with a lot of patients who discuss this. And I go with this table with the criteria that go, where would you be if you’re here? And these are the criteria that I told you. They also use a very old, more than 20 years ago, criteria that is called Clinical Risk Score, that was developed by the group from Memorial Sloan Kettering center, when John, when Yuman Fong was there, and this is there are five criteria. And also we can go here, and then we can go and see with the patients, hopefully they come here, right in these overall survival that that will be 80% or close to 80% depending on which score we’re using and having the best outcome. I was mentioning to you about the metastasis, and this is a paper that I published on liver transplantation. When we compare liver transplantation with hepatectomies, when we do hepatectomies, liver resections, around 30% of the time the cancer will come back, comes in the in the liver, but when we do liver transplant, only 3% comes in the liver. Why is that? A lot of it comes in the lungs. Wait a moment. Patients normally do not die because cancer in the lungs. Yes, they can die, but it’s what is going to finish the life of a patient. Majority of time is metastasis in the liver, and when it’s in the lungs, we can the patient can get more chemotherapy, and the patient can go and have resection. Sometimes of these, especially if they are in the periphery of the lungs. So this is why it goes back to no evidence of survival, no evidence of disease. Now, a controversial topic that I was asked, if I have liver if I have lung metastasis, can I get a liver transplant? I don’t want to answer this question, but I think at some moment we’re going to go there. And this is an example of a patient who have look at these metastases, very small here, in 2009 and has — and this patient receive a liver transplant and has immunosuppression, and this is the growth after more than two years. So is this patient going to die? Is this patient been having a benefit of the transplant? Definitely, definitely is having a benefit of a transplant. And when we look at the growth of the metastasis in the lungs with chemotherapy, sorry, with immunosuppression and without immunosuppression, patients, the growth is the same. So apparently, the metastasis done doesn’t grow more with immunosuppression. And of course, this is data that perhaps is something really more new, and not all the oncologists and surgeons know about these. And remember what I told you at the beginning, there is a big division sometimes between the surgical oncology and the transplant patient. So that’s perhaps one of the reasons that I was able to get into this and develop these things here. So this is what happened in selected patients who feel the criteria, not all of the patients right that they will be able to have survivals between 60 to 83% at five years at my institution. This is our criteria that we use very similar of what is on the criteria on Oslo. And we go for response to chemotherapy around 12 months, not necessarily two years. And the Oslo already remove it to one year as well. Why we have to do living donor? Why we cannot get a diseased or cadaveric organ in the US. Why we have to go through that? So the reason of this is because this is a waiting list in the US. It’s huge. The gap this is the number of patients in the waiting list, 1000s, and this is the number of patients who are organ donors. This is another problem that we have, unfortunately, in the US, we need more patients who donate. We need to be more advocate of organ donation. And unfortunately, there’s a huge gap. So we have patients dying on the waiting days. The organs goes to patients who are sick, who have cirrhosis, other reasons of that. So if a patient is listed with liver metastases, the liver is functioning well. The problem of the patient is the cancer. So this core that they have because of this function of the liver, they go to the bottom of the list. You won’t get a transplant. Perhaps, if you live in the south of the country, where perhaps there’s more access to transplant, maybe they will be able to offer you an organ that perhaps is a little bit not ideal, would be kind of a fatty liver or a very elderly liver, which I leave it open for the discussion between the surgeons and the patient. So this is why here I developed the Living Donor Program on this area, and you can see how it has been increasing the number in the US. now, in the last years, living donor liver transplantation, a lot of interest. So people ask, I don’t want to put anybody on risk for giving me a part of their liver. And I completely understand. But I do this, I do the donors. And I truly believe on this that we can do things. Nobody can guarantee that nothing bad is going to happen, but in a very controlled state. This is the donor debts that are happening in all the world. And this was a paper published from this conference when she was in Lahey clinic. Now she’s in Denver, and clearly showing that the rate of mortality of a donor in the US is between one in 1000 to one in 800 and some of those deaths, if we analyze it, are some can be some preventable, and we are extremely cautious on selecting the donor to has to be a healthy person, and we have the fortune that we haven’t. We only have very good results with our donors. There’s some other complications that can happen the donor. So it’s not something that is free. The social, psychosocial concerns, for example, always exist. Always people ask, What about the surgery and the cost? So normally, the donor, it’s covered on the insurance of the of the recipient, which is important thing to say, we have had trouble trying to get these authorized by some insurances. And I’m a person who fights big time with insurances. Call them.
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro 43:25
We have one of our hepatologists, is like a lawyer and helps us with this. And we, so far, we have been successful. Sometimes it takes longer, and sometimes even social media helps and puts pressure in some people, and we are able to be successful. The donor’s, quality of life is excellent. The patients can do well. We have one donor that was donated, like a year, half a year and a half ago, and when she’s pregnant now, and doing completely normal life. And it’s beautiful to see what they do for this patient. So how many living donors does a program has to do, or a surgeon has to do to be able to say they are they pass that learning curve? So this is a paper that I participated with a group from from Chicago, and we were able to see that those programs could do in two years. Between 16 to 25 are those programs who get that curve, and it doesn’t matter if you do 16 in two years or you do 40 in two years, the outcomes are going to be practically the same. So just to finalize, how am I doing with time? Oh, very good. So I did this cartoon. So this is an island, and these are the patients, and they have unresectable disease. They want to reach this, whether is, this is the long term, this is control the quality of life, and some of them will get through from cancer. We know it could be, I don’t know, those ones who were unresectable and got receptable. Chemo, and then we use surgery, or perhaps the ones who went to transplant, the 80% this is what a lot of patients want to reach. So what’s the path? If you try to go very quick here, you’re going to be in trouble with these charts here. So I put this path. You can use this path. There’s several ways that you can you probably you can get chemotherapy and then go to resection and then get here, or go to chemotherapy, hepatic artery infusion, resection and get here, or use ablation, or Y90 or TACE, or any other treatments, including transplant here as well. But there are some patients that since the beginning, they can be take this bridge and go to this side, not necessarily taking these roles. And this is an important message. And what I want to see say here is transplant shouldn’t be the last option. It shouldn’t be the last option. There’s a lot of patients who will can have a big benefit since the beginning, when they fulfill the criteria. Of course, when they are resectable, they are responding, they’re doing well, and they can reach that. So summarizing, this is what happened with chemo only. This is what happened with the hepatic artery infusion and surgery, chemo and surgery, and this is liver transplantation. Now I put here very clear, this is in selected patients. This is overall the patients, and this is in selected patients. So my final thoughts here is, not all the metastatic colon cancers are the same. Each patient is different, and what you need to find is a group of physicians, doctors, surgeons, who really want to understand your disease and try to go to the best care. There are many treatments, many paths for patients, those who have advanced disease on resectable colon cancer, we need to understand the biology of the tumor, and this is why we give chemo, we see how it behaves, we give time to see how the patient is doing. We also want to learn about the genetics. Talking about liver transplantation is a good option for patients with favorable tumor biology and no evidence of extrahepatic disease. And I think it’s critical that patients and family facing metastatic colon cancer get multiple opinions from experts who have experience with advanced cancer and with this, and I think there’s always hope.
DocTalk
2021
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
Liver
Surgery
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro from the University of Rochester Medical Center presents  “Why Liver Surgeons have mCRC Running Scared” in this Doc Talk, recorded for COLONTOWN in April, 2021.








