The Educational Branch of COLONTOWN

COLONTOWN University

COLONTOWN University

Categories
DocTalks Hide from search

Advanced surgical treatments for CRC liver mets

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.

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.

More Videos

State of the art liver surgery with robotic technology
Dr. Sucandy
2024
ERASur trial: Local treatment options for limited stage IV CRC
Dr. Hitchcock
2023
Advanced surgical treatments for CRC liver mets
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2021
Transplant patients are in the house!
2021
Hepatic Artery Infusion (HAI) chemotherapy for CRC liver mets
Hepatic Artery Infusion (HAI) chemotherapy for CRC liver mets
Dr. Gholami
2021
Modern-day management of liver metastases
Dr. Soares
2022
Why liver transplant for mCRC is taking off
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2022
Paths to long-term survival with CRC liver mets
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2023
Categories
DocTalks Hide from search

Transplant patients are in the house!

Transplant patients are in the house!

DocTalk
2021
Liver
Stage IV
Transplant

This amazing Zoom chat, produced by COLONTOWN in partnership with Bluem, introduces you to four liver transplant patients from the U.S. and Canada. Recorded in February 2021.

Betsy Post 0:00
Alrighty. So welcome. Welcome everyone. I’m Betsy post. I’m with COLONTOWN, and I’m helping facilitate this evening’s presentation with Dr Hernandez. And I also have, of course, our esteemed Mayor Lindsey and one of the folks on the cabinet with me, Julie, who are also running tech support, you know, kind of any assistance that you might need, you can definitely ping Julie Lindsey myself. I will try to help in any way. We’re not technical experts, but we’ll, we’ll do our best. But I’m going to introduce our esteemed speaker, Dr Hernandez, if you’re familiar with COLONTOWN liver lovers, Lane transplantation station, our various groups dedicated to liver Mets within the COLONTOWN community. I know that he is not someone that’s a stranger to anyone here, so we’re really honored and really thankful to have him with us this evening to talk to us about the new kid on the block, liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer and why that’s taking off. So just a little bit of background about Dr Hernandez and I have Julie go to the next slide. I’m not going to read to everyone, but this will be available in the recording as well. But he is the chief of the Division of transplantation at the University of Rochester Medical Center. Before that, he was in Canada. He has an amazing background and did extensive training and live liver donor transplantation in Japan. It’s really impressive. He has over 110 he probably knows the specific number peer review publications in liver transplantation and other hepatobiliary topics, and he’s on the editorial board of this esteemed Journal of surgery. So we’re super excited, again, flattered to have him here. There’s no one I think that knows more, I guess, arguably, in my opinion, about this topic of liver Mets for metastatic colorectal cancer than Doctor Hernandez, just a couple of housekeeping things, kind of in the in the middle, if you will. We do want to take your questions, so it’s really important that we keep this, you know, interactive. I would request that you please put the questions in chat. So we are going to monitor chat, and we are going to come back to it after the presentation and go back to those questions. We really want to try to answer every question that everyone has. So please put those in chat so that we can go through them. We’re again going to really monitor those, look at them, make sure that we do go back and ask all of those questions. So please put those in chat, and if you have any questions about how to do that, you can ping one of us will try to help you. So, Julie, you can go to the next slide. And so thank you guys so much for being here, and I’m going to turn it over to Dr Hernandez to start the presentation again. Please put the questions in chat. Say hello and chat. If there’s anything that you hear that you have questions about or you think is interesting, put it in chat. So we’re going to be monitoring that, and we’re all happy to have you here tonight, so take it away. Dr Hernandez,

Speaker 1 3:17
thank you, Betsy. Thank you Lincy, thank you, Claire, for this invitation. It’s always a pleasure to be in this group and to be part of it, once in a while, to be able to participate and guide patients I have dedicated the last many years of my career, a lot into this field of liver metastases, and I’m very happy and glad that we have been able to make progress in science, in medicine and surgery, and always try to push a little bit more the envelope to help more patients. And I like the title that it was assigned, that the new kid on the block. And I tried to find, I remember when I was younger, the New Kids on the Block. So I find this picture of them when they are 2022 they look a little bit older. They’re not kids anymore. And I think that’s exactly what happened to liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis. Is not a new kid, really. It’s new for a lot of us, but it already exists there for many years. So with this, I’m going to start. And last time, I don’t know how long ago was that, but probably a year or something like that, that I was invited by COLONTOWN to give a presentation, and I expanded a lot about colorectal liver metastasis, and then I talked about liver transplantation. Today, I want to concentrate much more in liver transplantation, but to being able to show the importance or why liver transplantation might play, or play a very important role, I want to talk. Back again, a little bit about all the background of colorectal liver metastases. With this, I want to show the this first slide, showing that you all know that is the third most common cancer. Colon cancer is the third more common cancer in the world, after prostate and breast cancer. So it’s not uncommon to have people like you or your beloved that has colon cancer, unfortunately, and it’s so common. But the good thing is that we make a lot of advancements in treatment, especially in chemotherapy, I would say, in the last 20 years. But unfortunately, there hasn’t been anything that is huge over the last 15 years for colorectal liver metastasis. We’re starting to do some changes, and I’m looking forward to, hopefully, within five to 10 years to be able to to have much more and more. But this slide is showing you impressively how colon cancer is increasing in these young population did from 20s, 30s and 40s. Look at the green part is showing how it’s increasing being the number of cases on this population is going up. When I train as a surgeon, as a liver cancer surgeon. I never saw these cases on younger population having colon cancer. We always look at the late 50s, 60s, 70s. It continued happening on them. But look at this. This is happening. Why this is happening? I think it’s difficult for to prove why I have my theories, and I think this will require another conversation, which I’m not expert, but I think it’s about what we eat. It’s the diet, I think so that plays an important role, the sugars. I think sugars are terrible and at bad. But Well, as I mentioned, that’s another topic. So cancer is increasing in the population, in the young population, and unfortunately, when we diagnose younger patients, the disease is more advanced, because we know we don’t have screening colonoscopies for patients who are this age. We were able to move it to 45 years old. The screening colonoscopies just recently, but before it was 50. So this is a population that is really affected, and hopefully we can make change. And recently, I was invited by the group of five colon cancer to go to Washington, DC for in March of this year for call for Congress. And you know that I am. A lot of you know that I’m a transplant surgeon, and I’ve been in the Senate of Albany, the capital of New York, trying to push for organ donation, for trying to increase the, you know, the sensitivity of the people to be organ donors when someone has brain dead, but that has been my only experience as a physician, trying to get into government and trying to push people from government, our congress people for moving into this but this time going to to the capital, it was, it was really impressive. It was taught you, for me, understanding being with patients, being with family, and listening to some of the politicians that are really helpful for this, independently of their party being strong, they saw it was very important and and I hope I can make more work next year, and I’m devoted to be doing this. It took me like to be three days out of work, two and a half days out of work, but I think it’s worth it, and I really enjoy and I want to continue working with them. So this was very important for me, and emotional. I want to continue doing this for for all of you. So liver metastases from colon cancer, we know that the vast majority of the liver metastases, unfortunately, are unresectable. What does that mean? That we cannot remove it with surgery. We know that surgery is the most important thing. It’s the only, only, only, and I repeat it, the only thing surgery that, at this moment, has been proved to be curative, is the only thing that can be curative, not always, but a lot of times could be curative. There hasn’t been any other thing that we can prove that could be curative. But the problem is that resectable, only 20% of these metastases are going to be resectable of the patients, and many of them are not resectable because there are multiple metastases, or the location of the metastasis in the liver, occupying some areas of the big vessels, the veins and the arteries and the bowel dogs or or the or the metastases are not responding to chemotherapy. We know that if a patient. Is not responding to chemotherapy, and we do surgery and we remove it, the chances of having recurrence early is very short, is very is very high, and the patient most likely will have recurrence very shortly, or sometimes. And I put it here in the bottom part, not an experienced surgeon or center, and that’s true, and that’s why I always ask patients to go for second or third opinions. When they come with me, I give them options. Even if they say, No, I’m comfortable with you. They said, Go. You can go with one of my colleagues here, or go outside. And I recommend people, because I want the patient to be sure of what they’re deciding. And I and sometimes there’s some centers that I have experienced that they said, You’re unresectable. They send it, they come to us, they find us, and they turn to be resectable. What happened with the patients who are unresectable and we cannot operate on them? This is not what I’m saying. This is what the literature is saying. The survival is around five to 10% at five years. What does that mean that if a patient cannot go for surgery, if 100 patients cannot go for surgery because they are unresectable, only five of them, or 10 of them, in the best case of scenario, are going to be alive at five years. So we’re talking about 90 to 95% 90% of the patients will die within those five years, perhaps of the one year, two years, three years. This is what the literature shows. And this is pretty well established and in a very high impact factor Lance, one of the highest impact factor journals when we do surgery, as I mentioned, these data coming from in 2009 from Memorial Sloan Catherine Center, where they have very good registries. This is these 60 months are five years. So to compare to the previous one that we say 5% at five years, this is around 40% at five years. So there’s a huge difference. Yes, you will say, Well, I would like to be cured. Well, you have perhaps 40% chances of being cured at five years, or maybe at 10 years, you have 25% percent, 25% chances of being cured. So most likely the cancer will come back, yes, but the thing is that we’re going to be looking very close to the cancer, and we can do other type of treatments. And this is we’re talking about resections at this moment. I’m not talking about transplantation, okay, I don’t want to mix things. This is what happened to patients.

Speaker 1 12:39
Many of the times when this is unresectable, the reason is because the remnant liver is too small. So a lot of patients come and we see that they have a lot of metastasis, perhaps in the right side of the liver and the left side is too small, or it has a small metastases. And I can say, okay, I can go and remove the left side and that little spot, and then remove the entire right side, and the patient will free of cancer. Guess what? The left side portal of the liver? Maybe it’s less than 20% of the size. So if I do that, that patient will have liver failure, and most likely patient will die. So we that will be on respectable as well, and and we know that many of the times those things happen, and there are some techniques that we can we can use, so other times, when the patient is on respectable is because of the multiple number of liver metastases. And this is where liver transplantation can play an important role. So I want to dedicate the rest of this talk about what are the outcomes of liver transplantation? What do we know about it? What is happening in North America? We know that this is started in Norway, in in the Scandinavian countries, and it has expanding faster in Europe, but there is data that I want to show about what is happening in the US, which is first time that I’m going to be showing this. I haven’t shown this data in any medical conference yet, so I’m glad that I’m going to be showing here at COLONTOWN. I mentioned to you before about the two stages hepatectomies, options that we have to do surgeries when you know, for example, in this case here, before doing transplantation, this patient, for example, has this large tumor here. So normally they will say, Okay, let’s remove the right side of the liver, and then the patient will stay with the left side, but if the left side is a small we can do a portal vein embolization. And I’m sure a lot of patients here are familiarized with this, and we can do this, we embolize the portal vein in the right side. So we put some glue and some coils here through interventional radiology, we wait around six to eight weeks. And we expect the left side of the liver, because now all the flow will come here will grow, or in this case where there are multiple we can go do surgery in the first stage. We remove the tumors in the left side of the liver. We clear the left side of the liver, which is smaller, and instead of embolizing, we can ligate will be the same effect, and then the flow will go to the left side. Will be a very similar scenario. This This one you didn’t operate. But in this one you operated. But in both, you will wait six to eight, six to eight weeks, and then the left side of the liver will grow to around 30% or more, and then you can go and operate. And that is called two stages. He protects. But what happened in this study of five US Centers, and you can see here, people from MD Anderson, people from Memorial, people from Hopkins at that moment. Tim poll, he was not in Ohio. He was in Hopkins. And these are our big centers in us, and they they were doing a lot of the two stages, hepatectomies, 16 years of data. A lot of these patients have hepatic arts in Fusion because they have a lot of tumor loads. The more than half of those patients of this have portal veneer, modelization. What happened to them? The morbidity. Morbidity means complications after the second stage was 50% so a lot of these patients have complications, expected two operations, and this is what happened, overall survival, those patients who had the two stage hepatectomy, compared to those ones who only went for chemotherapy because they couldn’t operate on them, there was a significant difference in survival. So you can see that these ones, at five years only perhaps 15% were alive, compared to almost 50% of the patients who went for the two stage patheta, means were alive. Now in this data coming from Rene Adam, you probably you know Rene Adam from Paul Bruce, very famous certain there. And this is from MD Anderson. And this is a systematic review. That means that this Dr lamb, he went and looked at the data from the MD Anderson, from Paul Bruce and from other centers. And they put all these papers together, 459 patients. And they saw that this population of patients, they survived 20% at three years. They did, sorry, not survive the disease free survival. So 80% of the patient the cancer will come back by three years. I think it’s something that is expected. Why? Because these patients had a lot of disease in the liver, and probably they have micro metastases that, as a surgeon, we cannot see and we miss them, right? The alt procedure, I think I have talked here about that is a very similar situation, but it’s quicker. It’s faster. It came here from from Germany. The Germans push this for doing this normally. There are more innovation coming from Europe. And then we start developing things here, because we have more regulations. That is complex to do things here, but they go and remove the left side of tumors. And then I gave the right portal vein, similar to what I described before, but the difference is, in the first surgery, we divide the liver completely. We divide like we open it like a book, and then the left side of the liver is small, but the right side of the liver, which has the cancer, is receiving blood supply from the artery still, so it’s alive, that portion of liver. And we went just 10 days, and in 10 days, the liver of the left side almost duplicate its size, and we go back and remove it. And with this surgery, we are able to operate more than with the two stage. He protected me. However, it’s very aggressive to do two major surgeries in 10 days of difference. And this was a case, as you can see, this is a small size. You can see there’s perhaps the CT scan is not the best, but you can see a tumor here, little two tumors here, tumor here, in the right side and the right side. And so this patient needs a hepatectomy of the right side, but the remnant liver was too small, and this is when we did Imagine we did an Alps. Look at this with the partition. It’s divided here you can see how the right side of the liver shrinks, and it’s impressive. Look at this. This is the left side. It was this part here. This looks like this patient was born with almost known left side, and now it’s huge. This was the first one that I did in my life, and I really thought this was phenomenal. And I continue doing in a very selective cases. This is one of the papers that I published where we can see that the survival of these patients with high two. Tumors we do Alps is very similar of what we saw in the two stage hepatitomies. It doesn’t change too much. Perhaps it’s around 30% that three five years of the survival and the recurrence is pretty high. We are able to operate more than the two stage hepatitis. But I think it’s just selecting the patient, because, honestly, I would do only this in a patient who is very healthy and in good performance status. Now, what happened to those patients who initially, we call them, you know, you’re unresectable. We cannot respect. We cannot use an Alps. We cannot use a two stage hepatite, a portal vein embolization. You are unresectable, so the patient just received chemotherapy, but the patient responds very well, and the patient, we call it conversion. Now we say, Oh, you responded very well. The tumors are smaller now we can go and operate. What happened to them if we operate on them and we remove the cancer, do they do the same as those patients who were initially resectable? Unfortunately, not. And the survival at five years is around 30% and around 80 to 85% of the patient, the cancer will come back five, about five years, so a little bit worse, and it’s expected. Why? Because some of the tumors that disappear, perhaps they are still there. We cannot see it in the CT scans. We cannot see them in the PET scans. We cannot see them in the MRI, but they are still there. So this is what, for example, this is a case in our in Rochester where this patient had look at these multiple metastases here in the right side and then in the left side as well. So this case was called on resectable on resectable disease. But look at this. Now, the patient received chemotherapy, and look at the response. I want you. I’m going to go back so you can see this. Look, the tumors are in the right side, multiple this one here, here, here, here, here. So clearly we do a resection. This patient won’t have it.

Speaker 1 22:17
So even here in the back part of the liver. And then the patient received chemotherapy. And you cannot see a lot of the tumors that were there. You can see this large one here, probably this one here, and even in the one that was here in the back disappear. And then you say, Oh, wow, we should go and resect. You know, maybe 10 years ago I would say, I can go and do an APR here, I can go and do an Alps in this patient, and the patient do very well. We will continue. Don’t forget about that. We’ll come back about that patient. So that is what we will call it a conversion. So what happened with those patients who has been heavily treated with chemo? Or you call it hepatic Arthur in fusion, you call it systemic chemotherapy or both. Because I know hepatic Arthur in fusion, they give both. They are never giving it alone anymore, because it was proof that it doesn’t work when you give it a loan. So in this paper, in this these are two papers, this is one and this is other one. In this paper, patients who have major treatment with a lot of chemotherapy for eight months, one year, year and a half, and then they go for a resection. 40% have major complications. When we say major complications that the patient require an intervention, a re operation for bleeding or a bile duct complication and a 10% mortality. One out of 10 of those patients die, and at five years, 13% were possible in cure. So we’re talking about that almost 90% of the patient the cancer came back in this other study of 47 patients who received more than 12 cycles. That is just six months of treatment. You know better than me about this with chemotherapy and when they went for surgery, 50% of the patient had major complications, and 20% mortality. Two out of 10 patients died. And at three years in this study, all the patients have recurrency. Cancer came back. I think they are. They did better than the patients who only received chemotherapy, definitely. But what I’m showing here is that we have to be very cautious in patients who have to have been heavily treated with chemo when we do liver receptions. And I witness of this as a search, I think some of you know I don’t do trans. Only I do a lot of reverse sections, a little bit that I want to talk about the paddy car three in fusion, because I have seen a lot of a few of these patients, I wouldn’t say like hundreds of these patients, but several of these patients will go for the particle in fusion. So in this paper, that it was probably a little bit off, because this is coming from 2007 but it was known that the hepatic artery in Fusion treatment alone, without systemic chemotherapy, is was not working. It shouldn’t be used. And they call it this the end of Panera, which is not because it’s coming back and they’re pushing and MSK is doing it, and nothing against them. I have very good relationship with them, and there were colleagues, and we have friendship communication with them, but I think we need to be cautious about this. In this study, where they did a trial of efficacy, that means how they compare hepatic artery fusion with systemic chemo. And if you can see here is these are patients. We’re not talking about surgery, we’re just talking about which one did better. Patients will receive a Patric Arthur in fusion with systemic or those ones who did systemic chemotherapy, and they were very similar in number of tumors and age of the patient, so there was no significant difference in those factors, and the only difference in survival of these patients, the patients who received only systemic chemotherapy and no surgery, they survived an average of 20 months because they were unresectable, and the patients will receive the fatty car in Fusion just four months more. Yes, there wasn’t a benefit of those ones who received hepatic art in fusion, not very impressive to see four months, and there were no survivors at five years in any of the two groups. So with that, I want to start mentioning about what’s new for unresectable liver metastas, and we call it the new kid on the block today, alright? And this, some of you are aware of this, and this is started, as I mentioned at the beginning. This is not new liver transplantation started in 2013 and and where is my friend here? PAL Dad, here it is. He’s the guy. He is the main guy. Pal dad, that his first name, his last name is like pal dad is the main surgeon. What is interesting about Norway? There’s only one center in that entire country, only one center that is doing liver transplantation in the United States. How many centers we have doing liver transplantation? Perhaps arrow, 180 maybe. Centers doing liver transplantation. It’s not socialized medicine here, over there is socialized medicine. So there’s no competition. Here is competition, right? So it’s very different. Every patient who needs a liver transplant will go to only one center in Oslo. So the the regulations and the main the way of managing things is much easier here. It’s if I want to do something different, I have 200 centers going against it’s very difficult to make progress with sometimes when we want to do something different. So they were able, and also, they have a short waiting list in their patients who have cirrhosis. They don’t have that many patients, and people donate a lot. So he said, Well, why don’t we start transplanting patients with unresectable metastasis? Because we can use this organ. So these patients, because the French surgeons in the 1990s they use those livers in patients with colorectal metastases, but the outcome was very good, but this was 30 years later, when they started using it now in Norway, and in 30 years, we have much better chemotherapy. We have much better immunotherapy for for patients who get transplant, because patients will receive transplantation require immuno suppression to medication for life to avoid rejection of the organ and and better techniques. So he started doing this, and this is what they saw. If you look at this graph, this is quite impressive. The red line is demonstrating the survival of the patients here in the bottom part is the years. So 60% of the patients who were transplanted with unresectable liver metastases were alive at five years. Wow. Even better that the patient who were resected with resectable disease since the beginning. Never seen that before. What was the problem? The problem this is recurrence. So at around two years, majority of the patient, the cancer came back, but they were alive. A lot of majority of them. So we’re going to go through that. What was happening, what was different? We. The recurrence compared when we deliver resection. I will answer that in, I think, in a couple of slides, probably. So then the Norway group, they start saying, Okay, let’s try to analyze these ones who did better. What were the main factors that created that they were doing better? And they found this as the new score. And they call it the Oslo score, if the two, if the largest metastasis is less than 5.5 centimeters, if the CEA a transplant at the moment of transplant is below 80, if the patient is not progressing on chemotherapy, and if the time from the diagnosis to the transplant is around two years. And if you have each one of these is four points and four points, the transplant will do very bad. If it’s three points, do better, two points or better, and zero to one points, all of the patients were alive. We need to be cautious as well. This is not like, Wow. Yes, this, this is impressive, but look at the number of patients. We’re talking about six patients, five patients, five patients. So we’re talking about small population of patients. So my I reviewed this paper many years ago, and when I saw that, I was really impressed. I was saying why we cannot do this in the US. Well, I was in Canada, sorry. Why? We cannot do this in Canada. It’s impressive, but, but I said, Well, we have to be cautious, because this is a small population, but this has been growing, and now the numbers are more higher and proving the same. Now this is a new thing that is happening, and here in Rochester, we’re taking consideration of this. We’re measuring this. This is the PET scans. We like to do a PET scan before transplant. And this data is showing, with a formula, we can calculate the amount of ability, abilities that the tumor takes this kind of contrast, which is

Speaker 1 32:02
the PET scan. You know, for example, here you see the the it’s highlighting here in yellow, and that’s the ability, if it’s not Avid, that means that it goes like reddish color normal. But we can quantify how much is highlighting and with this formula, if it’s below 70 centimeter cubics, it’s a good factor. If it’s above 70 it’s not a good factor, because those ones who have less than 70 centimeters cubics, they do much better. At five years, this patient has also around 80% survival. So this is a new data showing us that we can use it to verify which patients are going to do better. But it’s not always perfect. Okay. Now I mentioned to you about recurrence. What was the difference in transplant compared to liver resection, and this is so important, majority of the recurrence after transplantation, which is common, around 70% of the patient will have recurrence, but majority of them are in the lungs. But those ones who have in the lungs, they do much, much better and up in this data coming from Norway as well. At five years, all the patients were alive, they still have cancer, a lot of them, not all of them, because some of them, they were able to resect them. Those ones who have metastasis in the liver, their survival was short, but only around 5% of the patients will have recurrent in the liver. When we compare these to patients who have resection or recurrence, it’s pretty high. And I know that Dr Suarez, just a few weeks ago, presented, and he showed the data about the high recurrence after liver resection in this in patients who goes for liver section. Now this is pal that I asked permission for him to show these three lines of data, because his manuscript is under review that I think is going to be published very soon, the first study where they have the first in 2013 when they published, they continue following these patients and the five year survival, five years overall survival of 75% and 10 year, 10 year survival, 50% so we can, he can call that, if we are going to cure patients with Liver transplantation. He said that between 25 to 30% of the patients, if they are were selected, we can be curing these patients. That is pretty impressive. And to survive 75% at five years, this is something that we haven’t seen before. And as I mentioned, long recurrence. It’s very common in transplant. However, is. Is treated with curative intent. It can be resected, of course, if there’s multiple then perhaps chemotherapy will be the best option. This is data coming from the United States. This is your country, the first transplant for liver metastases in the new era, because there were old all transplants. So this is not the first one ever. Okay, no, there were other transplant that happened. Actually, Dr star saw the first Surgeon in the world that did the first liver transplant almost 50 years ago. He did colorectal metastasis liver transplant. So we’re not counting those ones. So those are the first patients who were transplanted for colorectal metastasis. This is the new era that we can call it. In this new era, the first case happened in 2017 and our programs are functioning around here, but you can see 17, 1819, how it’s increasing the interest in the in the United States. This is projection here, just with the way that is growing, and this is what’s until April here. But if we continue with the same projection, probably we will be in 30 just this year in the United States, very soon, probably one more year, we’re going to pass the numbers of Norway. But what is happening? I think what is happening. My point here is, in the United States is a lot of groups wants to do it, but they don’t have the it’s not about the surgical skills. It’s about the selection of patients and the follow up and the experience about being involved with colorectal liver metastases, because the unfortunately, here in the US, the surgical oncologist and the transplant surgeons are very separate. Where I was trained in Canada, I would do both. And I came here and I said, I only will move to Rochester if I’m able and continue doing both things. And I do liver transplant and liver sections, and we collaborate with our surgical oncologist as well, but I continue doing both things, and I think this is open opportunities for being able to to expand innovation in a lot of these spaces. If I wouldn’t be involved in both things, I wouldn’t be doing this. And why living donor? Initially, there were some centers that were using disease donor. Disease donors. I shouldn’t say this word, but I you know, because in transplant, they said that we should avoid saying cadaveric donation. But you know, when patients have brain dead, that’s the most common way of donating in the United States, the 90% of the transplants that I do are from deceased donors, someone who has brain dead our team flies go and retrieve the organ, bring it here, and we operate our patients who has cirrhosis and it’s very sick in the ICU, and hopefully we can save that patient. And we do living daughter in patients who are in the middle of the list that they don’t have too much access. For these patients, the fact that we’re doing liver transplant for those patients give us the skills for being able to deliver living donor liver transplantation in patients who have colorectal liver metastasis, because these are patients that they are not sick from the liver. They have cancer, but they are not sick to be able to be in the top of the list of liver metastases, of liver transplantation, to attract an organ, Cath, a coordinate. So that’s why the number of living donors is increasing for colorectal metastases. And last year, 80% of them of the transplants that took place in the US for colorectal metastases were done by living orders. I can tell you if I predict, well, 90% or more than 90% next year we’re going to see this line going probably around 90 or above. Now, this is the activity that I know so far, and I might be missing some centers. And this was, I think, for around three months ago. These are some of the centers that I know. They have done at least one liver transfer for colorectal metastasis. I put these hospitals bigger ones because they have been doing more. This is Houston, in Methodist. They did, I think four, but they are not doing more. Why? Because they don’t have a living donor liver transplant search, and at that moment, they were able to use some disease organs, because a lot of people around the area of fusion were not using some organs. They were saying, No, I don’t want to use this organ for my patient, because that organ is not very good. But this surgeon said it’s not that bad, and he used it, and he had probably good outcomes in those four patients and or in other patients. And. Okay, but now the allocation system in transplantation in the country change, and a lot of those organs now are going, I don’t know, to the north, so now he’s not having access. So now the only way that he can deliver transplant for these patients is with the living donor. So this is not going to grow unless here is, help me. This is San Luis, right, yes. And this Missouri, you wash you doing few of them that they have been using some calabari organ donation. Here is Cleveland, here is Rochester, here not here is Rochester. Here’s Cleveland, and here’s Pittsburgh. Those are the three other centers that has been doing a little bit more.

Speaker 1 40:44
In our experience, we have done 10 cases, which to my understanding, where the center could have been doing more. And we published with the group from Cleveland and Toronto, this paper that perhaps some of you are away. Are aware, and this is confirming the data outside Norway. It’s a short follow up, because not all of all our patients from that we we have four patients from Rochester, four patients from Cleveland, and two patients from Toronto. Not all of them has five years arrested follow up or more than three years. So we look at three years survival, but looking at this survival, looking at almost 80% of the patients were alive at three years in this patient, and 60% recurrence free survival, that means 40% of patients have recurrence. So that as a pretty similar scenario on Norway, perhaps even a little bit better. But I don’t want to be feel like so excited, because we have to wait to see a little bit more. I will show more data there, specific from Rochester. In Rochester, as I mentioned, after 2000 it was 2018 passing that we started our protocol, and this is our protocol, and I’m gonna go for HD Cal, we go for an Oslo score below two. But to be honest, this is what we have in our protocol. But when we analyze to because we’re writing a paper right now, all our patients has been one or zero, and probably that is one of the reasons that we’re having an acceptable outcomes in our patients. And this, you know, this is the ultra score that I mentioned. But to me and to our group, there are two important things here in this ultra score. I don’t think it’s necessarily to be below 80. I think it’s more important the trend, yes, below 80. Perhaps it’s a marker that the group from Norway found. But imagine if a patient goes from 80 to 40 to 20 to 10, but then it goes from 10 to 30 to 50 to 60 to 70? Is it below 80? Yes, but that’s not good. It’s going up continuously, and closer to 80. That’s something that is not going good there, and probably that trend plays a more important role than the fact that it’s below 80. And the other point is progression of disease. Progression of disease is a bad marker that we know for liver resection, if a patient received chemotherapy and is not responding and progress those patients, we know that they have very high recurrence in transplantation, probably it’s happening. Would happen the same if we translate the data from resection to transplantation, so doing a salvage transplant, probably no, no, it wouldn’t be the ideal. And there’s sometimes that is a little bit difficult to take a decision, because you cannot prove that is progression, and it might not be progression because of the when you measure the the size of the tumor, some of them could be bigger, some of them could be smaller. And then it’s difficult to call it if it’s progression or not. But in other than that, when it’s clear that a patient is progressing, I think transplantation should be avoided. So far in our institution, we have more than one quality 140 referrals. We have a dedicated navigator that is a key member of our team, and Kayla do phenomenal job trying to be in contact with all our patients, responding as soon as possible and reporting to our nurse practitioner and to our coordinators that play a very important role, and to me and we look after there’s a lot of work that we do, bringing all the images and looking at details of patients we have to review sometimes 4050, images in our tumor board. And our radiologists are tired. They say, Well, this image. Is coming from others. CD for mother center, but we review in detail all of these things. Of those, 140 patients, only 10 has rich liver transplant. Wait a moment. There are several, at least eight or more that are still in the process of potential candidates that I think they could be candidates on 24, probably. So that’s huge number, huge number. Hopefully, the eight reached that. But to be honest, probably of those eight, maybe six or five, were reached despite that, that’s still a very big number for the next six months, majority of the patients who were who didn’t reach transplant was because there was evidence of extra particle disease, disease outside the liver. Many patients were potential candidates, but developed progression during the follow up treatment. Because we follow the patients from distance, we look at the imaging device, which sometimes we have to do biopsies to prove either a positive lymph node or lung metastases. Few, probably a handful of the patients who were sent to us for transplantation turned to be resectable. And I was, Wow, really, this is resectable. So we talked to the patient said, you know you’re resectable. You want to come to register? I can do the resection, but probably I can call one of the surgeons close to you, and maybe will be easier for you to go there. If they want to come with us, they’re welcome to come and we do the resection here. But it has happened that sometimes we find that they are resectable. If you went for third or fourth opinions, which is completely okay, because the most important thing is the patient needs to feel confident that where that patient is going is going to be the right place. I think we have all the opportunities to go and say, Okay, we I can. I want to go and see four or five centers, or four or five surgeons, and then I will decide. But when you decide stick to that, that that would be the best thing, because that creates a much better management that’s my advice. This is the data of our 10 patients. This is not the paper that we published, because remember, the paper was Toronto, Cleveland and Rochester, here is only Rochester, and this is what we’re finding out. The shorter recurrence, around 70% survival at three years. So this is pretty impressive, that it was going to change most likely because our there’s new patient that has a very short follow up, only one of our patients, of our out of the tent, has died after having some recurrence. All our nine patients, the rest of the nine patients are alive. Another patient had recurrence, unfortunately, and is getting treatment with chemotherapy. Now here, this is what we’re doing. We have a trial that we’re going through that known as the patients. Doesn’t have to go through the through, through the trial, but we registry these things here because it may cause a more creates more credibility when when you publish things for this, what we found, this is what we’re working this is my research fellow, Mariana Chavez, where these are 14 cases, 10 cases from Rochester and four cases from Cleveland. I’m not showing which one is which one. And this is so interesting. These are each patient, each patient. This is a cartoon of the when they were diagnosed. The number of metastases in the first column. In the second column is the number of tumors prior to liver transplantation. This is after the patient receive a lot of treatments, RFA, so ablation, y 90, Paddy car three, in fusion, chemotherapy, surgeries, etc, etc, right? And then this is what we found when we remove the liver in pathology. And what is impressive is that 60% of these patients, 60% in in where the pets can set. There’s no cancer here. There was cancer. So the disappearing liver metastases that I’m mentioning, they were still there. I think this is the first time, because this is the first time in the history that we have the entire specimen of the liver out. Normally, when we do live resection, we live, you know, part of the liver for the patient to survive. But this is the first time that we remove entire and we can analyze entire liver, and this is what is happening. We’re finding, clearly, with all the evidence that there was still cancer, there are 60% of time even that it’s disappear. It does not

Speaker 1 50:02
some tips and tricks that we have learned. And this is when I go to give a talk. I think I spend a lot of time with the surgeons talking about this, because they want to learn more about this, the timing from colon resection, because a lot of the patients come okay, I still have the primary side. Can I go for a transplant? Well, yes, you can go for transplant, but we have to remove the primary at some moment, or the patient goes, Hey, my colon cancer is gone. They cannot see it. What is the evidence if we go and do a liver transplant and we don’t touch the colon? I haven’t done that, but I wouldn’t, I. Am sure if we give immuno suppression, there might be some cancer cells in the colon, you will come back. So we have pushed for removing it. There’s one patient that I know that we could transplant that we remove a portion of the column for it was tattoo the cancer, and there was no cancer. But there were other two that apparently disappeared, and when we removed the portion of colon, there was still cancer, so it’s better to remove it, and we don’t want to do experimentation here in large lymph nodes. That’s a big question. What should we do? So we use endoscopic ultrasound, sometimes through the stomach, to be able to biopsy the lymph node to be sure if that’s a positively if not. If it’s a positive lymph node, it’s not a good prognosis. And we use Final aspiration, or sometimes the interventional radiologists use percutaneous biopsy. Or few times we do a laparotomy. We have to Okay. If everything looks good, but we have high suspicious we open the abdomen of the patient before or the day of the patient is coming from outside, let’s say if the patient is coming from far away from, I don’t know, Kansas City and the patient and the donor here, but we have suspicion of that. We start the operation with a recipient. Normally, we start with the donor. Normally, that’s when there’s a donor, a living donor. We start with the donor, and then we bring the recipient to the operating room. But in these situations, we don’t want to put the risk of the donor if we are not sure if we can transplant the patient, so we start with the recipient. We open, we take a biopsy of the lymph nodes there. If it’s negative, then we do, we do the transplant. If not, we have to stop the transplant. Long nodules. We have to review the two more board these what they are very dedicated, and that I’m proud of my team, that they review every single thing, and our coordinators take notes about this so and this is on top of their normal work with all the cirrhotic patients, because I’ve been able to have, in my case, a lot of resources from the department of surgery and the institution to be able to set up a team dedicated for this. But a lot of the other coordinators who are not fully involved with these, are very supportive of all of these. We talk about immuno suppression. We try to bring it down as soon as possible. We have learned more about immuno suppression because we have been trying to change some patients that probably they don’t tolerate it very well when we try to switch them. And we’re learning a lot of those things. And this, I think, a new area that I call it HEPA oncology. We have hepatologies. We follow that follows liver transplant patients, and we have oncologists that follow the patients with cancer. This is putting both things together. Our hepatologist with oncology, and I personally call it our hepato oncologist, and this is what we’re trying to develop here. I think, what time is it? Okay? I’m Hurry up. Betsy. I’m sorry for the same criteria for recipients with the Paducah pump. Just 111, more. Note about the Patriot pump. We have the same criteria for as you can see, the patient is a candidate for transplant after the pump. However, it’s very clear to tell the patient there’s a way higher risk in the transplant. Why the pad three pump creates, unfortunately, damage in the paddy Carter. You cannot use it for transplant. And without the paddy car three, deliver one work. So we need to bring the artery of the spleen, or put a conduit from the aorta from a cabaret daughter. We call it graft or conduit, the portal vein, a lot of the times, is very inflamed because of the pump, and also because of the chemotherapy of the pump in that area, and, you know, a lot of the patients capillary damage. So the risk of transplantation is way higher. We do it, but it’s way higher. The only thing that I see for me is, I think there’s a place for the palm a place for transplant. I don’t think it’s a five more, but what I would say more is, if a patient is responding to systemic chemotherapy, why changing the game? If the patient could be a transparent candidate, continue for one year, complete the year, and probably the patient will be a transplant candidate, if the patient is progressing on systemic chemotherapy, okay, the patient is not going. To be a transplant candidate. Let’s give the pump, right? And if it comes back to conversion and respondents, they doing well and well, then find surgeons who want to play hard ball and do this transplant. But if not, I wouldn’t change them the positions here, I think I will stop here. These are the areas where I think the patients are probably four areas that I call it transplant, transplant categories, those patients who we see these since the beginning were unresectable, and they still have the primary inside you, patients who have multiple metastases, but they have multiple treatments, surgeries, ablation, pump, etc, etc. And I call it more burnout, cancer burnout, liver patients who are unresectable because they have recurrence, and probably this is an area where it’s going to be extending those ones who were unresectable and converted to resectable. Perhaps transplantation will benefit this patient. And to finalize, I told you about this patient, right? Look at these metastases, this patient, and then this patient responded. And some surgeons say I can resect that, the patient decided, and we did a liver transplant because we were sure there were more metastasis. Sorry to show you this, but this is the liver. And look at the metastasis. This is the left side of the liver. Should, sorry to show you these, but 12345, here. This is the left side which I’m showing it here. 123, and this is proven that there’s cancer here. So we would do a right hepatectomy for that patient that here, they said, Let’s do a right hepatectomy only to remove this part. We will be removing this part. We will live in all these cancer. So I think we did the correct thing. This is another patient. Look at this amount of disease. Of course, this is unresectable, and this is the amazing the same patient, I promise you. It’s impressive. The response that the patient had. Look at this amazing patient came here for transplantation. This is their lovely donor. We remove the right side of the liver, a beautiful left side of a liver, enough for the donor. And this is the right side of a liver where we use it for reconstructing it. And you can see here, once the blood came into the new liver of the of the recipient, and it looks pink and beautiful. I know probably you don’t feel that this is beautiful, but it is, and this is what we find in the explant. The pathologist look at these spots of cancer. It’s suppose that here it almost disappeared minimal disease. But when we go and see in the pathology multiple spots of cancer, they’re still there. That’s what I want to show you. Another case. Look at lost those liver metastases. Patient responded so well, you can see these calcifications. And, you know, I, I’m part of these. So if, if you would bring me this patient when I was in Canada, when I didn’t have an idea that we were I was going to be doing liver transplantation, I will take this patient to the operating room and try to do resection or Alps, or two stage protections or something. We did a liver transplant, and there were multiple metastases still in the liver, as you can see here, 234567, here in the back of the liver, we’re taking a lot of this tissue as well, with the consent of our patients, that we consent them into my lab, and because we’re trying to analyze more of the biopsies to understand more about the immune system that is playing a role in this cancer, to hopefully, in the future, being able to find markers and decide which patients are going to respond better. And in conclusions, surgery is the goal in metastatic colorectal cancer and surgery, I include transplantation. There are favorable results with chemotherapy, and we have gone far away, and that’s what is helping us for being able to do liver resections more aggressively. Patients should have the opinion of different treatments modalities to explore second and third opinions. I think the field of liver transplantation is evolving quickly, and we need to be cautious about this. I don’t I hope not a lot of surgeons taking us the new thing, the new toy, and not selecting the patients correctly, the multidisciplinary team, the experience, is very important, and we should keep fighting and moving forward. These are frequently asked questions, but probably the people I would like really that people ask questions and feel comfortable to open your your camera, your screen, ask questions. There are no dumb questions. There are important questions, and I’m here for you, and thank you for this invitation. Again. You.

DocTalk
2021
Liver
Stage IV
Transplant

This amazing Zoom chat, produced by COLONTOWN in partnership with Bluem, introduces you to four liver transplant patients from the U.S. and Canada. Recorded in February 2021.

More Videos

Liver transplants — Examining the evidence
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2024
ERASur trial: Local treatment options for limited stage IV CRC
Dr. Hitchcock
2023
Advanced surgical treatments for CRC liver mets
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2021
Transplant patients are in the house!
2021
Hepatic Artery Infusion (HAI) chemotherapy for CRC liver mets
Hepatic Artery Infusion (HAI) chemotherapy for CRC liver mets
Dr. Gholami
2021
Modern-day management of liver metastases
Dr. Soares
2022
Why liver transplant for mCRC is taking off
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2022
Paths to long-term survival with CRC liver mets
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2023
Categories
DocTalks Hide from search

Hepatic Artery Infusion (HAI) chemotherapy for CRC liver mets

Hepatic Artery Infusion (HAI) chemotherapy for CRC liver mets

DocTalk
2021
Dr. Gholami
HAI
Liver
Stage IV
Surgery

Dr. Sepidah Gholami from UC Davis discusses “HAI Chemotherapy for Liver Mets: What’s Old is New Again” in this Doc Talk recorded in July, 2021.

Betsy Post 0:00
Alrighty. So welcome. Welcome everyone. I’m Betsy post. I’m with COLONTOWN, and I’m helping facilitate this evening’s presentation with Dr Hernandez. And I also have, of course, our esteemed Mayor Lindsey and one of the folks on the cabinet with me, Julie, who are also running tech support, you know, kind of any assistance that you might need, you can definitely ping Julie Lindsey myself. I will try to help in any way. We’re not technical experts, but we’ll, we’ll do our best. But I’m going to introduce our esteemed speaker, Dr Hernandez, if you’re familiar with COLONTOWN liver lovers, Lane transplantation station, our various groups dedicated to liver Mets within the COLONTOWN community. I know that he is not someone that’s a stranger to anyone here, so we’re really honored and really thankful to have him with us this evening to talk to us about the new kid on the block, liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer and why that’s taking off. So just a little bit of background about Dr Hernandez and I have Julie go to the next slide. I’m not going to read to everyone, but this will be available in the recording as well. But he is the chief of the Division of transplantation at the University of Rochester Medical Center. Before that, he was in Canada. He has an amazing background and did extensive training and live liver donor transplantation in Japan. It’s really impressive. He has over 110 he probably knows the specific number peer review publications in liver transplantation and other hepatobiliary topics, and he’s on the editorial board of this esteemed Journal of surgery. So we’re super excited, again, flattered to have him here. There’s no one I think that knows more, I guess, arguably, in my opinion, about this topic of liver Mets for metastatic colorectal cancer than Doctor Hernandez, just a couple of housekeeping things, kind of in the in the middle, if you will. We do want to take your questions, so it’s really important that we keep this, you know, interactive. I would request that you please put the questions in chat. So we are going to monitor chat, and we are going to come back to it after the presentation and go back to those questions. We really want to try to answer every question that everyone has. So please put those in chat so that we can go through them. We’re again going to really monitor those, look at them, make sure that we do go back and ask all of those questions. So please put those in chat, and if you have any questions about how to do that, you can ping one of us will try to help you. So, Julie, you can go to the next slide. And so thank you guys so much for being here, and I’m going to turn it over to Dr Hernandez to start the presentation again. Please put the questions in chat. Say hello and chat. If there’s anything that you hear that you have questions about or you think is interesting, put it in chat. So we’re going to be monitoring that, and we’re all happy to have you here tonight, so take it away. Dr Hernandez,

Speaker 1 3:17
thank you, Betsy. Thank you Lincy, thank you, Claire, for this invitation. It’s always a pleasure to be in this group and to be part of it, once in a while, to be able to participate and guide patients I have dedicated the last many years of my career, a lot into this field of liver metastases, and I’m very happy and glad that we have been able to make progress in science, in medicine and surgery, and always try to push a little bit more the envelope to help more patients. And I like the title that it was assigned, that the new kid on the block. And I tried to find, I remember when I was younger, the New Kids on the Block. So I find this picture of them when they are 2022 they look a little bit older. They’re not kids anymore. And I think that’s exactly what happened to liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis. Is not a new kid, really. It’s new for a lot of us, but it already exists there for many years. So with this, I’m going to start. And last time, I don’t know how long ago was that, but probably a year or something like that, that I was invited by COLONTOWN to give a presentation, and I expanded a lot about colorectal liver metastasis, and then I talked about liver transplantation. Today, I want to concentrate much more in liver transplantation, but to being able to show the importance or why liver transplantation might play, or play a very important role, I want to talk. Back again, a little bit about all the background of colorectal liver metastases. With this, I want to show the this first slide, showing that you all know that is the third most common cancer. Colon cancer is the third more common cancer in the world, after prostate and breast cancer. So it’s not uncommon to have people like you or your beloved that has colon cancer, unfortunately, and it’s so common. But the good thing is that we make a lot of advancements in treatment, especially in chemotherapy, I would say, in the last 20 years. But unfortunately, there hasn’t been anything that is huge over the last 15 years for colorectal liver metastasis. We’re starting to do some changes, and I’m looking forward to, hopefully, within five to 10 years to be able to to have much more and more. But this slide is showing you impressively how colon cancer is increasing in these young population did from 20s, 30s and 40s. Look at the green part is showing how it’s increasing being the number of cases on this population is going up. When I train as a surgeon, as a liver cancer surgeon. I never saw these cases on younger population having colon cancer. We always look at the late 50s, 60s, 70s. It continued happening on them. But look at this. This is happening. Why this is happening? I think it’s difficult for to prove why I have my theories, and I think this will require another conversation, which I’m not expert, but I think it’s about what we eat. It’s the diet, I think so that plays an important role, the sugars. I think sugars are terrible and at bad. But Well, as I mentioned, that’s another topic. So cancer is increasing in the population, in the young population, and unfortunately, when we diagnose younger patients, the disease is more advanced, because we know we don’t have screening colonoscopies for patients who are this age. We were able to move it to 45 years old. The screening colonoscopies just recently, but before it was 50. So this is a population that is really affected, and hopefully we can make change. And recently, I was invited by the group of five colon cancer to go to Washington, DC for in March of this year for call for Congress. And you know that I am. A lot of you know that I’m a transplant surgeon, and I’ve been in the Senate of Albany, the capital of New York, trying to push for organ donation, for trying to increase the, you know, the sensitivity of the people to be organ donors when someone has brain dead, but that has been my only experience as a physician, trying to get into government and trying to push people from government, our congress people for moving into this but this time going to to the capital, it was, it was really impressive. It was taught you, for me, understanding being with patients, being with family, and listening to some of the politicians that are really helpful for this, independently of their party being strong, they saw it was very important and and I hope I can make more work next year, and I’m devoted to be doing this. It took me like to be three days out of work, two and a half days out of work, but I think it’s worth it, and I really enjoy and I want to continue working with them. So this was very important for me, and emotional. I want to continue doing this for for all of you. So liver metastases from colon cancer, we know that the vast majority of the liver metastases, unfortunately, are unresectable. What does that mean? That we cannot remove it with surgery. We know that surgery is the most important thing. It’s the only, only, only, and I repeat it, the only thing surgery that, at this moment, has been proved to be curative, is the only thing that can be curative, not always, but a lot of times could be curative. There hasn’t been any other thing that we can prove that could be curative. But the problem is that resectable, only 20% of these metastases are going to be resectable of the patients, and many of them are not resectable because there are multiple metastases, or the location of the metastasis in the liver, occupying some areas of the big vessels, the veins and the arteries and the bowel dogs or or the or the metastases are not responding to chemotherapy. We know that if a patient. Is not responding to chemotherapy, and we do surgery and we remove it, the chances of having recurrence early is very short, is very is very high, and the patient most likely will have recurrence very shortly, or sometimes. And I put it here in the bottom part, not an experienced surgeon or center, and that’s true, and that’s why I always ask patients to go for second or third opinions. When they come with me, I give them options. Even if they say, No, I’m comfortable with you. They said, Go. You can go with one of my colleagues here, or go outside. And I recommend people, because I want the patient to be sure of what they’re deciding. And I and sometimes there’s some centers that I have experienced that they said, You’re unresectable. They send it, they come to us, they find us, and they turn to be resectable. What happened with the patients who are unresectable and we cannot operate on them? This is not what I’m saying. This is what the literature is saying. The survival is around five to 10% at five years. What does that mean that if a patient cannot go for surgery, if 100 patients cannot go for surgery because they are unresectable, only five of them, or 10 of them, in the best case of scenario, are going to be alive at five years. So we’re talking about 90 to 95% 90% of the patients will die within those five years, perhaps of the one year, two years, three years. This is what the literature shows. And this is pretty well established and in a very high impact factor Lance, one of the highest impact factor journals when we do surgery, as I mentioned, these data coming from in 2009 from Memorial Sloan Catherine Center, where they have very good registries. This is these 60 months are five years. So to compare to the previous one that we say 5% at five years, this is around 40% at five years. So there’s a huge difference. Yes, you will say, Well, I would like to be cured. Well, you have perhaps 40% chances of being cured at five years, or maybe at 10 years, you have 25% percent, 25% chances of being cured. So most likely the cancer will come back, yes, but the thing is that we’re going to be looking very close to the cancer, and we can do other type of treatments. And this is we’re talking about resections at this moment. I’m not talking about transplantation, okay, I don’t want to mix things. This is what happened to patients.

Speaker 1 12:39
Many of the times when this is unresectable, the reason is because the remnant liver is too small. So a lot of patients come and we see that they have a lot of metastasis, perhaps in the right side of the liver and the left side is too small, or it has a small metastases. And I can say, okay, I can go and remove the left side and that little spot, and then remove the entire right side, and the patient will free of cancer. Guess what? The left side portal of the liver? Maybe it’s less than 20% of the size. So if I do that, that patient will have liver failure, and most likely patient will die. So we that will be on respectable as well, and and we know that many of the times those things happen, and there are some techniques that we can we can use, so other times, when the patient is on respectable is because of the multiple number of liver metastases. And this is where liver transplantation can play an important role. So I want to dedicate the rest of this talk about what are the outcomes of liver transplantation? What do we know about it? What is happening in North America? We know that this is started in Norway, in in the Scandinavian countries, and it has expanding faster in Europe, but there is data that I want to show about what is happening in the US, which is first time that I’m going to be showing this. I haven’t shown this data in any medical conference yet, so I’m glad that I’m going to be showing here at COLONTOWN. I mentioned to you before about the two stages hepatectomies, options that we have to do surgeries when you know, for example, in this case here, before doing transplantation, this patient, for example, has this large tumor here. So normally they will say, Okay, let’s remove the right side of the liver, and then the patient will stay with the left side, but if the left side is a small we can do a portal vein embolization. And I’m sure a lot of patients here are familiarized with this, and we can do this, we embolize the portal vein in the right side. So we put some glue and some coils here through interventional radiology, we wait around six to eight weeks. And we expect the left side of the liver, because now all the flow will come here will grow, or in this case where there are multiple we can go do surgery in the first stage. We remove the tumors in the left side of the liver. We clear the left side of the liver, which is smaller, and instead of embolizing, we can ligate will be the same effect, and then the flow will go to the left side. Will be a very similar scenario. This This one you didn’t operate. But in this one you operated. But in both, you will wait six to eight, six to eight weeks, and then the left side of the liver will grow to around 30% or more, and then you can go and operate. And that is called two stages. He protects. But what happened in this study of five US Centers, and you can see here, people from MD Anderson, people from Memorial, people from Hopkins at that moment. Tim poll, he was not in Ohio. He was in Hopkins. And these are our big centers in us, and they they were doing a lot of the two stages, hepatectomies, 16 years of data. A lot of these patients have hepatic arts in Fusion because they have a lot of tumor loads. The more than half of those patients of this have portal veneer, modelization. What happened to them? The morbidity. Morbidity means complications after the second stage was 50% so a lot of these patients have complications, expected two operations, and this is what happened, overall survival, those patients who had the two stage hepatectomy, compared to those ones who only went for chemotherapy because they couldn’t operate on them, there was a significant difference in survival. So you can see that these ones, at five years only perhaps 15% were alive, compared to almost 50% of the patients who went for the two stage patheta, means were alive. Now in this data coming from Rene Adam, you probably you know Rene Adam from Paul Bruce, very famous certain there. And this is from MD Anderson. And this is a systematic review. That means that this Dr lamb, he went and looked at the data from the MD Anderson, from Paul Bruce and from other centers. And they put all these papers together, 459 patients. And they saw that this population of patients, they survived 20% at three years. They did, sorry, not survive the disease free survival. So 80% of the patient the cancer will come back by three years. I think it’s something that is expected. Why? Because these patients had a lot of disease in the liver, and probably they have micro metastases that, as a surgeon, we cannot see and we miss them, right? The alt procedure, I think I have talked here about that is a very similar situation, but it’s quicker. It’s faster. It came here from from Germany. The Germans push this for doing this normally. There are more innovation coming from Europe. And then we start developing things here, because we have more regulations. That is complex to do things here, but they go and remove the left side of tumors. And then I gave the right portal vein, similar to what I described before, but the difference is, in the first surgery, we divide the liver completely. We divide like we open it like a book, and then the left side of the liver is small, but the right side of the liver, which has the cancer, is receiving blood supply from the artery still, so it’s alive, that portion of liver. And we went just 10 days, and in 10 days, the liver of the left side almost duplicate its size, and we go back and remove it. And with this surgery, we are able to operate more than with the two stage. He protected me. However, it’s very aggressive to do two major surgeries in 10 days of difference. And this was a case, as you can see, this is a small size. You can see there’s perhaps the CT scan is not the best, but you can see a tumor here, little two tumors here, tumor here, in the right side and the right side. And so this patient needs a hepatectomy of the right side, but the remnant liver was too small, and this is when we did Imagine we did an Alps. Look at this with the partition. It’s divided here you can see how the right side of the liver shrinks, and it’s impressive. Look at this. This is the left side. It was this part here. This looks like this patient was born with almost known left side, and now it’s huge. This was the first one that I did in my life, and I really thought this was phenomenal. And I continue doing in a very selective cases. This is one of the papers that I published where we can see that the survival of these patients with high two. Tumors we do Alps is very similar of what we saw in the two stage hepatitomies. It doesn’t change too much. Perhaps it’s around 30% that three five years of the survival and the recurrence is pretty high. We are able to operate more than the two stage hepatitis. But I think it’s just selecting the patient, because, honestly, I would do only this in a patient who is very healthy and in good performance status. Now, what happened to those patients who initially, we call them, you know, you’re unresectable. We cannot respect. We cannot use an Alps. We cannot use a two stage hepatite, a portal vein embolization. You are unresectable, so the patient just received chemotherapy, but the patient responds very well, and the patient, we call it conversion. Now we say, Oh, you responded very well. The tumors are smaller now we can go and operate. What happened to them if we operate on them and we remove the cancer, do they do the same as those patients who were initially resectable? Unfortunately, not. And the survival at five years is around 30% and around 80 to 85% of the patient, the cancer will come back five, about five years, so a little bit worse, and it’s expected. Why? Because some of the tumors that disappear, perhaps they are still there. We cannot see it in the CT scans. We cannot see them in the PET scans. We cannot see them in the MRI, but they are still there. So this is what, for example, this is a case in our in Rochester where this patient had look at these multiple metastases here in the right side and then in the left side as well. So this case was called on resectable on resectable disease. But look at this. Now, the patient received chemotherapy, and look at the response. I want you. I’m going to go back so you can see this. Look, the tumors are in the right side, multiple this one here, here, here, here, here. So clearly we do a resection. This patient won’t have it.

Speaker 1 22:17
So even here in the back part of the liver. And then the patient received chemotherapy. And you cannot see a lot of the tumors that were there. You can see this large one here, probably this one here, and even in the one that was here in the back disappear. And then you say, Oh, wow, we should go and resect. You know, maybe 10 years ago I would say, I can go and do an APR here, I can go and do an Alps in this patient, and the patient do very well. We will continue. Don’t forget about that. We’ll come back about that patient. So that is what we will call it a conversion. So what happened with those patients who has been heavily treated with chemo? Or you call it hepatic Arthur in fusion, you call it systemic chemotherapy or both. Because I know hepatic Arthur in fusion, they give both. They are never giving it alone anymore, because it was proof that it doesn’t work when you give it a loan. So in this paper, in this these are two papers, this is one and this is other one. In this paper, patients who have major treatment with a lot of chemotherapy for eight months, one year, year and a half, and then they go for a resection. 40% have major complications. When we say major complications that the patient require an intervention, a re operation for bleeding or a bile duct complication and a 10% mortality. One out of 10 of those patients die, and at five years, 13% were possible in cure. So we’re talking about that almost 90% of the patient the cancer came back in this other study of 47 patients who received more than 12 cycles. That is just six months of treatment. You know better than me about this with chemotherapy and when they went for surgery, 50% of the patient had major complications, and 20% mortality. Two out of 10 patients died. And at three years in this study, all the patients have recurrency. Cancer came back. I think they are. They did better than the patients who only received chemotherapy, definitely. But what I’m showing here is that we have to be very cautious in patients who have to have been heavily treated with chemo when we do liver receptions. And I witness of this as a search, I think some of you know I don’t do trans. Only I do a lot of reverse sections, a little bit that I want to talk about the paddy car three in fusion, because I have seen a lot of a few of these patients, I wouldn’t say like hundreds of these patients, but several of these patients will go for the particle in fusion. So in this paper, that it was probably a little bit off, because this is coming from 2007 but it was known that the hepatic artery in Fusion treatment alone, without systemic chemotherapy, is was not working. It shouldn’t be used. And they call it this the end of Panera, which is not because it’s coming back and they’re pushing and MSK is doing it, and nothing against them. I have very good relationship with them, and there were colleagues, and we have friendship communication with them, but I think we need to be cautious about this. In this study, where they did a trial of efficacy, that means how they compare hepatic artery fusion with systemic chemo. And if you can see here is these are patients. We’re not talking about surgery, we’re just talking about which one did better. Patients will receive a Patric Arthur in fusion with systemic or those ones who did systemic chemotherapy, and they were very similar in number of tumors and age of the patient, so there was no significant difference in those factors, and the only difference in survival of these patients, the patients who received only systemic chemotherapy and no surgery, they survived an average of 20 months because they were unresectable, and the patients will receive the fatty car in Fusion just four months more. Yes, there wasn’t a benefit of those ones who received hepatic art in fusion, not very impressive to see four months, and there were no survivors at five years in any of the two groups. So with that, I want to start mentioning about what’s new for unresectable liver metastas, and we call it the new kid on the block today, alright? And this, some of you are aware of this, and this is started, as I mentioned at the beginning. This is not new liver transplantation started in 2013 and and where is my friend here? PAL Dad, here it is. He’s the guy. He is the main guy. Pal dad, that his first name, his last name is like pal dad is the main surgeon. What is interesting about Norway? There’s only one center in that entire country, only one center that is doing liver transplantation in the United States. How many centers we have doing liver transplantation? Perhaps arrow, 180 maybe. Centers doing liver transplantation. It’s not socialized medicine here, over there is socialized medicine. So there’s no competition. Here is competition, right? So it’s very different. Every patient who needs a liver transplant will go to only one center in Oslo. So the the regulations and the main the way of managing things is much easier here. It’s if I want to do something different, I have 200 centers going against it’s very difficult to make progress with sometimes when we want to do something different. So they were able, and also, they have a short waiting list in their patients who have cirrhosis. They don’t have that many patients, and people donate a lot. So he said, Well, why don’t we start transplanting patients with unresectable metastasis? Because we can use this organ. So these patients, because the French surgeons in the 1990s they use those livers in patients with colorectal metastases, but the outcome was very good, but this was 30 years later, when they started using it now in Norway, and in 30 years, we have much better chemotherapy. We have much better immunotherapy for for patients who get transplant, because patients will receive transplantation require immuno suppression to medication for life to avoid rejection of the organ and and better techniques. So he started doing this, and this is what they saw. If you look at this graph, this is quite impressive. The red line is demonstrating the survival of the patients here in the bottom part is the years. So 60% of the patients who were transplanted with unresectable liver metastases were alive at five years. Wow. Even better that the patient who were resected with resectable disease since the beginning. Never seen that before. What was the problem? The problem this is recurrence. So at around two years, majority of the patient, the cancer came back, but they were alive. A lot of majority of them. So we’re going to go through that. What was happening, what was different? We. The recurrence compared when we deliver resection. I will answer that in, I think, in a couple of slides, probably. So then the Norway group, they start saying, Okay, let’s try to analyze these ones who did better. What were the main factors that created that they were doing better? And they found this as the new score. And they call it the Oslo score, if the two, if the largest metastasis is less than 5.5 centimeters, if the CEA a transplant at the moment of transplant is below 80, if the patient is not progressing on chemotherapy, and if the time from the diagnosis to the transplant is around two years. And if you have each one of these is four points and four points, the transplant will do very bad. If it’s three points, do better, two points or better, and zero to one points, all of the patients were alive. We need to be cautious as well. This is not like, Wow. Yes, this, this is impressive, but look at the number of patients. We’re talking about six patients, five patients, five patients. So we’re talking about small population of patients. So my I reviewed this paper many years ago, and when I saw that, I was really impressed. I was saying why we cannot do this in the US. Well, I was in Canada, sorry. Why? We cannot do this in Canada. It’s impressive, but, but I said, Well, we have to be cautious, because this is a small population, but this has been growing, and now the numbers are more higher and proving the same. Now this is a new thing that is happening, and here in Rochester, we’re taking consideration of this. We’re measuring this. This is the PET scans. We like to do a PET scan before transplant. And this data is showing, with a formula, we can calculate the amount of ability, abilities that the tumor takes this kind of contrast, which is

Speaker 1 32:02
the PET scan. You know, for example, here you see the the it’s highlighting here in yellow, and that’s the ability, if it’s not Avid, that means that it goes like reddish color normal. But we can quantify how much is highlighting and with this formula, if it’s below 70 centimeter cubics, it’s a good factor. If it’s above 70 it’s not a good factor, because those ones who have less than 70 centimeters cubics, they do much better. At five years, this patient has also around 80% survival. So this is a new data showing us that we can use it to verify which patients are going to do better. But it’s not always perfect. Okay. Now I mentioned to you about recurrence. What was the difference in transplant compared to liver resection, and this is so important, majority of the recurrence after transplantation, which is common, around 70% of the patient will have recurrence, but majority of them are in the lungs. But those ones who have in the lungs, they do much, much better and up in this data coming from Norway as well. At five years, all the patients were alive, they still have cancer, a lot of them, not all of them, because some of them, they were able to resect them. Those ones who have metastasis in the liver, their survival was short, but only around 5% of the patients will have recurrent in the liver. When we compare these to patients who have resection or recurrence, it’s pretty high. And I know that Dr Suarez, just a few weeks ago, presented, and he showed the data about the high recurrence after liver resection in this in patients who goes for liver section. Now this is pal that I asked permission for him to show these three lines of data, because his manuscript is under review that I think is going to be published very soon, the first study where they have the first in 2013 when they published, they continue following these patients and the five year survival, five years overall survival of 75% and 10 year, 10 year survival, 50% so we can, he can call that, if we are going to cure patients with Liver transplantation. He said that between 25 to 30% of the patients, if they are were selected, we can be curing these patients. That is pretty impressive. And to survive 75% at five years, this is something that we haven’t seen before. And as I mentioned, long recurrence. It’s very common in transplant. However, is. Is treated with curative intent. It can be resected, of course, if there’s multiple then perhaps chemotherapy will be the best option. This is data coming from the United States. This is your country, the first transplant for liver metastases in the new era, because there were old all transplants. So this is not the first one ever. Okay, no, there were other transplant that happened. Actually, Dr star saw the first Surgeon in the world that did the first liver transplant almost 50 years ago. He did colorectal metastasis liver transplant. So we’re not counting those ones. So those are the first patients who were transplanted for colorectal metastasis. This is the new era that we can call it. In this new era, the first case happened in 2017 and our programs are functioning around here, but you can see 17, 1819, how it’s increasing the interest in the in the United States. This is projection here, just with the way that is growing, and this is what’s until April here. But if we continue with the same projection, probably we will be in 30 just this year in the United States, very soon, probably one more year, we’re going to pass the numbers of Norway. But what is happening? I think what is happening. My point here is, in the United States is a lot of groups wants to do it, but they don’t have the it’s not about the surgical skills. It’s about the selection of patients and the follow up and the experience about being involved with colorectal liver metastases, because the unfortunately, here in the US, the surgical oncologist and the transplant surgeons are very separate. Where I was trained in Canada, I would do both. And I came here and I said, I only will move to Rochester if I’m able and continue doing both things. And I do liver transplant and liver sections, and we collaborate with our surgical oncologist as well, but I continue doing both things, and I think this is open opportunities for being able to to expand innovation in a lot of these spaces. If I wouldn’t be involved in both things, I wouldn’t be doing this. And why living donor? Initially, there were some centers that were using disease donor. Disease donors. I shouldn’t say this word, but I you know, because in transplant, they said that we should avoid saying cadaveric donation. But you know, when patients have brain dead, that’s the most common way of donating in the United States, the 90% of the transplants that I do are from deceased donors, someone who has brain dead our team flies go and retrieve the organ, bring it here, and we operate our patients who has cirrhosis and it’s very sick in the ICU, and hopefully we can save that patient. And we do living daughter in patients who are in the middle of the list that they don’t have too much access. For these patients, the fact that we’re doing liver transplant for those patients give us the skills for being able to deliver living donor liver transplantation in patients who have colorectal liver metastasis, because these are patients that they are not sick from the liver. They have cancer, but they are not sick to be able to be in the top of the list of liver metastases, of liver transplantation, to attract an organ, Cath, a coordinate. So that’s why the number of living donors is increasing for colorectal metastases. And last year, 80% of them of the transplants that took place in the US for colorectal metastases were done by living orders. I can tell you if I predict, well, 90% or more than 90% next year we’re going to see this line going probably around 90 or above. Now, this is the activity that I know so far, and I might be missing some centers. And this was, I think, for around three months ago. These are some of the centers that I know. They have done at least one liver transfer for colorectal metastasis. I put these hospitals bigger ones because they have been doing more. This is Houston, in Methodist. They did, I think four, but they are not doing more. Why? Because they don’t have a living donor liver transplant search, and at that moment, they were able to use some disease organs, because a lot of people around the area of fusion were not using some organs. They were saying, No, I don’t want to use this organ for my patient, because that organ is not very good. But this surgeon said it’s not that bad, and he used it, and he had probably good outcomes in those four patients and or in other patients. And. Okay, but now the allocation system in transplantation in the country change, and a lot of those organs now are going, I don’t know, to the north, so now he’s not having access. So now the only way that he can deliver transplant for these patients is with the living donor. So this is not going to grow unless here is, help me. This is San Luis, right, yes. And this Missouri, you wash you doing few of them that they have been using some calabari organ donation. Here is Cleveland, here is Rochester, here not here is Rochester. Here’s Cleveland, and here’s Pittsburgh. Those are the three other centers that has been doing a little bit more.

Speaker 1 40:44
In our experience, we have done 10 cases, which to my understanding, where the center could have been doing more. And we published with the group from Cleveland and Toronto, this paper that perhaps some of you are away. Are aware, and this is confirming the data outside Norway. It’s a short follow up, because not all of all our patients from that we we have four patients from Rochester, four patients from Cleveland, and two patients from Toronto. Not all of them has five years arrested follow up or more than three years. So we look at three years survival, but looking at this survival, looking at almost 80% of the patients were alive at three years in this patient, and 60% recurrence free survival, that means 40% of patients have recurrence. So that as a pretty similar scenario on Norway, perhaps even a little bit better. But I don’t want to be feel like so excited, because we have to wait to see a little bit more. I will show more data there, specific from Rochester. In Rochester, as I mentioned, after 2000 it was 2018 passing that we started our protocol, and this is our protocol, and I’m gonna go for HD Cal, we go for an Oslo score below two. But to be honest, this is what we have in our protocol. But when we analyze to because we’re writing a paper right now, all our patients has been one or zero, and probably that is one of the reasons that we’re having an acceptable outcomes in our patients. And this, you know, this is the ultra score that I mentioned. But to me and to our group, there are two important things here in this ultra score. I don’t think it’s necessarily to be below 80. I think it’s more important the trend, yes, below 80. Perhaps it’s a marker that the group from Norway found. But imagine if a patient goes from 80 to 40 to 20 to 10, but then it goes from 10 to 30 to 50 to 60 to 70? Is it below 80? Yes, but that’s not good. It’s going up continuously, and closer to 80. That’s something that is not going good there, and probably that trend plays a more important role than the fact that it’s below 80. And the other point is progression of disease. Progression of disease is a bad marker that we know for liver resection, if a patient received chemotherapy and is not responding and progress those patients, we know that they have very high recurrence in transplantation, probably it’s happening. Would happen the same if we translate the data from resection to transplantation, so doing a salvage transplant, probably no, no, it wouldn’t be the ideal. And there’s sometimes that is a little bit difficult to take a decision, because you cannot prove that is progression, and it might not be progression because of the when you measure the the size of the tumor, some of them could be bigger, some of them could be smaller. And then it’s difficult to call it if it’s progression or not. But in other than that, when it’s clear that a patient is progressing, I think transplantation should be avoided. So far in our institution, we have more than one quality 140 referrals. We have a dedicated navigator that is a key member of our team, and Kayla do phenomenal job trying to be in contact with all our patients, responding as soon as possible and reporting to our nurse practitioner and to our coordinators that play a very important role, and to me and we look after there’s a lot of work that we do, bringing all the images and looking at details of patients we have to review sometimes 4050, images in our tumor board. And our radiologists are tired. They say, Well, this image. Is coming from others. CD for mother center, but we review in detail all of these things. Of those, 140 patients, only 10 has rich liver transplant. Wait a moment. There are several, at least eight or more that are still in the process of potential candidates that I think they could be candidates on 24, probably. So that’s huge number, huge number. Hopefully, the eight reached that. But to be honest, probably of those eight, maybe six or five, were reached despite that, that’s still a very big number for the next six months, majority of the patients who were who didn’t reach transplant was because there was evidence of extra particle disease, disease outside the liver. Many patients were potential candidates, but developed progression during the follow up treatment. Because we follow the patients from distance, we look at the imaging device, which sometimes we have to do biopsies to prove either a positive lymph node or lung metastases. Few, probably a handful of the patients who were sent to us for transplantation turned to be resectable. And I was, Wow, really, this is resectable. So we talked to the patient said, you know you’re resectable. You want to come to register? I can do the resection, but probably I can call one of the surgeons close to you, and maybe will be easier for you to go there. If they want to come with us, they’re welcome to come and we do the resection here. But it has happened that sometimes we find that they are resectable. If you went for third or fourth opinions, which is completely okay, because the most important thing is the patient needs to feel confident that where that patient is going is going to be the right place. I think we have all the opportunities to go and say, Okay, we I can. I want to go and see four or five centers, or four or five surgeons, and then I will decide. But when you decide stick to that, that that would be the best thing, because that creates a much better management that’s my advice. This is the data of our 10 patients. This is not the paper that we published, because remember, the paper was Toronto, Cleveland and Rochester, here is only Rochester, and this is what we’re finding out. The shorter recurrence, around 70% survival at three years. So this is pretty impressive, that it was going to change most likely because our there’s new patient that has a very short follow up, only one of our patients, of our out of the tent, has died after having some recurrence. All our nine patients, the rest of the nine patients are alive. Another patient had recurrence, unfortunately, and is getting treatment with chemotherapy. Now here, this is what we’re doing. We have a trial that we’re going through that known as the patients. Doesn’t have to go through the through, through the trial, but we registry these things here because it may cause a more creates more credibility when when you publish things for this, what we found, this is what we’re working this is my research fellow, Mariana Chavez, where these are 14 cases, 10 cases from Rochester and four cases from Cleveland. I’m not showing which one is which one. And this is so interesting. These are each patient, each patient. This is a cartoon of the when they were diagnosed. The number of metastases in the first column. In the second column is the number of tumors prior to liver transplantation. This is after the patient receive a lot of treatments, RFA, so ablation, y 90, Paddy car three, in fusion, chemotherapy, surgeries, etc, etc, right? And then this is what we found when we remove the liver in pathology. And what is impressive is that 60% of these patients, 60% in in where the pets can set. There’s no cancer here. There was cancer. So the disappearing liver metastases that I’m mentioning, they were still there. I think this is the first time, because this is the first time in the history that we have the entire specimen of the liver out. Normally, when we do live resection, we live, you know, part of the liver for the patient to survive. But this is the first time that we remove entire and we can analyze entire liver, and this is what is happening. We’re finding, clearly, with all the evidence that there was still cancer, there are 60% of time even that it’s disappear. It does not

Speaker 1 50:02
some tips and tricks that we have learned. And this is when I go to give a talk. I think I spend a lot of time with the surgeons talking about this, because they want to learn more about this, the timing from colon resection, because a lot of the patients come okay, I still have the primary side. Can I go for a transplant? Well, yes, you can go for transplant, but we have to remove the primary at some moment, or the patient goes, Hey, my colon cancer is gone. They cannot see it. What is the evidence if we go and do a liver transplant and we don’t touch the colon? I haven’t done that, but I wouldn’t, I. Am sure if we give immuno suppression, there might be some cancer cells in the colon, you will come back. So we have pushed for removing it. There’s one patient that I know that we could transplant that we remove a portion of the column for it was tattoo the cancer, and there was no cancer. But there were other two that apparently disappeared, and when we removed the portion of colon, there was still cancer, so it’s better to remove it, and we don’t want to do experimentation here in large lymph nodes. That’s a big question. What should we do? So we use endoscopic ultrasound, sometimes through the stomach, to be able to biopsy the lymph node to be sure if that’s a positively if not. If it’s a positive lymph node, it’s not a good prognosis. And we use Final aspiration, or sometimes the interventional radiologists use percutaneous biopsy. Or few times we do a laparotomy. We have to Okay. If everything looks good, but we have high suspicious we open the abdomen of the patient before or the day of the patient is coming from outside, let’s say if the patient is coming from far away from, I don’t know, Kansas City and the patient and the donor here, but we have suspicion of that. We start the operation with a recipient. Normally, we start with the donor. Normally, that’s when there’s a donor, a living donor. We start with the donor, and then we bring the recipient to the operating room. But in these situations, we don’t want to put the risk of the donor if we are not sure if we can transplant the patient, so we start with the recipient. We open, we take a biopsy of the lymph nodes there. If it’s negative, then we do, we do the transplant. If not, we have to stop the transplant. Long nodules. We have to review the two more board these what they are very dedicated, and that I’m proud of my team, that they review every single thing, and our coordinators take notes about this so and this is on top of their normal work with all the cirrhotic patients, because I’ve been able to have, in my case, a lot of resources from the department of surgery and the institution to be able to set up a team dedicated for this. But a lot of the other coordinators who are not fully involved with these, are very supportive of all of these. We talk about immuno suppression. We try to bring it down as soon as possible. We have learned more about immuno suppression because we have been trying to change some patients that probably they don’t tolerate it very well when we try to switch them. And we’re learning a lot of those things. And this, I think, a new area that I call it HEPA oncology. We have hepatologies. We follow that follows liver transplant patients, and we have oncologists that follow the patients with cancer. This is putting both things together. Our hepatologist with oncology, and I personally call it our hepato oncologist, and this is what we’re trying to develop here. I think, what time is it? Okay? I’m Hurry up. Betsy. I’m sorry for the same criteria for recipients with the Paducah pump. Just 111, more. Note about the Patriot pump. We have the same criteria for as you can see, the patient is a candidate for transplant after the pump. However, it’s very clear to tell the patient there’s a way higher risk in the transplant. Why the pad three pump creates, unfortunately, damage in the paddy Carter. You cannot use it for transplant. And without the paddy car three, deliver one work. So we need to bring the artery of the spleen, or put a conduit from the aorta from a cabaret daughter. We call it graft or conduit, the portal vein, a lot of the times, is very inflamed because of the pump, and also because of the chemotherapy of the pump in that area, and, you know, a lot of the patients capillary damage. So the risk of transplantation is way higher. We do it, but it’s way higher. The only thing that I see for me is, I think there’s a place for the palm a place for transplant. I don’t think it’s a five more, but what I would say more is, if a patient is responding to systemic chemotherapy, why changing the game? If the patient could be a transparent candidate, continue for one year, complete the year, and probably the patient will be a transplant candidate, if the patient is progressing on systemic chemotherapy, okay, the patient is not going. To be a transplant candidate. Let’s give the pump, right? And if it comes back to conversion and respondents, they doing well and well, then find surgeons who want to play hard ball and do this transplant. But if not, I wouldn’t change them the positions here, I think I will stop here. These are the areas where I think the patients are probably four areas that I call it transplant, transplant categories, those patients who we see these since the beginning were unresectable, and they still have the primary inside you, patients who have multiple metastases, but they have multiple treatments, surgeries, ablation, pump, etc, etc. And I call it more burnout, cancer burnout, liver patients who are unresectable because they have recurrence, and probably this is an area where it’s going to be extending those ones who were unresectable and converted to resectable. Perhaps transplantation will benefit this patient. And to finalize, I told you about this patient, right? Look at these metastases, this patient, and then this patient responded. And some surgeons say I can resect that, the patient decided, and we did a liver transplant because we were sure there were more metastasis. Sorry to show you this, but this is the liver. And look at the metastasis. This is the left side of the liver. Should, sorry to show you these, but 12345, here. This is the left side which I’m showing it here. 123, and this is proven that there’s cancer here. So we would do a right hepatectomy for that patient that here, they said, Let’s do a right hepatectomy only to remove this part. We will be removing this part. We will live in all these cancer. So I think we did the correct thing. This is another patient. Look at this amount of disease. Of course, this is unresectable, and this is the amazing the same patient, I promise you. It’s impressive. The response that the patient had. Look at this amazing patient came here for transplantation. This is their lovely donor. We remove the right side of the liver, a beautiful left side of a liver, enough for the donor. And this is the right side of a liver where we use it for reconstructing it. And you can see here, once the blood came into the new liver of the of the recipient, and it looks pink and beautiful. I know probably you don’t feel that this is beautiful, but it is, and this is what we find in the explant. The pathologist look at these spots of cancer. It’s suppose that here it almost disappeared minimal disease. But when we go and see in the pathology multiple spots of cancer, they’re still there. That’s what I want to show you. Another case. Look at lost those liver metastases. Patient responded so well, you can see these calcifications. And, you know, I, I’m part of these. So if, if you would bring me this patient when I was in Canada, when I didn’t have an idea that we were I was going to be doing liver transplantation, I will take this patient to the operating room and try to do resection or Alps, or two stage protections or something. We did a liver transplant, and there were multiple metastases still in the liver, as you can see here, 234567, here in the back of the liver, we’re taking a lot of this tissue as well, with the consent of our patients, that we consent them into my lab, and because we’re trying to analyze more of the biopsies to understand more about the immune system that is playing a role in this cancer, to hopefully, in the future, being able to find markers and decide which patients are going to respond better. And in conclusions, surgery is the goal in metastatic colorectal cancer and surgery, I include transplantation. There are favorable results with chemotherapy, and we have gone far away, and that’s what is helping us for being able to do liver resections more aggressively. Patients should have the opinion of different treatments modalities to explore second and third opinions. I think the field of liver transplantation is evolving quickly, and we need to be cautious about this. I don’t I hope not a lot of surgeons taking us the new thing, the new toy, and not selecting the patients correctly, the multidisciplinary team, the experience, is very important, and we should keep fighting and moving forward. These are frequently asked questions, but probably the people I would like really that people ask questions and feel comfortable to open your your camera, your screen, ask questions. There are no dumb questions. There are important questions, and I’m here for you, and thank you for this invitation. Again. You.

DocTalk
2021
Dr. Gholami
HAI
Liver
Stage IV
Surgery

Dr. Sepidah Gholami from UC Davis discusses “HAI Chemotherapy for Liver Mets: What’s Old is New Again” in this Doc Talk recorded in July, 2021.

More Videos

Liver transplants — Examining the evidence
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2024
ERASur trial: Local treatment options for limited stage IV CRC
Dr. Hitchcock
2023
Advanced surgical treatments for CRC liver mets
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2021
Transplant patients are in the house!
2021
Hepatic Artery Infusion (HAI) chemotherapy for CRC liver mets
Hepatic Artery Infusion (HAI) chemotherapy for CRC liver mets
Dr. Gholami
2021
Modern-day management of liver metastases
Dr. Soares
2022
Why liver transplant for mCRC is taking off
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2022
Paths to long-term survival with CRC liver mets
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2023
Categories
DocTalks Hide from search

Modern-day management of liver metastases

Modern-day management of liver metastases

DocTalk
2022
Dr. Soares
HAI
Liver
Stage IV
Surgery

Dr. Kevin Soares from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center discusses evolving treatment options for CRC liver metastases in this DocTalk, recorded June 2022. 

Betsy Post 0:00
Alrighty. So welcome. Welcome everyone. I’m Betsy post. I’m with COLONTOWN, and I’m helping facilitate this evening’s presentation with Dr Hernandez. And I also have, of course, our esteemed Mayor Lindsey and one of the folks on the cabinet with me, Julie, who are also running tech support, you know, kind of any assistance that you might need, you can definitely ping Julie Lindsey myself. I will try to help in any way. We’re not technical experts, but we’ll, we’ll do our best. But I’m going to introduce our esteemed speaker, Dr Hernandez, if you’re familiar with COLONTOWN liver lovers, Lane transplantation station, our various groups dedicated to liver Mets within the COLONTOWN community. I know that he is not someone that’s a stranger to anyone here, so we’re really honored and really thankful to have him with us this evening to talk to us about the new kid on the block, liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer and why that’s taking off. So just a little bit of background about Dr Hernandez and I have Julie go to the next slide. I’m not going to read to everyone, but this will be available in the recording as well. But he is the chief of the Division of transplantation at the University of Rochester Medical Center. Before that, he was in Canada. He has an amazing background and did extensive training and live liver donor transplantation in Japan. It’s really impressive. He has over 110 he probably knows the specific number peer review publications in liver transplantation and other hepatobiliary topics, and he’s on the editorial board of this esteemed Journal of surgery. So we’re super excited, again, flattered to have him here. There’s no one I think that knows more, I guess, arguably, in my opinion, about this topic of liver Mets for metastatic colorectal cancer than Doctor Hernandez, just a couple of housekeeping things, kind of in the in the middle, if you will. We do want to take your questions, so it’s really important that we keep this, you know, interactive. I would request that you please put the questions in chat. So we are going to monitor chat, and we are going to come back to it after the presentation and go back to those questions. We really want to try to answer every question that everyone has. So please put those in chat so that we can go through them. We’re again going to really monitor those, look at them, make sure that we do go back and ask all of those questions. So please put those in chat, and if you have any questions about how to do that, you can ping one of us will try to help you. So, Julie, you can go to the next slide. And so thank you guys so much for being here, and I’m going to turn it over to Dr Hernandez to start the presentation again. Please put the questions in chat. Say hello and chat. If there’s anything that you hear that you have questions about or you think is interesting, put it in chat. So we’re going to be monitoring that, and we’re all happy to have you here tonight, so take it away. Dr Hernandez,

Speaker 1 3:17
thank you, Betsy. Thank you Lincy, thank you, Claire, for this invitation. It’s always a pleasure to be in this group and to be part of it, once in a while, to be able to participate and guide patients I have dedicated the last many years of my career, a lot into this field of liver metastases, and I’m very happy and glad that we have been able to make progress in science, in medicine and surgery, and always try to push a little bit more the envelope to help more patients. And I like the title that it was assigned, that the new kid on the block. And I tried to find, I remember when I was younger, the New Kids on the Block. So I find this picture of them when they are 2022 they look a little bit older. They’re not kids anymore. And I think that’s exactly what happened to liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis. Is not a new kid, really. It’s new for a lot of us, but it already exists there for many years. So with this, I’m going to start. And last time, I don’t know how long ago was that, but probably a year or something like that, that I was invited by COLONTOWN to give a presentation, and I expanded a lot about colorectal liver metastasis, and then I talked about liver transplantation. Today, I want to concentrate much more in liver transplantation, but to being able to show the importance or why liver transplantation might play, or play a very important role, I want to talk. Back again, a little bit about all the background of colorectal liver metastases. With this, I want to show the this first slide, showing that you all know that is the third most common cancer. Colon cancer is the third more common cancer in the world, after prostate and breast cancer. So it’s not uncommon to have people like you or your beloved that has colon cancer, unfortunately, and it’s so common. But the good thing is that we make a lot of advancements in treatment, especially in chemotherapy, I would say, in the last 20 years. But unfortunately, there hasn’t been anything that is huge over the last 15 years for colorectal liver metastasis. We’re starting to do some changes, and I’m looking forward to, hopefully, within five to 10 years to be able to to have much more and more. But this slide is showing you impressively how colon cancer is increasing in these young population did from 20s, 30s and 40s. Look at the green part is showing how it’s increasing being the number of cases on this population is going up. When I train as a surgeon, as a liver cancer surgeon. I never saw these cases on younger population having colon cancer. We always look at the late 50s, 60s, 70s. It continued happening on them. But look at this. This is happening. Why this is happening? I think it’s difficult for to prove why I have my theories, and I think this will require another conversation, which I’m not expert, but I think it’s about what we eat. It’s the diet, I think so that plays an important role, the sugars. I think sugars are terrible and at bad. But Well, as I mentioned, that’s another topic. So cancer is increasing in the population, in the young population, and unfortunately, when we diagnose younger patients, the disease is more advanced, because we know we don’t have screening colonoscopies for patients who are this age. We were able to move it to 45 years old. The screening colonoscopies just recently, but before it was 50. So this is a population that is really affected, and hopefully we can make change. And recently, I was invited by the group of five colon cancer to go to Washington, DC for in March of this year for call for Congress. And you know that I am. A lot of you know that I’m a transplant surgeon, and I’ve been in the Senate of Albany, the capital of New York, trying to push for organ donation, for trying to increase the, you know, the sensitivity of the people to be organ donors when someone has brain dead, but that has been my only experience as a physician, trying to get into government and trying to push people from government, our congress people for moving into this but this time going to to the capital, it was, it was really impressive. It was taught you, for me, understanding being with patients, being with family, and listening to some of the politicians that are really helpful for this, independently of their party being strong, they saw it was very important and and I hope I can make more work next year, and I’m devoted to be doing this. It took me like to be three days out of work, two and a half days out of work, but I think it’s worth it, and I really enjoy and I want to continue working with them. So this was very important for me, and emotional. I want to continue doing this for for all of you. So liver metastases from colon cancer, we know that the vast majority of the liver metastases, unfortunately, are unresectable. What does that mean? That we cannot remove it with surgery. We know that surgery is the most important thing. It’s the only, only, only, and I repeat it, the only thing surgery that, at this moment, has been proved to be curative, is the only thing that can be curative, not always, but a lot of times could be curative. There hasn’t been any other thing that we can prove that could be curative. But the problem is that resectable, only 20% of these metastases are going to be resectable of the patients, and many of them are not resectable because there are multiple metastases, or the location of the metastasis in the liver, occupying some areas of the big vessels, the veins and the arteries and the bowel dogs or or the or the metastases are not responding to chemotherapy. We know that if a patient. Is not responding to chemotherapy, and we do surgery and we remove it, the chances of having recurrence early is very short, is very is very high, and the patient most likely will have recurrence very shortly, or sometimes. And I put it here in the bottom part, not an experienced surgeon or center, and that’s true, and that’s why I always ask patients to go for second or third opinions. When they come with me, I give them options. Even if they say, No, I’m comfortable with you. They said, Go. You can go with one of my colleagues here, or go outside. And I recommend people, because I want the patient to be sure of what they’re deciding. And I and sometimes there’s some centers that I have experienced that they said, You’re unresectable. They send it, they come to us, they find us, and they turn to be resectable. What happened with the patients who are unresectable and we cannot operate on them? This is not what I’m saying. This is what the literature is saying. The survival is around five to 10% at five years. What does that mean that if a patient cannot go for surgery, if 100 patients cannot go for surgery because they are unresectable, only five of them, or 10 of them, in the best case of scenario, are going to be alive at five years. So we’re talking about 90 to 95% 90% of the patients will die within those five years, perhaps of the one year, two years, three years. This is what the literature shows. And this is pretty well established and in a very high impact factor Lance, one of the highest impact factor journals when we do surgery, as I mentioned, these data coming from in 2009 from Memorial Sloan Catherine Center, where they have very good registries. This is these 60 months are five years. So to compare to the previous one that we say 5% at five years, this is around 40% at five years. So there’s a huge difference. Yes, you will say, Well, I would like to be cured. Well, you have perhaps 40% chances of being cured at five years, or maybe at 10 years, you have 25% percent, 25% chances of being cured. So most likely the cancer will come back, yes, but the thing is that we’re going to be looking very close to the cancer, and we can do other type of treatments. And this is we’re talking about resections at this moment. I’m not talking about transplantation, okay, I don’t want to mix things. This is what happened to patients.

Speaker 1 12:39
Many of the times when this is unresectable, the reason is because the remnant liver is too small. So a lot of patients come and we see that they have a lot of metastasis, perhaps in the right side of the liver and the left side is too small, or it has a small metastases. And I can say, okay, I can go and remove the left side and that little spot, and then remove the entire right side, and the patient will free of cancer. Guess what? The left side portal of the liver? Maybe it’s less than 20% of the size. So if I do that, that patient will have liver failure, and most likely patient will die. So we that will be on respectable as well, and and we know that many of the times those things happen, and there are some techniques that we can we can use, so other times, when the patient is on respectable is because of the multiple number of liver metastases. And this is where liver transplantation can play an important role. So I want to dedicate the rest of this talk about what are the outcomes of liver transplantation? What do we know about it? What is happening in North America? We know that this is started in Norway, in in the Scandinavian countries, and it has expanding faster in Europe, but there is data that I want to show about what is happening in the US, which is first time that I’m going to be showing this. I haven’t shown this data in any medical conference yet, so I’m glad that I’m going to be showing here at COLONTOWN. I mentioned to you before about the two stages hepatectomies, options that we have to do surgeries when you know, for example, in this case here, before doing transplantation, this patient, for example, has this large tumor here. So normally they will say, Okay, let’s remove the right side of the liver, and then the patient will stay with the left side, but if the left side is a small we can do a portal vein embolization. And I’m sure a lot of patients here are familiarized with this, and we can do this, we embolize the portal vein in the right side. So we put some glue and some coils here through interventional radiology, we wait around six to eight weeks. And we expect the left side of the liver, because now all the flow will come here will grow, or in this case where there are multiple we can go do surgery in the first stage. We remove the tumors in the left side of the liver. We clear the left side of the liver, which is smaller, and instead of embolizing, we can ligate will be the same effect, and then the flow will go to the left side. Will be a very similar scenario. This This one you didn’t operate. But in this one you operated. But in both, you will wait six to eight, six to eight weeks, and then the left side of the liver will grow to around 30% or more, and then you can go and operate. And that is called two stages. He protects. But what happened in this study of five US Centers, and you can see here, people from MD Anderson, people from Memorial, people from Hopkins at that moment. Tim poll, he was not in Ohio. He was in Hopkins. And these are our big centers in us, and they they were doing a lot of the two stages, hepatectomies, 16 years of data. A lot of these patients have hepatic arts in Fusion because they have a lot of tumor loads. The more than half of those patients of this have portal veneer, modelization. What happened to them? The morbidity. Morbidity means complications after the second stage was 50% so a lot of these patients have complications, expected two operations, and this is what happened, overall survival, those patients who had the two stage hepatectomy, compared to those ones who only went for chemotherapy because they couldn’t operate on them, there was a significant difference in survival. So you can see that these ones, at five years only perhaps 15% were alive, compared to almost 50% of the patients who went for the two stage patheta, means were alive. Now in this data coming from Rene Adam, you probably you know Rene Adam from Paul Bruce, very famous certain there. And this is from MD Anderson. And this is a systematic review. That means that this Dr lamb, he went and looked at the data from the MD Anderson, from Paul Bruce and from other centers. And they put all these papers together, 459 patients. And they saw that this population of patients, they survived 20% at three years. They did, sorry, not survive the disease free survival. So 80% of the patient the cancer will come back by three years. I think it’s something that is expected. Why? Because these patients had a lot of disease in the liver, and probably they have micro metastases that, as a surgeon, we cannot see and we miss them, right? The alt procedure, I think I have talked here about that is a very similar situation, but it’s quicker. It’s faster. It came here from from Germany. The Germans push this for doing this normally. There are more innovation coming from Europe. And then we start developing things here, because we have more regulations. That is complex to do things here, but they go and remove the left side of tumors. And then I gave the right portal vein, similar to what I described before, but the difference is, in the first surgery, we divide the liver completely. We divide like we open it like a book, and then the left side of the liver is small, but the right side of the liver, which has the cancer, is receiving blood supply from the artery still, so it’s alive, that portion of liver. And we went just 10 days, and in 10 days, the liver of the left side almost duplicate its size, and we go back and remove it. And with this surgery, we are able to operate more than with the two stage. He protected me. However, it’s very aggressive to do two major surgeries in 10 days of difference. And this was a case, as you can see, this is a small size. You can see there’s perhaps the CT scan is not the best, but you can see a tumor here, little two tumors here, tumor here, in the right side and the right side. And so this patient needs a hepatectomy of the right side, but the remnant liver was too small, and this is when we did Imagine we did an Alps. Look at this with the partition. It’s divided here you can see how the right side of the liver shrinks, and it’s impressive. Look at this. This is the left side. It was this part here. This looks like this patient was born with almost known left side, and now it’s huge. This was the first one that I did in my life, and I really thought this was phenomenal. And I continue doing in a very selective cases. This is one of the papers that I published where we can see that the survival of these patients with high two. Tumors we do Alps is very similar of what we saw in the two stage hepatitomies. It doesn’t change too much. Perhaps it’s around 30% that three five years of the survival and the recurrence is pretty high. We are able to operate more than the two stage hepatitis. But I think it’s just selecting the patient, because, honestly, I would do only this in a patient who is very healthy and in good performance status. Now, what happened to those patients who initially, we call them, you know, you’re unresectable. We cannot respect. We cannot use an Alps. We cannot use a two stage hepatite, a portal vein embolization. You are unresectable, so the patient just received chemotherapy, but the patient responds very well, and the patient, we call it conversion. Now we say, Oh, you responded very well. The tumors are smaller now we can go and operate. What happened to them if we operate on them and we remove the cancer, do they do the same as those patients who were initially resectable? Unfortunately, not. And the survival at five years is around 30% and around 80 to 85% of the patient, the cancer will come back five, about five years, so a little bit worse, and it’s expected. Why? Because some of the tumors that disappear, perhaps they are still there. We cannot see it in the CT scans. We cannot see them in the PET scans. We cannot see them in the MRI, but they are still there. So this is what, for example, this is a case in our in Rochester where this patient had look at these multiple metastases here in the right side and then in the left side as well. So this case was called on resectable on resectable disease. But look at this. Now, the patient received chemotherapy, and look at the response. I want you. I’m going to go back so you can see this. Look, the tumors are in the right side, multiple this one here, here, here, here, here. So clearly we do a resection. This patient won’t have it.

Speaker 1 22:17
So even here in the back part of the liver. And then the patient received chemotherapy. And you cannot see a lot of the tumors that were there. You can see this large one here, probably this one here, and even in the one that was here in the back disappear. And then you say, Oh, wow, we should go and resect. You know, maybe 10 years ago I would say, I can go and do an APR here, I can go and do an Alps in this patient, and the patient do very well. We will continue. Don’t forget about that. We’ll come back about that patient. So that is what we will call it a conversion. So what happened with those patients who has been heavily treated with chemo? Or you call it hepatic Arthur in fusion, you call it systemic chemotherapy or both. Because I know hepatic Arthur in fusion, they give both. They are never giving it alone anymore, because it was proof that it doesn’t work when you give it a loan. So in this paper, in this these are two papers, this is one and this is other one. In this paper, patients who have major treatment with a lot of chemotherapy for eight months, one year, year and a half, and then they go for a resection. 40% have major complications. When we say major complications that the patient require an intervention, a re operation for bleeding or a bile duct complication and a 10% mortality. One out of 10 of those patients die, and at five years, 13% were possible in cure. So we’re talking about that almost 90% of the patient the cancer came back in this other study of 47 patients who received more than 12 cycles. That is just six months of treatment. You know better than me about this with chemotherapy and when they went for surgery, 50% of the patient had major complications, and 20% mortality. Two out of 10 patients died. And at three years in this study, all the patients have recurrency. Cancer came back. I think they are. They did better than the patients who only received chemotherapy, definitely. But what I’m showing here is that we have to be very cautious in patients who have to have been heavily treated with chemo when we do liver receptions. And I witness of this as a search, I think some of you know I don’t do trans. Only I do a lot of reverse sections, a little bit that I want to talk about the paddy car three in fusion, because I have seen a lot of a few of these patients, I wouldn’t say like hundreds of these patients, but several of these patients will go for the particle in fusion. So in this paper, that it was probably a little bit off, because this is coming from 2007 but it was known that the hepatic artery in Fusion treatment alone, without systemic chemotherapy, is was not working. It shouldn’t be used. And they call it this the end of Panera, which is not because it’s coming back and they’re pushing and MSK is doing it, and nothing against them. I have very good relationship with them, and there were colleagues, and we have friendship communication with them, but I think we need to be cautious about this. In this study, where they did a trial of efficacy, that means how they compare hepatic artery fusion with systemic chemo. And if you can see here is these are patients. We’re not talking about surgery, we’re just talking about which one did better. Patients will receive a Patric Arthur in fusion with systemic or those ones who did systemic chemotherapy, and they were very similar in number of tumors and age of the patient, so there was no significant difference in those factors, and the only difference in survival of these patients, the patients who received only systemic chemotherapy and no surgery, they survived an average of 20 months because they were unresectable, and the patients will receive the fatty car in Fusion just four months more. Yes, there wasn’t a benefit of those ones who received hepatic art in fusion, not very impressive to see four months, and there were no survivors at five years in any of the two groups. So with that, I want to start mentioning about what’s new for unresectable liver metastas, and we call it the new kid on the block today, alright? And this, some of you are aware of this, and this is started, as I mentioned at the beginning. This is not new liver transplantation started in 2013 and and where is my friend here? PAL Dad, here it is. He’s the guy. He is the main guy. Pal dad, that his first name, his last name is like pal dad is the main surgeon. What is interesting about Norway? There’s only one center in that entire country, only one center that is doing liver transplantation in the United States. How many centers we have doing liver transplantation? Perhaps arrow, 180 maybe. Centers doing liver transplantation. It’s not socialized medicine here, over there is socialized medicine. So there’s no competition. Here is competition, right? So it’s very different. Every patient who needs a liver transplant will go to only one center in Oslo. So the the regulations and the main the way of managing things is much easier here. It’s if I want to do something different, I have 200 centers going against it’s very difficult to make progress with sometimes when we want to do something different. So they were able, and also, they have a short waiting list in their patients who have cirrhosis. They don’t have that many patients, and people donate a lot. So he said, Well, why don’t we start transplanting patients with unresectable metastasis? Because we can use this organ. So these patients, because the French surgeons in the 1990s they use those livers in patients with colorectal metastases, but the outcome was very good, but this was 30 years later, when they started using it now in Norway, and in 30 years, we have much better chemotherapy. We have much better immunotherapy for for patients who get transplant, because patients will receive transplantation require immuno suppression to medication for life to avoid rejection of the organ and and better techniques. So he started doing this, and this is what they saw. If you look at this graph, this is quite impressive. The red line is demonstrating the survival of the patients here in the bottom part is the years. So 60% of the patients who were transplanted with unresectable liver metastases were alive at five years. Wow. Even better that the patient who were resected with resectable disease since the beginning. Never seen that before. What was the problem? The problem this is recurrence. So at around two years, majority of the patient, the cancer came back, but they were alive. A lot of majority of them. So we’re going to go through that. What was happening, what was different? We. The recurrence compared when we deliver resection. I will answer that in, I think, in a couple of slides, probably. So then the Norway group, they start saying, Okay, let’s try to analyze these ones who did better. What were the main factors that created that they were doing better? And they found this as the new score. And they call it the Oslo score, if the two, if the largest metastasis is less than 5.5 centimeters, if the CEA a transplant at the moment of transplant is below 80, if the patient is not progressing on chemotherapy, and if the time from the diagnosis to the transplant is around two years. And if you have each one of these is four points and four points, the transplant will do very bad. If it’s three points, do better, two points or better, and zero to one points, all of the patients were alive. We need to be cautious as well. This is not like, Wow. Yes, this, this is impressive, but look at the number of patients. We’re talking about six patients, five patients, five patients. So we’re talking about small population of patients. So my I reviewed this paper many years ago, and when I saw that, I was really impressed. I was saying why we cannot do this in the US. Well, I was in Canada, sorry. Why? We cannot do this in Canada. It’s impressive, but, but I said, Well, we have to be cautious, because this is a small population, but this has been growing, and now the numbers are more higher and proving the same. Now this is a new thing that is happening, and here in Rochester, we’re taking consideration of this. We’re measuring this. This is the PET scans. We like to do a PET scan before transplant. And this data is showing, with a formula, we can calculate the amount of ability, abilities that the tumor takes this kind of contrast, which is

Speaker 1 32:02
the PET scan. You know, for example, here you see the the it’s highlighting here in yellow, and that’s the ability, if it’s not Avid, that means that it goes like reddish color normal. But we can quantify how much is highlighting and with this formula, if it’s below 70 centimeter cubics, it’s a good factor. If it’s above 70 it’s not a good factor, because those ones who have less than 70 centimeters cubics, they do much better. At five years, this patient has also around 80% survival. So this is a new data showing us that we can use it to verify which patients are going to do better. But it’s not always perfect. Okay. Now I mentioned to you about recurrence. What was the difference in transplant compared to liver resection, and this is so important, majority of the recurrence after transplantation, which is common, around 70% of the patient will have recurrence, but majority of them are in the lungs. But those ones who have in the lungs, they do much, much better and up in this data coming from Norway as well. At five years, all the patients were alive, they still have cancer, a lot of them, not all of them, because some of them, they were able to resect them. Those ones who have metastasis in the liver, their survival was short, but only around 5% of the patients will have recurrent in the liver. When we compare these to patients who have resection or recurrence, it’s pretty high. And I know that Dr Suarez, just a few weeks ago, presented, and he showed the data about the high recurrence after liver resection in this in patients who goes for liver section. Now this is pal that I asked permission for him to show these three lines of data, because his manuscript is under review that I think is going to be published very soon, the first study where they have the first in 2013 when they published, they continue following these patients and the five year survival, five years overall survival of 75% and 10 year, 10 year survival, 50% so we can, he can call that, if we are going to cure patients with Liver transplantation. He said that between 25 to 30% of the patients, if they are were selected, we can be curing these patients. That is pretty impressive. And to survive 75% at five years, this is something that we haven’t seen before. And as I mentioned, long recurrence. It’s very common in transplant. However, is. Is treated with curative intent. It can be resected, of course, if there’s multiple then perhaps chemotherapy will be the best option. This is data coming from the United States. This is your country, the first transplant for liver metastases in the new era, because there were old all transplants. So this is not the first one ever. Okay, no, there were other transplant that happened. Actually, Dr star saw the first Surgeon in the world that did the first liver transplant almost 50 years ago. He did colorectal metastasis liver transplant. So we’re not counting those ones. So those are the first patients who were transplanted for colorectal metastasis. This is the new era that we can call it. In this new era, the first case happened in 2017 and our programs are functioning around here, but you can see 17, 1819, how it’s increasing the interest in the in the United States. This is projection here, just with the way that is growing, and this is what’s until April here. But if we continue with the same projection, probably we will be in 30 just this year in the United States, very soon, probably one more year, we’re going to pass the numbers of Norway. But what is happening? I think what is happening. My point here is, in the United States is a lot of groups wants to do it, but they don’t have the it’s not about the surgical skills. It’s about the selection of patients and the follow up and the experience about being involved with colorectal liver metastases, because the unfortunately, here in the US, the surgical oncologist and the transplant surgeons are very separate. Where I was trained in Canada, I would do both. And I came here and I said, I only will move to Rochester if I’m able and continue doing both things. And I do liver transplant and liver sections, and we collaborate with our surgical oncologist as well, but I continue doing both things, and I think this is open opportunities for being able to to expand innovation in a lot of these spaces. If I wouldn’t be involved in both things, I wouldn’t be doing this. And why living donor? Initially, there were some centers that were using disease donor. Disease donors. I shouldn’t say this word, but I you know, because in transplant, they said that we should avoid saying cadaveric donation. But you know, when patients have brain dead, that’s the most common way of donating in the United States, the 90% of the transplants that I do are from deceased donors, someone who has brain dead our team flies go and retrieve the organ, bring it here, and we operate our patients who has cirrhosis and it’s very sick in the ICU, and hopefully we can save that patient. And we do living daughter in patients who are in the middle of the list that they don’t have too much access. For these patients, the fact that we’re doing liver transplant for those patients give us the skills for being able to deliver living donor liver transplantation in patients who have colorectal liver metastasis, because these are patients that they are not sick from the liver. They have cancer, but they are not sick to be able to be in the top of the list of liver metastases, of liver transplantation, to attract an organ, Cath, a coordinate. So that’s why the number of living donors is increasing for colorectal metastases. And last year, 80% of them of the transplants that took place in the US for colorectal metastases were done by living orders. I can tell you if I predict, well, 90% or more than 90% next year we’re going to see this line going probably around 90 or above. Now, this is the activity that I know so far, and I might be missing some centers. And this was, I think, for around three months ago. These are some of the centers that I know. They have done at least one liver transfer for colorectal metastasis. I put these hospitals bigger ones because they have been doing more. This is Houston, in Methodist. They did, I think four, but they are not doing more. Why? Because they don’t have a living donor liver transplant search, and at that moment, they were able to use some disease organs, because a lot of people around the area of fusion were not using some organs. They were saying, No, I don’t want to use this organ for my patient, because that organ is not very good. But this surgeon said it’s not that bad, and he used it, and he had probably good outcomes in those four patients and or in other patients. And. Okay, but now the allocation system in transplantation in the country change, and a lot of those organs now are going, I don’t know, to the north, so now he’s not having access. So now the only way that he can deliver transplant for these patients is with the living donor. So this is not going to grow unless here is, help me. This is San Luis, right, yes. And this Missouri, you wash you doing few of them that they have been using some calabari organ donation. Here is Cleveland, here is Rochester, here not here is Rochester. Here’s Cleveland, and here’s Pittsburgh. Those are the three other centers that has been doing a little bit more.

Speaker 1 40:44
In our experience, we have done 10 cases, which to my understanding, where the center could have been doing more. And we published with the group from Cleveland and Toronto, this paper that perhaps some of you are away. Are aware, and this is confirming the data outside Norway. It’s a short follow up, because not all of all our patients from that we we have four patients from Rochester, four patients from Cleveland, and two patients from Toronto. Not all of them has five years arrested follow up or more than three years. So we look at three years survival, but looking at this survival, looking at almost 80% of the patients were alive at three years in this patient, and 60% recurrence free survival, that means 40% of patients have recurrence. So that as a pretty similar scenario on Norway, perhaps even a little bit better. But I don’t want to be feel like so excited, because we have to wait to see a little bit more. I will show more data there, specific from Rochester. In Rochester, as I mentioned, after 2000 it was 2018 passing that we started our protocol, and this is our protocol, and I’m gonna go for HD Cal, we go for an Oslo score below two. But to be honest, this is what we have in our protocol. But when we analyze to because we’re writing a paper right now, all our patients has been one or zero, and probably that is one of the reasons that we’re having an acceptable outcomes in our patients. And this, you know, this is the ultra score that I mentioned. But to me and to our group, there are two important things here in this ultra score. I don’t think it’s necessarily to be below 80. I think it’s more important the trend, yes, below 80. Perhaps it’s a marker that the group from Norway found. But imagine if a patient goes from 80 to 40 to 20 to 10, but then it goes from 10 to 30 to 50 to 60 to 70? Is it below 80? Yes, but that’s not good. It’s going up continuously, and closer to 80. That’s something that is not going good there, and probably that trend plays a more important role than the fact that it’s below 80. And the other point is progression of disease. Progression of disease is a bad marker that we know for liver resection, if a patient received chemotherapy and is not responding and progress those patients, we know that they have very high recurrence in transplantation, probably it’s happening. Would happen the same if we translate the data from resection to transplantation, so doing a salvage transplant, probably no, no, it wouldn’t be the ideal. And there’s sometimes that is a little bit difficult to take a decision, because you cannot prove that is progression, and it might not be progression because of the when you measure the the size of the tumor, some of them could be bigger, some of them could be smaller. And then it’s difficult to call it if it’s progression or not. But in other than that, when it’s clear that a patient is progressing, I think transplantation should be avoided. So far in our institution, we have more than one quality 140 referrals. We have a dedicated navigator that is a key member of our team, and Kayla do phenomenal job trying to be in contact with all our patients, responding as soon as possible and reporting to our nurse practitioner and to our coordinators that play a very important role, and to me and we look after there’s a lot of work that we do, bringing all the images and looking at details of patients we have to review sometimes 4050, images in our tumor board. And our radiologists are tired. They say, Well, this image. Is coming from others. CD for mother center, but we review in detail all of these things. Of those, 140 patients, only 10 has rich liver transplant. Wait a moment. There are several, at least eight or more that are still in the process of potential candidates that I think they could be candidates on 24, probably. So that’s huge number, huge number. Hopefully, the eight reached that. But to be honest, probably of those eight, maybe six or five, were reached despite that, that’s still a very big number for the next six months, majority of the patients who were who didn’t reach transplant was because there was evidence of extra particle disease, disease outside the liver. Many patients were potential candidates, but developed progression during the follow up treatment. Because we follow the patients from distance, we look at the imaging device, which sometimes we have to do biopsies to prove either a positive lymph node or lung metastases. Few, probably a handful of the patients who were sent to us for transplantation turned to be resectable. And I was, Wow, really, this is resectable. So we talked to the patient said, you know you’re resectable. You want to come to register? I can do the resection, but probably I can call one of the surgeons close to you, and maybe will be easier for you to go there. If they want to come with us, they’re welcome to come and we do the resection here. But it has happened that sometimes we find that they are resectable. If you went for third or fourth opinions, which is completely okay, because the most important thing is the patient needs to feel confident that where that patient is going is going to be the right place. I think we have all the opportunities to go and say, Okay, we I can. I want to go and see four or five centers, or four or five surgeons, and then I will decide. But when you decide stick to that, that that would be the best thing, because that creates a much better management that’s my advice. This is the data of our 10 patients. This is not the paper that we published, because remember, the paper was Toronto, Cleveland and Rochester, here is only Rochester, and this is what we’re finding out. The shorter recurrence, around 70% survival at three years. So this is pretty impressive, that it was going to change most likely because our there’s new patient that has a very short follow up, only one of our patients, of our out of the tent, has died after having some recurrence. All our nine patients, the rest of the nine patients are alive. Another patient had recurrence, unfortunately, and is getting treatment with chemotherapy. Now here, this is what we’re doing. We have a trial that we’re going through that known as the patients. Doesn’t have to go through the through, through the trial, but we registry these things here because it may cause a more creates more credibility when when you publish things for this, what we found, this is what we’re working this is my research fellow, Mariana Chavez, where these are 14 cases, 10 cases from Rochester and four cases from Cleveland. I’m not showing which one is which one. And this is so interesting. These are each patient, each patient. This is a cartoon of the when they were diagnosed. The number of metastases in the first column. In the second column is the number of tumors prior to liver transplantation. This is after the patient receive a lot of treatments, RFA, so ablation, y 90, Paddy car three, in fusion, chemotherapy, surgeries, etc, etc, right? And then this is what we found when we remove the liver in pathology. And what is impressive is that 60% of these patients, 60% in in where the pets can set. There’s no cancer here. There was cancer. So the disappearing liver metastases that I’m mentioning, they were still there. I think this is the first time, because this is the first time in the history that we have the entire specimen of the liver out. Normally, when we do live resection, we live, you know, part of the liver for the patient to survive. But this is the first time that we remove entire and we can analyze entire liver, and this is what is happening. We’re finding, clearly, with all the evidence that there was still cancer, there are 60% of time even that it’s disappear. It does not

Speaker 1 50:02
some tips and tricks that we have learned. And this is when I go to give a talk. I think I spend a lot of time with the surgeons talking about this, because they want to learn more about this, the timing from colon resection, because a lot of the patients come okay, I still have the primary side. Can I go for a transplant? Well, yes, you can go for transplant, but we have to remove the primary at some moment, or the patient goes, Hey, my colon cancer is gone. They cannot see it. What is the evidence if we go and do a liver transplant and we don’t touch the colon? I haven’t done that, but I wouldn’t, I. Am sure if we give immuno suppression, there might be some cancer cells in the colon, you will come back. So we have pushed for removing it. There’s one patient that I know that we could transplant that we remove a portion of the column for it was tattoo the cancer, and there was no cancer. But there were other two that apparently disappeared, and when we removed the portion of colon, there was still cancer, so it’s better to remove it, and we don’t want to do experimentation here in large lymph nodes. That’s a big question. What should we do? So we use endoscopic ultrasound, sometimes through the stomach, to be able to biopsy the lymph node to be sure if that’s a positively if not. If it’s a positive lymph node, it’s not a good prognosis. And we use Final aspiration, or sometimes the interventional radiologists use percutaneous biopsy. Or few times we do a laparotomy. We have to Okay. If everything looks good, but we have high suspicious we open the abdomen of the patient before or the day of the patient is coming from outside, let’s say if the patient is coming from far away from, I don’t know, Kansas City and the patient and the donor here, but we have suspicion of that. We start the operation with a recipient. Normally, we start with the donor. Normally, that’s when there’s a donor, a living donor. We start with the donor, and then we bring the recipient to the operating room. But in these situations, we don’t want to put the risk of the donor if we are not sure if we can transplant the patient, so we start with the recipient. We open, we take a biopsy of the lymph nodes there. If it’s negative, then we do, we do the transplant. If not, we have to stop the transplant. Long nodules. We have to review the two more board these what they are very dedicated, and that I’m proud of my team, that they review every single thing, and our coordinators take notes about this so and this is on top of their normal work with all the cirrhotic patients, because I’ve been able to have, in my case, a lot of resources from the department of surgery and the institution to be able to set up a team dedicated for this. But a lot of the other coordinators who are not fully involved with these, are very supportive of all of these. We talk about immuno suppression. We try to bring it down as soon as possible. We have learned more about immuno suppression because we have been trying to change some patients that probably they don’t tolerate it very well when we try to switch them. And we’re learning a lot of those things. And this, I think, a new area that I call it HEPA oncology. We have hepatologies. We follow that follows liver transplant patients, and we have oncologists that follow the patients with cancer. This is putting both things together. Our hepatologist with oncology, and I personally call it our hepato oncologist, and this is what we’re trying to develop here. I think, what time is it? Okay? I’m Hurry up. Betsy. I’m sorry for the same criteria for recipients with the Paducah pump. Just 111, more. Note about the Patriot pump. We have the same criteria for as you can see, the patient is a candidate for transplant after the pump. However, it’s very clear to tell the patient there’s a way higher risk in the transplant. Why the pad three pump creates, unfortunately, damage in the paddy Carter. You cannot use it for transplant. And without the paddy car three, deliver one work. So we need to bring the artery of the spleen, or put a conduit from the aorta from a cabaret daughter. We call it graft or conduit, the portal vein, a lot of the times, is very inflamed because of the pump, and also because of the chemotherapy of the pump in that area, and, you know, a lot of the patients capillary damage. So the risk of transplantation is way higher. We do it, but it’s way higher. The only thing that I see for me is, I think there’s a place for the palm a place for transplant. I don’t think it’s a five more, but what I would say more is, if a patient is responding to systemic chemotherapy, why changing the game? If the patient could be a transparent candidate, continue for one year, complete the year, and probably the patient will be a transplant candidate, if the patient is progressing on systemic chemotherapy, okay, the patient is not going. To be a transplant candidate. Let’s give the pump, right? And if it comes back to conversion and respondents, they doing well and well, then find surgeons who want to play hard ball and do this transplant. But if not, I wouldn’t change them the positions here, I think I will stop here. These are the areas where I think the patients are probably four areas that I call it transplant, transplant categories, those patients who we see these since the beginning were unresectable, and they still have the primary inside you, patients who have multiple metastases, but they have multiple treatments, surgeries, ablation, pump, etc, etc. And I call it more burnout, cancer burnout, liver patients who are unresectable because they have recurrence, and probably this is an area where it’s going to be extending those ones who were unresectable and converted to resectable. Perhaps transplantation will benefit this patient. And to finalize, I told you about this patient, right? Look at these metastases, this patient, and then this patient responded. And some surgeons say I can resect that, the patient decided, and we did a liver transplant because we were sure there were more metastasis. Sorry to show you this, but this is the liver. And look at the metastasis. This is the left side of the liver. Should, sorry to show you these, but 12345, here. This is the left side which I’m showing it here. 123, and this is proven that there’s cancer here. So we would do a right hepatectomy for that patient that here, they said, Let’s do a right hepatectomy only to remove this part. We will be removing this part. We will live in all these cancer. So I think we did the correct thing. This is another patient. Look at this amount of disease. Of course, this is unresectable, and this is the amazing the same patient, I promise you. It’s impressive. The response that the patient had. Look at this amazing patient came here for transplantation. This is their lovely donor. We remove the right side of the liver, a beautiful left side of a liver, enough for the donor. And this is the right side of a liver where we use it for reconstructing it. And you can see here, once the blood came into the new liver of the of the recipient, and it looks pink and beautiful. I know probably you don’t feel that this is beautiful, but it is, and this is what we find in the explant. The pathologist look at these spots of cancer. It’s suppose that here it almost disappeared minimal disease. But when we go and see in the pathology multiple spots of cancer, they’re still there. That’s what I want to show you. Another case. Look at lost those liver metastases. Patient responded so well, you can see these calcifications. And, you know, I, I’m part of these. So if, if you would bring me this patient when I was in Canada, when I didn’t have an idea that we were I was going to be doing liver transplantation, I will take this patient to the operating room and try to do resection or Alps, or two stage protections or something. We did a liver transplant, and there were multiple metastases still in the liver, as you can see here, 234567, here in the back of the liver, we’re taking a lot of this tissue as well, with the consent of our patients, that we consent them into my lab, and because we’re trying to analyze more of the biopsies to understand more about the immune system that is playing a role in this cancer, to hopefully, in the future, being able to find markers and decide which patients are going to respond better. And in conclusions, surgery is the goal in metastatic colorectal cancer and surgery, I include transplantation. There are favorable results with chemotherapy, and we have gone far away, and that’s what is helping us for being able to do liver resections more aggressively. Patients should have the opinion of different treatments modalities to explore second and third opinions. I think the field of liver transplantation is evolving quickly, and we need to be cautious about this. I don’t I hope not a lot of surgeons taking us the new thing, the new toy, and not selecting the patients correctly, the multidisciplinary team, the experience, is very important, and we should keep fighting and moving forward. These are frequently asked questions, but probably the people I would like really that people ask questions and feel comfortable to open your your camera, your screen, ask questions. There are no dumb questions. There are important questions, and I’m here for you, and thank you for this invitation. Again. You.

DocTalk
2022
Dr. Soares
HAI
Liver
Stage IV
Surgery

Dr. Kevin Soares from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center discusses evolving treatment options for CRC liver metastases in this DocTalk, recorded June 2022. 

More Videos

Liver transplants — Examining the evidence
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2024
ERASur trial: Local treatment options for limited stage IV CRC
Dr. Hitchcock
2023
Advanced surgical treatments for CRC liver mets
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2021
Transplant patients are in the house!
2021
Hepatic Artery Infusion (HAI) chemotherapy for CRC liver mets
Hepatic Artery Infusion (HAI) chemotherapy for CRC liver mets
Dr. Gholami
2021
Modern-day management of liver metastases
Dr. Soares
2022
Why liver transplant for mCRC is taking off
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2022
Paths to long-term survival with CRC liver mets
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2023
Categories
DocTalks Hide from search

Why liver transplant for mCRC is taking off

Why liver transplant for mCRC is taking off

DocTalk
2022
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
Liver
Stage IV
Transplant

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro from the University of Rochester Medical Center discusses evolving treatment options for CRC liver metastases in this DocTalk, recorded July 2022. 

Betsy Post 0:00
Alrighty. So welcome. Welcome everyone. I’m Betsy post. I’m with COLONTOWN, and I’m helping facilitate this evening’s presentation with Dr Hernandez. And I also have, of course, our esteemed Mayor Lindsey and one of the folks on the cabinet with me, Julie, who are also running tech support, you know, kind of any assistance that you might need, you can definitely ping Julie Lindsey myself. I will try to help in any way. We’re not technical experts, but we’ll, we’ll do our best. But I’m going to introduce our esteemed speaker, Dr Hernandez, if you’re familiar with COLONTOWN liver lovers, Lane transplantation station, our various groups dedicated to liver Mets within the COLONTOWN community. I know that he is not someone that’s a stranger to anyone here, so we’re really honored and really thankful to have him with us this evening to talk to us about the new kid on the block, liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer and why that’s taking off. So just a little bit of background about Dr Hernandez and I have Julie go to the next slide. I’m not going to read to everyone, but this will be available in the recording as well. But he is the chief of the Division of transplantation at the University of Rochester Medical Center. Before that, he was in Canada. He has an amazing background and did extensive training and live liver donor transplantation in Japan. It’s really impressive. He has over 110 he probably knows the specific number peer review publications in liver transplantation and other hepatobiliary topics, and he’s on the editorial board of this esteemed Journal of surgery. So we’re super excited, again, flattered to have him here. There’s no one I think that knows more, I guess, arguably, in my opinion, about this topic of liver Mets for metastatic colorectal cancer than Doctor Hernandez, just a couple of housekeeping things, kind of in the in the middle, if you will. We do want to take your questions, so it’s really important that we keep this, you know, interactive. I would request that you please put the questions in chat. So we are going to monitor chat, and we are going to come back to it after the presentation and go back to those questions. We really want to try to answer every question that everyone has. So please put those in chat so that we can go through them. We’re again going to really monitor those, look at them, make sure that we do go back and ask all of those questions. So please put those in chat, and if you have any questions about how to do that, you can ping one of us will try to help you. So, Julie, you can go to the next slide. And so thank you guys so much for being here, and I’m going to turn it over to Dr Hernandez to start the presentation again. Please put the questions in chat. Say hello and chat. If there’s anything that you hear that you have questions about or you think is interesting, put it in chat. So we’re going to be monitoring that, and we’re all happy to have you here tonight, so take it away. Dr Hernandez,

Speaker 1 3:17
thank you, Betsy. Thank you Lincy, thank you, Claire, for this invitation. It’s always a pleasure to be in this group and to be part of it, once in a while, to be able to participate and guide patients I have dedicated the last many years of my career, a lot into this field of liver metastases, and I’m very happy and glad that we have been able to make progress in science, in medicine and surgery, and always try to push a little bit more the envelope to help more patients. And I like the title that it was assigned, that the new kid on the block. And I tried to find, I remember when I was younger, the New Kids on the Block. So I find this picture of them when they are 2022 they look a little bit older. They’re not kids anymore. And I think that’s exactly what happened to liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis. Is not a new kid, really. It’s new for a lot of us, but it already exists there for many years. So with this, I’m going to start. And last time, I don’t know how long ago was that, but probably a year or something like that, that I was invited by COLONTOWN to give a presentation, and I expanded a lot about colorectal liver metastasis, and then I talked about liver transplantation. Today, I want to concentrate much more in liver transplantation, but to being able to show the importance or why liver transplantation might play, or play a very important role, I want to talk. Back again, a little bit about all the background of colorectal liver metastases. With this, I want to show the this first slide, showing that you all know that is the third most common cancer. Colon cancer is the third more common cancer in the world, after prostate and breast cancer. So it’s not uncommon to have people like you or your beloved that has colon cancer, unfortunately, and it’s so common. But the good thing is that we make a lot of advancements in treatment, especially in chemotherapy, I would say, in the last 20 years. But unfortunately, there hasn’t been anything that is huge over the last 15 years for colorectal liver metastasis. We’re starting to do some changes, and I’m looking forward to, hopefully, within five to 10 years to be able to to have much more and more. But this slide is showing you impressively how colon cancer is increasing in these young population did from 20s, 30s and 40s. Look at the green part is showing how it’s increasing being the number of cases on this population is going up. When I train as a surgeon, as a liver cancer surgeon. I never saw these cases on younger population having colon cancer. We always look at the late 50s, 60s, 70s. It continued happening on them. But look at this. This is happening. Why this is happening? I think it’s difficult for to prove why I have my theories, and I think this will require another conversation, which I’m not expert, but I think it’s about what we eat. It’s the diet, I think so that plays an important role, the sugars. I think sugars are terrible and at bad. But Well, as I mentioned, that’s another topic. So cancer is increasing in the population, in the young population, and unfortunately, when we diagnose younger patients, the disease is more advanced, because we know we don’t have screening colonoscopies for patients who are this age. We were able to move it to 45 years old. The screening colonoscopies just recently, but before it was 50. So this is a population that is really affected, and hopefully we can make change. And recently, I was invited by the group of five colon cancer to go to Washington, DC for in March of this year for call for Congress. And you know that I am. A lot of you know that I’m a transplant surgeon, and I’ve been in the Senate of Albany, the capital of New York, trying to push for organ donation, for trying to increase the, you know, the sensitivity of the people to be organ donors when someone has brain dead, but that has been my only experience as a physician, trying to get into government and trying to push people from government, our congress people for moving into this but this time going to to the capital, it was, it was really impressive. It was taught you, for me, understanding being with patients, being with family, and listening to some of the politicians that are really helpful for this, independently of their party being strong, they saw it was very important and and I hope I can make more work next year, and I’m devoted to be doing this. It took me like to be three days out of work, two and a half days out of work, but I think it’s worth it, and I really enjoy and I want to continue working with them. So this was very important for me, and emotional. I want to continue doing this for for all of you. So liver metastases from colon cancer, we know that the vast majority of the liver metastases, unfortunately, are unresectable. What does that mean? That we cannot remove it with surgery. We know that surgery is the most important thing. It’s the only, only, only, and I repeat it, the only thing surgery that, at this moment, has been proved to be curative, is the only thing that can be curative, not always, but a lot of times could be curative. There hasn’t been any other thing that we can prove that could be curative. But the problem is that resectable, only 20% of these metastases are going to be resectable of the patients, and many of them are not resectable because there are multiple metastases, or the location of the metastasis in the liver, occupying some areas of the big vessels, the veins and the arteries and the bowel dogs or or the or the metastases are not responding to chemotherapy. We know that if a patient. Is not responding to chemotherapy, and we do surgery and we remove it, the chances of having recurrence early is very short, is very is very high, and the patient most likely will have recurrence very shortly, or sometimes. And I put it here in the bottom part, not an experienced surgeon or center, and that’s true, and that’s why I always ask patients to go for second or third opinions. When they come with me, I give them options. Even if they say, No, I’m comfortable with you. They said, Go. You can go with one of my colleagues here, or go outside. And I recommend people, because I want the patient to be sure of what they’re deciding. And I and sometimes there’s some centers that I have experienced that they said, You’re unresectable. They send it, they come to us, they find us, and they turn to be resectable. What happened with the patients who are unresectable and we cannot operate on them? This is not what I’m saying. This is what the literature is saying. The survival is around five to 10% at five years. What does that mean that if a patient cannot go for surgery, if 100 patients cannot go for surgery because they are unresectable, only five of them, or 10 of them, in the best case of scenario, are going to be alive at five years. So we’re talking about 90 to 95% 90% of the patients will die within those five years, perhaps of the one year, two years, three years. This is what the literature shows. And this is pretty well established and in a very high impact factor Lance, one of the highest impact factor journals when we do surgery, as I mentioned, these data coming from in 2009 from Memorial Sloan Catherine Center, where they have very good registries. This is these 60 months are five years. So to compare to the previous one that we say 5% at five years, this is around 40% at five years. So there’s a huge difference. Yes, you will say, Well, I would like to be cured. Well, you have perhaps 40% chances of being cured at five years, or maybe at 10 years, you have 25% percent, 25% chances of being cured. So most likely the cancer will come back, yes, but the thing is that we’re going to be looking very close to the cancer, and we can do other type of treatments. And this is we’re talking about resections at this moment. I’m not talking about transplantation, okay, I don’t want to mix things. This is what happened to patients.

Speaker 1 12:39
Many of the times when this is unresectable, the reason is because the remnant liver is too small. So a lot of patients come and we see that they have a lot of metastasis, perhaps in the right side of the liver and the left side is too small, or it has a small metastases. And I can say, okay, I can go and remove the left side and that little spot, and then remove the entire right side, and the patient will free of cancer. Guess what? The left side portal of the liver? Maybe it’s less than 20% of the size. So if I do that, that patient will have liver failure, and most likely patient will die. So we that will be on respectable as well, and and we know that many of the times those things happen, and there are some techniques that we can we can use, so other times, when the patient is on respectable is because of the multiple number of liver metastases. And this is where liver transplantation can play an important role. So I want to dedicate the rest of this talk about what are the outcomes of liver transplantation? What do we know about it? What is happening in North America? We know that this is started in Norway, in in the Scandinavian countries, and it has expanding faster in Europe, but there is data that I want to show about what is happening in the US, which is first time that I’m going to be showing this. I haven’t shown this data in any medical conference yet, so I’m glad that I’m going to be showing here at COLONTOWN. I mentioned to you before about the two stages hepatectomies, options that we have to do surgeries when you know, for example, in this case here, before doing transplantation, this patient, for example, has this large tumor here. So normally they will say, Okay, let’s remove the right side of the liver, and then the patient will stay with the left side, but if the left side is a small we can do a portal vein embolization. And I’m sure a lot of patients here are familiarized with this, and we can do this, we embolize the portal vein in the right side. So we put some glue and some coils here through interventional radiology, we wait around six to eight weeks. And we expect the left side of the liver, because now all the flow will come here will grow, or in this case where there are multiple we can go do surgery in the first stage. We remove the tumors in the left side of the liver. We clear the left side of the liver, which is smaller, and instead of embolizing, we can ligate will be the same effect, and then the flow will go to the left side. Will be a very similar scenario. This This one you didn’t operate. But in this one you operated. But in both, you will wait six to eight, six to eight weeks, and then the left side of the liver will grow to around 30% or more, and then you can go and operate. And that is called two stages. He protects. But what happened in this study of five US Centers, and you can see here, people from MD Anderson, people from Memorial, people from Hopkins at that moment. Tim poll, he was not in Ohio. He was in Hopkins. And these are our big centers in us, and they they were doing a lot of the two stages, hepatectomies, 16 years of data. A lot of these patients have hepatic arts in Fusion because they have a lot of tumor loads. The more than half of those patients of this have portal veneer, modelization. What happened to them? The morbidity. Morbidity means complications after the second stage was 50% so a lot of these patients have complications, expected two operations, and this is what happened, overall survival, those patients who had the two stage hepatectomy, compared to those ones who only went for chemotherapy because they couldn’t operate on them, there was a significant difference in survival. So you can see that these ones, at five years only perhaps 15% were alive, compared to almost 50% of the patients who went for the two stage patheta, means were alive. Now in this data coming from Rene Adam, you probably you know Rene Adam from Paul Bruce, very famous certain there. And this is from MD Anderson. And this is a systematic review. That means that this Dr lamb, he went and looked at the data from the MD Anderson, from Paul Bruce and from other centers. And they put all these papers together, 459 patients. And they saw that this population of patients, they survived 20% at three years. They did, sorry, not survive the disease free survival. So 80% of the patient the cancer will come back by three years. I think it’s something that is expected. Why? Because these patients had a lot of disease in the liver, and probably they have micro metastases that, as a surgeon, we cannot see and we miss them, right? The alt procedure, I think I have talked here about that is a very similar situation, but it’s quicker. It’s faster. It came here from from Germany. The Germans push this for doing this normally. There are more innovation coming from Europe. And then we start developing things here, because we have more regulations. That is complex to do things here, but they go and remove the left side of tumors. And then I gave the right portal vein, similar to what I described before, but the difference is, in the first surgery, we divide the liver completely. We divide like we open it like a book, and then the left side of the liver is small, but the right side of the liver, which has the cancer, is receiving blood supply from the artery still, so it’s alive, that portion of liver. And we went just 10 days, and in 10 days, the liver of the left side almost duplicate its size, and we go back and remove it. And with this surgery, we are able to operate more than with the two stage. He protected me. However, it’s very aggressive to do two major surgeries in 10 days of difference. And this was a case, as you can see, this is a small size. You can see there’s perhaps the CT scan is not the best, but you can see a tumor here, little two tumors here, tumor here, in the right side and the right side. And so this patient needs a hepatectomy of the right side, but the remnant liver was too small, and this is when we did Imagine we did an Alps. Look at this with the partition. It’s divided here you can see how the right side of the liver shrinks, and it’s impressive. Look at this. This is the left side. It was this part here. This looks like this patient was born with almost known left side, and now it’s huge. This was the first one that I did in my life, and I really thought this was phenomenal. And I continue doing in a very selective cases. This is one of the papers that I published where we can see that the survival of these patients with high two. Tumors we do Alps is very similar of what we saw in the two stage hepatitomies. It doesn’t change too much. Perhaps it’s around 30% that three five years of the survival and the recurrence is pretty high. We are able to operate more than the two stage hepatitis. But I think it’s just selecting the patient, because, honestly, I would do only this in a patient who is very healthy and in good performance status. Now, what happened to those patients who initially, we call them, you know, you’re unresectable. We cannot respect. We cannot use an Alps. We cannot use a two stage hepatite, a portal vein embolization. You are unresectable, so the patient just received chemotherapy, but the patient responds very well, and the patient, we call it conversion. Now we say, Oh, you responded very well. The tumors are smaller now we can go and operate. What happened to them if we operate on them and we remove the cancer, do they do the same as those patients who were initially resectable? Unfortunately, not. And the survival at five years is around 30% and around 80 to 85% of the patient, the cancer will come back five, about five years, so a little bit worse, and it’s expected. Why? Because some of the tumors that disappear, perhaps they are still there. We cannot see it in the CT scans. We cannot see them in the PET scans. We cannot see them in the MRI, but they are still there. So this is what, for example, this is a case in our in Rochester where this patient had look at these multiple metastases here in the right side and then in the left side as well. So this case was called on resectable on resectable disease. But look at this. Now, the patient received chemotherapy, and look at the response. I want you. I’m going to go back so you can see this. Look, the tumors are in the right side, multiple this one here, here, here, here, here. So clearly we do a resection. This patient won’t have it.

Speaker 1 22:17
So even here in the back part of the liver. And then the patient received chemotherapy. And you cannot see a lot of the tumors that were there. You can see this large one here, probably this one here, and even in the one that was here in the back disappear. And then you say, Oh, wow, we should go and resect. You know, maybe 10 years ago I would say, I can go and do an APR here, I can go and do an Alps in this patient, and the patient do very well. We will continue. Don’t forget about that. We’ll come back about that patient. So that is what we will call it a conversion. So what happened with those patients who has been heavily treated with chemo? Or you call it hepatic Arthur in fusion, you call it systemic chemotherapy or both. Because I know hepatic Arthur in fusion, they give both. They are never giving it alone anymore, because it was proof that it doesn’t work when you give it a loan. So in this paper, in this these are two papers, this is one and this is other one. In this paper, patients who have major treatment with a lot of chemotherapy for eight months, one year, year and a half, and then they go for a resection. 40% have major complications. When we say major complications that the patient require an intervention, a re operation for bleeding or a bile duct complication and a 10% mortality. One out of 10 of those patients die, and at five years, 13% were possible in cure. So we’re talking about that almost 90% of the patient the cancer came back in this other study of 47 patients who received more than 12 cycles. That is just six months of treatment. You know better than me about this with chemotherapy and when they went for surgery, 50% of the patient had major complications, and 20% mortality. Two out of 10 patients died. And at three years in this study, all the patients have recurrency. Cancer came back. I think they are. They did better than the patients who only received chemotherapy, definitely. But what I’m showing here is that we have to be very cautious in patients who have to have been heavily treated with chemo when we do liver receptions. And I witness of this as a search, I think some of you know I don’t do trans. Only I do a lot of reverse sections, a little bit that I want to talk about the paddy car three in fusion, because I have seen a lot of a few of these patients, I wouldn’t say like hundreds of these patients, but several of these patients will go for the particle in fusion. So in this paper, that it was probably a little bit off, because this is coming from 2007 but it was known that the hepatic artery in Fusion treatment alone, without systemic chemotherapy, is was not working. It shouldn’t be used. And they call it this the end of Panera, which is not because it’s coming back and they’re pushing and MSK is doing it, and nothing against them. I have very good relationship with them, and there were colleagues, and we have friendship communication with them, but I think we need to be cautious about this. In this study, where they did a trial of efficacy, that means how they compare hepatic artery fusion with systemic chemo. And if you can see here is these are patients. We’re not talking about surgery, we’re just talking about which one did better. Patients will receive a Patric Arthur in fusion with systemic or those ones who did systemic chemotherapy, and they were very similar in number of tumors and age of the patient, so there was no significant difference in those factors, and the only difference in survival of these patients, the patients who received only systemic chemotherapy and no surgery, they survived an average of 20 months because they were unresectable, and the patients will receive the fatty car in Fusion just four months more. Yes, there wasn’t a benefit of those ones who received hepatic art in fusion, not very impressive to see four months, and there were no survivors at five years in any of the two groups. So with that, I want to start mentioning about what’s new for unresectable liver metastas, and we call it the new kid on the block today, alright? And this, some of you are aware of this, and this is started, as I mentioned at the beginning. This is not new liver transplantation started in 2013 and and where is my friend here? PAL Dad, here it is. He’s the guy. He is the main guy. Pal dad, that his first name, his last name is like pal dad is the main surgeon. What is interesting about Norway? There’s only one center in that entire country, only one center that is doing liver transplantation in the United States. How many centers we have doing liver transplantation? Perhaps arrow, 180 maybe. Centers doing liver transplantation. It’s not socialized medicine here, over there is socialized medicine. So there’s no competition. Here is competition, right? So it’s very different. Every patient who needs a liver transplant will go to only one center in Oslo. So the the regulations and the main the way of managing things is much easier here. It’s if I want to do something different, I have 200 centers going against it’s very difficult to make progress with sometimes when we want to do something different. So they were able, and also, they have a short waiting list in their patients who have cirrhosis. They don’t have that many patients, and people donate a lot. So he said, Well, why don’t we start transplanting patients with unresectable metastasis? Because we can use this organ. So these patients, because the French surgeons in the 1990s they use those livers in patients with colorectal metastases, but the outcome was very good, but this was 30 years later, when they started using it now in Norway, and in 30 years, we have much better chemotherapy. We have much better immunotherapy for for patients who get transplant, because patients will receive transplantation require immuno suppression to medication for life to avoid rejection of the organ and and better techniques. So he started doing this, and this is what they saw. If you look at this graph, this is quite impressive. The red line is demonstrating the survival of the patients here in the bottom part is the years. So 60% of the patients who were transplanted with unresectable liver metastases were alive at five years. Wow. Even better that the patient who were resected with resectable disease since the beginning. Never seen that before. What was the problem? The problem this is recurrence. So at around two years, majority of the patient, the cancer came back, but they were alive. A lot of majority of them. So we’re going to go through that. What was happening, what was different? We. The recurrence compared when we deliver resection. I will answer that in, I think, in a couple of slides, probably. So then the Norway group, they start saying, Okay, let’s try to analyze these ones who did better. What were the main factors that created that they were doing better? And they found this as the new score. And they call it the Oslo score, if the two, if the largest metastasis is less than 5.5 centimeters, if the CEA a transplant at the moment of transplant is below 80, if the patient is not progressing on chemotherapy, and if the time from the diagnosis to the transplant is around two years. And if you have each one of these is four points and four points, the transplant will do very bad. If it’s three points, do better, two points or better, and zero to one points, all of the patients were alive. We need to be cautious as well. This is not like, Wow. Yes, this, this is impressive, but look at the number of patients. We’re talking about six patients, five patients, five patients. So we’re talking about small population of patients. So my I reviewed this paper many years ago, and when I saw that, I was really impressed. I was saying why we cannot do this in the US. Well, I was in Canada, sorry. Why? We cannot do this in Canada. It’s impressive, but, but I said, Well, we have to be cautious, because this is a small population, but this has been growing, and now the numbers are more higher and proving the same. Now this is a new thing that is happening, and here in Rochester, we’re taking consideration of this. We’re measuring this. This is the PET scans. We like to do a PET scan before transplant. And this data is showing, with a formula, we can calculate the amount of ability, abilities that the tumor takes this kind of contrast, which is

Speaker 1 32:02
the PET scan. You know, for example, here you see the the it’s highlighting here in yellow, and that’s the ability, if it’s not Avid, that means that it goes like reddish color normal. But we can quantify how much is highlighting and with this formula, if it’s below 70 centimeter cubics, it’s a good factor. If it’s above 70 it’s not a good factor, because those ones who have less than 70 centimeters cubics, they do much better. At five years, this patient has also around 80% survival. So this is a new data showing us that we can use it to verify which patients are going to do better. But it’s not always perfect. Okay. Now I mentioned to you about recurrence. What was the difference in transplant compared to liver resection, and this is so important, majority of the recurrence after transplantation, which is common, around 70% of the patient will have recurrence, but majority of them are in the lungs. But those ones who have in the lungs, they do much, much better and up in this data coming from Norway as well. At five years, all the patients were alive, they still have cancer, a lot of them, not all of them, because some of them, they were able to resect them. Those ones who have metastasis in the liver, their survival was short, but only around 5% of the patients will have recurrent in the liver. When we compare these to patients who have resection or recurrence, it’s pretty high. And I know that Dr Suarez, just a few weeks ago, presented, and he showed the data about the high recurrence after liver resection in this in patients who goes for liver section. Now this is pal that I asked permission for him to show these three lines of data, because his manuscript is under review that I think is going to be published very soon, the first study where they have the first in 2013 when they published, they continue following these patients and the five year survival, five years overall survival of 75% and 10 year, 10 year survival, 50% so we can, he can call that, if we are going to cure patients with Liver transplantation. He said that between 25 to 30% of the patients, if they are were selected, we can be curing these patients. That is pretty impressive. And to survive 75% at five years, this is something that we haven’t seen before. And as I mentioned, long recurrence. It’s very common in transplant. However, is. Is treated with curative intent. It can be resected, of course, if there’s multiple then perhaps chemotherapy will be the best option. This is data coming from the United States. This is your country, the first transplant for liver metastases in the new era, because there were old all transplants. So this is not the first one ever. Okay, no, there were other transplant that happened. Actually, Dr star saw the first Surgeon in the world that did the first liver transplant almost 50 years ago. He did colorectal metastasis liver transplant. So we’re not counting those ones. So those are the first patients who were transplanted for colorectal metastasis. This is the new era that we can call it. In this new era, the first case happened in 2017 and our programs are functioning around here, but you can see 17, 1819, how it’s increasing the interest in the in the United States. This is projection here, just with the way that is growing, and this is what’s until April here. But if we continue with the same projection, probably we will be in 30 just this year in the United States, very soon, probably one more year, we’re going to pass the numbers of Norway. But what is happening? I think what is happening. My point here is, in the United States is a lot of groups wants to do it, but they don’t have the it’s not about the surgical skills. It’s about the selection of patients and the follow up and the experience about being involved with colorectal liver metastases, because the unfortunately, here in the US, the surgical oncologist and the transplant surgeons are very separate. Where I was trained in Canada, I would do both. And I came here and I said, I only will move to Rochester if I’m able and continue doing both things. And I do liver transplant and liver sections, and we collaborate with our surgical oncologist as well, but I continue doing both things, and I think this is open opportunities for being able to to expand innovation in a lot of these spaces. If I wouldn’t be involved in both things, I wouldn’t be doing this. And why living donor? Initially, there were some centers that were using disease donor. Disease donors. I shouldn’t say this word, but I you know, because in transplant, they said that we should avoid saying cadaveric donation. But you know, when patients have brain dead, that’s the most common way of donating in the United States, the 90% of the transplants that I do are from deceased donors, someone who has brain dead our team flies go and retrieve the organ, bring it here, and we operate our patients who has cirrhosis and it’s very sick in the ICU, and hopefully we can save that patient. And we do living daughter in patients who are in the middle of the list that they don’t have too much access. For these patients, the fact that we’re doing liver transplant for those patients give us the skills for being able to deliver living donor liver transplantation in patients who have colorectal liver metastasis, because these are patients that they are not sick from the liver. They have cancer, but they are not sick to be able to be in the top of the list of liver metastases, of liver transplantation, to attract an organ, Cath, a coordinate. So that’s why the number of living donors is increasing for colorectal metastases. And last year, 80% of them of the transplants that took place in the US for colorectal metastases were done by living orders. I can tell you if I predict, well, 90% or more than 90% next year we’re going to see this line going probably around 90 or above. Now, this is the activity that I know so far, and I might be missing some centers. And this was, I think, for around three months ago. These are some of the centers that I know. They have done at least one liver transfer for colorectal metastasis. I put these hospitals bigger ones because they have been doing more. This is Houston, in Methodist. They did, I think four, but they are not doing more. Why? Because they don’t have a living donor liver transplant search, and at that moment, they were able to use some disease organs, because a lot of people around the area of fusion were not using some organs. They were saying, No, I don’t want to use this organ for my patient, because that organ is not very good. But this surgeon said it’s not that bad, and he used it, and he had probably good outcomes in those four patients and or in other patients. And. Okay, but now the allocation system in transplantation in the country change, and a lot of those organs now are going, I don’t know, to the north, so now he’s not having access. So now the only way that he can deliver transplant for these patients is with the living donor. So this is not going to grow unless here is, help me. This is San Luis, right, yes. And this Missouri, you wash you doing few of them that they have been using some calabari organ donation. Here is Cleveland, here is Rochester, here not here is Rochester. Here’s Cleveland, and here’s Pittsburgh. Those are the three other centers that has been doing a little bit more.

Speaker 1 40:44
In our experience, we have done 10 cases, which to my understanding, where the center could have been doing more. And we published with the group from Cleveland and Toronto, this paper that perhaps some of you are away. Are aware, and this is confirming the data outside Norway. It’s a short follow up, because not all of all our patients from that we we have four patients from Rochester, four patients from Cleveland, and two patients from Toronto. Not all of them has five years arrested follow up or more than three years. So we look at three years survival, but looking at this survival, looking at almost 80% of the patients were alive at three years in this patient, and 60% recurrence free survival, that means 40% of patients have recurrence. So that as a pretty similar scenario on Norway, perhaps even a little bit better. But I don’t want to be feel like so excited, because we have to wait to see a little bit more. I will show more data there, specific from Rochester. In Rochester, as I mentioned, after 2000 it was 2018 passing that we started our protocol, and this is our protocol, and I’m gonna go for HD Cal, we go for an Oslo score below two. But to be honest, this is what we have in our protocol. But when we analyze to because we’re writing a paper right now, all our patients has been one or zero, and probably that is one of the reasons that we’re having an acceptable outcomes in our patients. And this, you know, this is the ultra score that I mentioned. But to me and to our group, there are two important things here in this ultra score. I don’t think it’s necessarily to be below 80. I think it’s more important the trend, yes, below 80. Perhaps it’s a marker that the group from Norway found. But imagine if a patient goes from 80 to 40 to 20 to 10, but then it goes from 10 to 30 to 50 to 60 to 70? Is it below 80? Yes, but that’s not good. It’s going up continuously, and closer to 80. That’s something that is not going good there, and probably that trend plays a more important role than the fact that it’s below 80. And the other point is progression of disease. Progression of disease is a bad marker that we know for liver resection, if a patient received chemotherapy and is not responding and progress those patients, we know that they have very high recurrence in transplantation, probably it’s happening. Would happen the same if we translate the data from resection to transplantation, so doing a salvage transplant, probably no, no, it wouldn’t be the ideal. And there’s sometimes that is a little bit difficult to take a decision, because you cannot prove that is progression, and it might not be progression because of the when you measure the the size of the tumor, some of them could be bigger, some of them could be smaller. And then it’s difficult to call it if it’s progression or not. But in other than that, when it’s clear that a patient is progressing, I think transplantation should be avoided. So far in our institution, we have more than one quality 140 referrals. We have a dedicated navigator that is a key member of our team, and Kayla do phenomenal job trying to be in contact with all our patients, responding as soon as possible and reporting to our nurse practitioner and to our coordinators that play a very important role, and to me and we look after there’s a lot of work that we do, bringing all the images and looking at details of patients we have to review sometimes 4050, images in our tumor board. And our radiologists are tired. They say, Well, this image. Is coming from others. CD for mother center, but we review in detail all of these things. Of those, 140 patients, only 10 has rich liver transplant. Wait a moment. There are several, at least eight or more that are still in the process of potential candidates that I think they could be candidates on 24, probably. So that’s huge number, huge number. Hopefully, the eight reached that. But to be honest, probably of those eight, maybe six or five, were reached despite that, that’s still a very big number for the next six months, majority of the patients who were who didn’t reach transplant was because there was evidence of extra particle disease, disease outside the liver. Many patients were potential candidates, but developed progression during the follow up treatment. Because we follow the patients from distance, we look at the imaging device, which sometimes we have to do biopsies to prove either a positive lymph node or lung metastases. Few, probably a handful of the patients who were sent to us for transplantation turned to be resectable. And I was, Wow, really, this is resectable. So we talked to the patient said, you know you’re resectable. You want to come to register? I can do the resection, but probably I can call one of the surgeons close to you, and maybe will be easier for you to go there. If they want to come with us, they’re welcome to come and we do the resection here. But it has happened that sometimes we find that they are resectable. If you went for third or fourth opinions, which is completely okay, because the most important thing is the patient needs to feel confident that where that patient is going is going to be the right place. I think we have all the opportunities to go and say, Okay, we I can. I want to go and see four or five centers, or four or five surgeons, and then I will decide. But when you decide stick to that, that that would be the best thing, because that creates a much better management that’s my advice. This is the data of our 10 patients. This is not the paper that we published, because remember, the paper was Toronto, Cleveland and Rochester, here is only Rochester, and this is what we’re finding out. The shorter recurrence, around 70% survival at three years. So this is pretty impressive, that it was going to change most likely because our there’s new patient that has a very short follow up, only one of our patients, of our out of the tent, has died after having some recurrence. All our nine patients, the rest of the nine patients are alive. Another patient had recurrence, unfortunately, and is getting treatment with chemotherapy. Now here, this is what we’re doing. We have a trial that we’re going through that known as the patients. Doesn’t have to go through the through, through the trial, but we registry these things here because it may cause a more creates more credibility when when you publish things for this, what we found, this is what we’re working this is my research fellow, Mariana Chavez, where these are 14 cases, 10 cases from Rochester and four cases from Cleveland. I’m not showing which one is which one. And this is so interesting. These are each patient, each patient. This is a cartoon of the when they were diagnosed. The number of metastases in the first column. In the second column is the number of tumors prior to liver transplantation. This is after the patient receive a lot of treatments, RFA, so ablation, y 90, Paddy car three, in fusion, chemotherapy, surgeries, etc, etc, right? And then this is what we found when we remove the liver in pathology. And what is impressive is that 60% of these patients, 60% in in where the pets can set. There’s no cancer here. There was cancer. So the disappearing liver metastases that I’m mentioning, they were still there. I think this is the first time, because this is the first time in the history that we have the entire specimen of the liver out. Normally, when we do live resection, we live, you know, part of the liver for the patient to survive. But this is the first time that we remove entire and we can analyze entire liver, and this is what is happening. We’re finding, clearly, with all the evidence that there was still cancer, there are 60% of time even that it’s disappear. It does not

Speaker 1 50:02
some tips and tricks that we have learned. And this is when I go to give a talk. I think I spend a lot of time with the surgeons talking about this, because they want to learn more about this, the timing from colon resection, because a lot of the patients come okay, I still have the primary side. Can I go for a transplant? Well, yes, you can go for transplant, but we have to remove the primary at some moment, or the patient goes, Hey, my colon cancer is gone. They cannot see it. What is the evidence if we go and do a liver transplant and we don’t touch the colon? I haven’t done that, but I wouldn’t, I. Am sure if we give immuno suppression, there might be some cancer cells in the colon, you will come back. So we have pushed for removing it. There’s one patient that I know that we could transplant that we remove a portion of the column for it was tattoo the cancer, and there was no cancer. But there were other two that apparently disappeared, and when we removed the portion of colon, there was still cancer, so it’s better to remove it, and we don’t want to do experimentation here in large lymph nodes. That’s a big question. What should we do? So we use endoscopic ultrasound, sometimes through the stomach, to be able to biopsy the lymph node to be sure if that’s a positively if not. If it’s a positive lymph node, it’s not a good prognosis. And we use Final aspiration, or sometimes the interventional radiologists use percutaneous biopsy. Or few times we do a laparotomy. We have to Okay. If everything looks good, but we have high suspicious we open the abdomen of the patient before or the day of the patient is coming from outside, let’s say if the patient is coming from far away from, I don’t know, Kansas City and the patient and the donor here, but we have suspicion of that. We start the operation with a recipient. Normally, we start with the donor. Normally, that’s when there’s a donor, a living donor. We start with the donor, and then we bring the recipient to the operating room. But in these situations, we don’t want to put the risk of the donor if we are not sure if we can transplant the patient, so we start with the recipient. We open, we take a biopsy of the lymph nodes there. If it’s negative, then we do, we do the transplant. If not, we have to stop the transplant. Long nodules. We have to review the two more board these what they are very dedicated, and that I’m proud of my team, that they review every single thing, and our coordinators take notes about this so and this is on top of their normal work with all the cirrhotic patients, because I’ve been able to have, in my case, a lot of resources from the department of surgery and the institution to be able to set up a team dedicated for this. But a lot of the other coordinators who are not fully involved with these, are very supportive of all of these. We talk about immuno suppression. We try to bring it down as soon as possible. We have learned more about immuno suppression because we have been trying to change some patients that probably they don’t tolerate it very well when we try to switch them. And we’re learning a lot of those things. And this, I think, a new area that I call it HEPA oncology. We have hepatologies. We follow that follows liver transplant patients, and we have oncologists that follow the patients with cancer. This is putting both things together. Our hepatologist with oncology, and I personally call it our hepato oncologist, and this is what we’re trying to develop here. I think, what time is it? Okay? I’m Hurry up. Betsy. I’m sorry for the same criteria for recipients with the Paducah pump. Just 111, more. Note about the Patriot pump. We have the same criteria for as you can see, the patient is a candidate for transplant after the pump. However, it’s very clear to tell the patient there’s a way higher risk in the transplant. Why the pad three pump creates, unfortunately, damage in the paddy Carter. You cannot use it for transplant. And without the paddy car three, deliver one work. So we need to bring the artery of the spleen, or put a conduit from the aorta from a cabaret daughter. We call it graft or conduit, the portal vein, a lot of the times, is very inflamed because of the pump, and also because of the chemotherapy of the pump in that area, and, you know, a lot of the patients capillary damage. So the risk of transplantation is way higher. We do it, but it’s way higher. The only thing that I see for me is, I think there’s a place for the palm a place for transplant. I don’t think it’s a five more, but what I would say more is, if a patient is responding to systemic chemotherapy, why changing the game? If the patient could be a transparent candidate, continue for one year, complete the year, and probably the patient will be a transplant candidate, if the patient is progressing on systemic chemotherapy, okay, the patient is not going. To be a transplant candidate. Let’s give the pump, right? And if it comes back to conversion and respondents, they doing well and well, then find surgeons who want to play hard ball and do this transplant. But if not, I wouldn’t change them the positions here, I think I will stop here. These are the areas where I think the patients are probably four areas that I call it transplant, transplant categories, those patients who we see these since the beginning were unresectable, and they still have the primary inside you, patients who have multiple metastases, but they have multiple treatments, surgeries, ablation, pump, etc, etc. And I call it more burnout, cancer burnout, liver patients who are unresectable because they have recurrence, and probably this is an area where it’s going to be extending those ones who were unresectable and converted to resectable. Perhaps transplantation will benefit this patient. And to finalize, I told you about this patient, right? Look at these metastases, this patient, and then this patient responded. And some surgeons say I can resect that, the patient decided, and we did a liver transplant because we were sure there were more metastasis. Sorry to show you this, but this is the liver. And look at the metastasis. This is the left side of the liver. Should, sorry to show you these, but 12345, here. This is the left side which I’m showing it here. 123, and this is proven that there’s cancer here. So we would do a right hepatectomy for that patient that here, they said, Let’s do a right hepatectomy only to remove this part. We will be removing this part. We will live in all these cancer. So I think we did the correct thing. This is another patient. Look at this amount of disease. Of course, this is unresectable, and this is the amazing the same patient, I promise you. It’s impressive. The response that the patient had. Look at this amazing patient came here for transplantation. This is their lovely donor. We remove the right side of the liver, a beautiful left side of a liver, enough for the donor. And this is the right side of a liver where we use it for reconstructing it. And you can see here, once the blood came into the new liver of the of the recipient, and it looks pink and beautiful. I know probably you don’t feel that this is beautiful, but it is, and this is what we find in the explant. The pathologist look at these spots of cancer. It’s suppose that here it almost disappeared minimal disease. But when we go and see in the pathology multiple spots of cancer, they’re still there. That’s what I want to show you. Another case. Look at lost those liver metastases. Patient responded so well, you can see these calcifications. And, you know, I, I’m part of these. So if, if you would bring me this patient when I was in Canada, when I didn’t have an idea that we were I was going to be doing liver transplantation, I will take this patient to the operating room and try to do resection or Alps, or two stage protections or something. We did a liver transplant, and there were multiple metastases still in the liver, as you can see here, 234567, here in the back of the liver, we’re taking a lot of this tissue as well, with the consent of our patients, that we consent them into my lab, and because we’re trying to analyze more of the biopsies to understand more about the immune system that is playing a role in this cancer, to hopefully, in the future, being able to find markers and decide which patients are going to respond better. And in conclusions, surgery is the goal in metastatic colorectal cancer and surgery, I include transplantation. There are favorable results with chemotherapy, and we have gone far away, and that’s what is helping us for being able to do liver resections more aggressively. Patients should have the opinion of different treatments modalities to explore second and third opinions. I think the field of liver transplantation is evolving quickly, and we need to be cautious about this. I don’t I hope not a lot of surgeons taking us the new thing, the new toy, and not selecting the patients correctly, the multidisciplinary team, the experience, is very important, and we should keep fighting and moving forward. These are frequently asked questions, but probably the people I would like really that people ask questions and feel comfortable to open your your camera, your screen, ask questions. There are no dumb questions. There are important questions, and I’m here for you, and thank you for this invitation. Again. You.

DocTalk
2022
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
Liver
Stage IV
Transplant

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro from the University of Rochester Medical Center discusses evolving treatment options for CRC liver metastases in this DocTalk, recorded July 2022. 

More Videos

Liver transplants — Examining the evidence
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2024
ERASur trial: Local treatment options for limited stage IV CRC
Dr. Hitchcock
2023
Advanced surgical treatments for CRC liver mets
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2021
Transplant patients are in the house!
2021
Hepatic Artery Infusion (HAI) chemotherapy for CRC liver mets
Hepatic Artery Infusion (HAI) chemotherapy for CRC liver mets
Dr. Gholami
2021
Modern-day management of liver metastases
Dr. Soares
2022
Why liver transplant for mCRC is taking off
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2022
Paths to long-term survival with CRC liver mets
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2023
Categories
DocTalks Hide from search

Paths to long-term survival with CRC liver mets

Paths to long-term survival with CRC liver mets

DocTalk
2023
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
Ablation
Histotripsy
Liver
Stage IV
Transplant

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro from the University of Rochester Medical Center discusses the range of treatment possibilities for bilateral liver metastases. Recorded in March 2023.

Betsy Post 0:00
We will go ahead and get started with this evening’s program. We are so excited to have all of you here watching live, and then for all of you that will be watching this recording, we’re very happy to make this available that way as well, because it’s all about educating patients and caregivers on the treatment options available. So just a couple of housekeeping items before I get into the introduction and turn it over to Dr. Hernandez. We will be taking questions at the end, so you can jot your questions down, or hold them till the end of his presentation, or you can put them in the chat – so please put them in the chat. You can chat to Julie. You can see Julie there, Julie Clauer, or you can send them to me. …Or you can send them to everyone. So there should be the chat feature. Please send the questions in the chat. Or you can write them down and hold them till the end. You don’t have to write them down if you have a better memory than I do, so if you think 20 minutes later, you’ll remember you can definitely do that as well. We have everyone muted just because we do want to make sure we have undivided attention for Dr. Hernandez and his presentation, but we will absolutely make time for Q and A at the end of the presentation. So I’m going to go ahead and share my screen with you, and hopefully you can see this okay. Don’t worry, it’s not “death by PowerPoint”. I’m just going to do a few slides with an introduction. So again, welcome everyone to our DocTalk this evening on “Exploring Paths to Long Term Survival With Colorectal Cancer, Liver Metastases”. Tonight’s presentation is going to be a focus for folks that have bilateral liver mets or extensive metastases. This is a little bit different than anything that we’ve offered previously with Dr. Hernandez. It really is focused on the community that has a lot of liver mets, so I just wanted to preface that up front, I think there is something for everyone here, whether you have a little or a lot, but we really wanted to impact patients and caregivers as they’re thinking about, “I’ve been told I’m inoperable, I can’t have a resection” – all of these things. “What are some different options, perhaps available to me? And how do I think about those options?” So again, we welcome everyone, but really we are trying to hear that this evening. So we’re really excited to have Dr. Hernandez with us. His resume is very extensive. I think a lot of you know him. He is active in COLONTOWN and so helpful to us. He comes to us from the University of Rochester Medical Center, where he’s the Chief of the Division of Transplantation. He has extensive training around the world, including in Canada and Japan. He has actually now over 130, not 110, (I need to update that) peer-reviewed publications in the area of liver transplantation and hepatobiliary surgery and he is on the editorial board of the Annals of Surgery. He is a pioneer in ‘donation: after cardiac death’ liver transplantation in Canada; the first to perform ALPPS in North America, and he did open the program on liver transplantation for colorectal cancer liver metastases in Rochester. He is well recognized as a team leader andinnovator and a mentor. If you know him, I know that does not surprise you at all, but my favorite thing about Dr. Hernandez is who he is as a person and what he does every day for patients and caregivers. So to us in COLONTOWN, he is, “Dr. H.”. We really appreciate and love you, Dr. Hernandez, thank you for everything that you do for our patients and our caregivers every day and for the impact that you make in their lives. We really appreciate you, and we’re really happy to have you here with us this evening. With that, I’m going to turn it over to you, and just remember to save your questions for the end. We will take those, put them in the chat or be prepared to answer live at the end. So thank you so much, and I will stop sharing and turn it over to you.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 4:23
Thank you very much to all the members of COLONTOWN. Thank you very much, Julie and Betsy. Very nice introduction. It is a pleasure for me to be with all of you. I can see some familiar faces here, and I recognize also some other names. I think, before presenting, for some of you who don’t know who I am, I am very passionate about the field of of liver metastasis, since my early stages in my training. You know my title is in transplantation, and I use the hat of ‘transplanter’ but I want you to know that I do many liver resections. Perhaps, in my life, I have done more liver resections than liver transplants. Liver transplants are more complex. Liver resections are much more common. And the most common reason that we do liver resections is for liver metastasis. So I do a lot of liver metastasis resections and my presentation, I don’t want to be a bias on towards transplantation. I want to be fair with everything, and I don’t want to be moving things into the fields that I do, and before I decided to name the title of this presentation, I was thinking about, if I was a patient, if I would have one of my family members as a patient with colon cancer, what would I like to know and do, especially when the disease is advanced. And I try to be in your shoes on how stressful this could be, especially knowing all the options that are out there. And then you probably are scratching your head, where do I go? So with this, thank you again, for everybody that are opening the cameras and I’m looking forward to have questions. There are always great questions. And I am impressed with the participants, 64- that’s pretty great. So I’m going to share my screen. Let me know if this works. Can someone tell me if they can see me?

Betsy Post 7:03
Yes.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 7:05
Perfect. Thank you, Betsy. All right, interrupt me if there’s a problem, Betsy and Julie. So this is titled “Exploring Paths to Long Term Survival With Colorectal Metastasis”, we have different options, on where we want to go, and I don’t think there’s a correct answer every time. There’s sometimes that there’s clear answers, but there’s a lot of times that there’s no clear answer. Seems to me that this group here, all of you know what’s happening with colon cancer, before the media. It’s impressive that years later, the media is putting in first page of Wall Street, and recently, I saw in CNN talking about a young population developing colon cancer. All of you guys know that this is happening since a long time ago. At least you, COLONTOWN, and the patients are making noise, and this is opening areas for research, and we need to work as a community on doing research and understand why colon cancer is happening more and is increasing in younger population. This graph represents what has been happening over the last few years. You can see here the year of birth in the bottom part, and this is a rate for 100,000. You don’t have to be epidemiologists to understand this graph, but you can see here from people that are 85 to around 50 years old that the rate of colon cancer, the detection, everything, is coming down. Why? Because we’re more aggressive. We have programs for doing colonoscopies. But the population from 45’s, 40’s, 30’s and 20s, we are not used to doing colonoscopies, and this is the area and the population where it’s increasing. Doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be paying attention in this population, but this population requires a lot of work, and we need to do a lot of research to understand why, because this is a very silent disease, and many of the times when we diagnose the patients, which is 39-45 they have metastases and sometimes itgoes beyond the liver. Just to give some data, in 2021 there were in the US more than 150,000 new cases. And we know that half of the patients who have metastatic colon cancer will develop liver metastasis. So it’s not uncommon. Colon cancer is the third most common cancer in the world, after breast and prostate cancer is the most common cancer, and half of the stage IV population will develop liver metastasis. And I want to be very clear so far, until this moment, the only, and I will repeat it again, the only curative treatment is surgery. We haven’t been able to cure with other means at this moment. There’s no evidence. We help with other other treatments but the only thing that can potentially cure, not always, but many times, is surgery. So we need to try to focus and try to aim for: can we reach surgery? Sometimes there’s noway that we can reach surgery, so let’s go for other alternatives. But if we can reach surgery, how do we get there and how do we use the other alternatives as a bridge to surgery? This is very important, the concept of that. And the definition of cure that I want to be very clear about here, because a lot of you patients go to the oncologist or to the surgeon or to other specialists. When we say ‘cure’, it’s defined as five years, whether if you are in the field of oncology or transplant, we call it ‘cure’ at five years, if there’s no evidence of disease. There are some diseases that can come back after five years. Colon cancer, if we resect it, or we remove it, and it’s not coming back in five years, we call it cured. Still a little, little chance that it will come back, but probably not that much. However, there’s some data on follow up at 10 years or even more. So the goal of every patient that I personally think who has colorectal metastasis will be, I think they want to be cured. That’s the number one goal, or at least live longer with good quality of life, and also reduce the exposure to chemotherapy for as much time as possible. I think those are the goals when apatient has colorectal metastases, who is going to go for treatment. So how can we reach those goals?

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 11:48
Number one, you need a good medical and surgical team. That for me, is the most important part of this. You need a group or a liver surgeon, whether it’s in different fields, but a liver surgeon, you need a medical oncologist, you need a hepatologist – nowadays it’s a field that is working more on patients with colon cancer, the hepatologists are the liver specialists and they look at livers when they have fatty liver disease, other problems when the liver enzymes are going up. So it’s so important to involve them as well. Radiationoncologists, many of the times we need the interventional radiologists where, Y90 or TACE or other type of treatments, when we do portal vein embolization and those types of treatments, and we need to develop strategies to reach a surgical resection, as I mentioned a few minutes ago. Reaching resection, routine surgery will be the most important thing and the best potential outcome. And sometimes we have to be creative and innovative as professionals. If I’m a patient who has one or two liver metastases on the left side, I can tell you, you don’t have to be traveling and look for too many options. Probably close to you, there will be a person who will be able to do it, a good surgeon who’s going to be able to do a liver resection in the left side. They give you chemotherapy, and you have a good chance that probably to be cured, or if it has recurrence, to have follow up and to do something more. But when there are multiple spots – tumors, and you need someone to be creative and have strategies, then this is when you need this type of teams. When there are metastases in your lungs or in the adrenal glands, or when there is local recurrence, then we need to have a surgical team that is willing to push the envelope.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 13:51
Resection of all the disease is something that is, …I call it ‘imperative’. We shouldn’t be doing a little resection here in the liver and then a little resection later on. Remember, liver metastasis, metastasize. What does that mean? If we have metastases in the liver, and we’re not treating those metastases, and we just leave them there. They’re going to send cancer cells to other places or to the other sites of the liver, and it’s going to come back. And I mean, with that living residual disease in colorectal metastasis shouldn’t be an option. This is what happens when we don’t have many options and we just give chemotherapy. And I think that this is complex and a difficult to understand, and a difficult pill to swallow. When we show this graph where we see that five year survival, it’s only 5 to 10% under chemotherapy, but it’s true, and this is what we’re facing. We want to be out of there. What happens when we use other types of treatment different than systemic chemotherapy? Many of you are aware about the hepatic artery infusion pump? Which I want to be very clear, I’m not against it. I think it has an impressive response. It’s great for patients who have advanced disease and perhaps for patients who are progressing. But this study here, it shows the group of hepatic artery infusion and those with systemic chemotherapy. So these two groups were patients who have unresectable liver disease, patients who we cannot go and resect them. And then they decided to go one went to systemic chemotherapy as a palliative treatment, and otherwise for the pump as a palliative treatment. And if you see, the dotted line is systemic and the solid line is hepatic artery infusion, and the survival at two years is practically the same. There was an increase of median survival of 24 months compared to 20 months in both of them. So definitely, there’s a little bit of benefit of hepatic artery infusion. But also we want to be very clear about what happened with with both of those things, and I’m going to make some comments about it.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 16:11
I mentioned that ‘cure’ is defined at five years in the groups of transplantation and in the groups of cancer, but there’s some other groups that they really want to push and say, “Okay, let’s look at 10 years.”. So what happened when we resected the cancer? That means we removed it from the liver, the metastasis, the primary tumor, is removed. We resect it. What are my chances of being that patient and survive for 10 years or more? Well the chance is around 27%. So we know that a lot of patients during those 10 years, they will die from recurrence of the disease quite often. But remember, at five years, 5 or 10% when there’s only chemotherapy. So this is a huge benefit and a huge advantage to being able to go for resection, but the concept of resection is something that is very important, and that’s what I was mentioning about having a team that is willing to push the envelope. Many of you are familiarized with CT scans, hopefully not like this one, but well, there’s a lot of metastases. All those dark spots are metastases from colon cancer. So it’s difficult to be able to leave liver without cancer in this patient. So defining resectability many years ago, it was defined “arbitrary”. They said, if there’s less than four tumors, if we can leave good margins– that means that when we cut it, we stay far away from tumor, no evidence of disease outside the liver. And when the patient has a low clinical risk score– that is when there’s a single tumor or low CEA, which you know it’s a tumor marker, the nodes, etc, etc. — If I would be doing this in my life, I would be doing probably 10% of the surgeries that I do nowadays, only, or less than that. This has changed. And then in the early 2000s and later on, they started pushing the envelope and saying, let’s operate on patients, resect patients with more than four metastases. What happened to them? And this is a study that comes from Memorial Sloan Kettering center, almost 100 patients, and they started resecting and being more aggressive after receiving chemotherapy and resecting them, and it was an improvement of survival. So they were able to see, “alright, I think we can be more aggressive and push and operate on more liver metastases in the liver, not only four or less”. And this is a study that I want to show here, is what really changed in 2008 the management of colorectal liver metastases with chemotherapy. And I just want to let you know this journal, The Lancet, is very strong. It’s an extremely high impact factor. You publish there, you do very important research. And they analyzed 364 patients, all of them with less than four metastases. So a very simple study. And they said, “Okay, what happes if we give them chemo and then we operate on them compared to if we only operate on them without chemotherapy?”, and there was a 7% improvement of the disease-free survival. What does that mean? …That this patient, the recurrence, was later or more delayed compared to the patients who didn’t receive chemotherapy, showing a benefit of the chemotherapy. However, the chemotherapy didn’t have implications in the improval of overall survival, so the cancer came back later but at the end, patients survived at very similar rates. But there’s other benefits of the chemotherapy, which I think are more important which are learning thebehavior of the tumor, and it’s going to help us to decide what to do with the patients.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 20:30
Now, let’s talk about what is one of the biggest problems that happen when we go and do resection, and what all the patients are afraid, is “oh, I’m going to have a recurrence”. So what happened with recurrence? In this study that is multi-institutional, many centers, more than 1600 patients: 947 patients had recurrence after resection. So they studied them, and they looked where the cancer came back. In 40%, only in the liver; in 20%, in the liver and outside the liver; and in 35% only outside the liver. So we know when it comes outside the liver in this population, the outcomes are not very good because the surgical treatment has to be different, especially those ones who are affected in several organs. But what happened with those ones who only came back in the liver? They went back for treatments, whether it was a resection or ablations or something that was going to remove them, and then when it came back again, there was 90%, so 372 patients that came back in the liver. So why am I showing you this road and this path? So there is a population of patients that we don’t know, but with time, we started learning that they only have liver disease, and these are the patients where we can even do much more and push the envelope and do big treatments, including liver transplantation in many of them. So what is this telling us? We need to identify clearly those patients that can be resected. But also we need to identify those ones who cannot be resected to be able to give alternatives, and maybe we can convert them to resection or other treatments. What other options do we have? Y90, microwave ablation, a lot of other centers they do RFA, or radio frequency ablation. The most common and advanced nowadays in the US is microwave ablation, external radiation and hepatic artery pump or other treatments that we’re seeing nowadays. So I was mentioning what is unresectable. In these slides, these slides that you can see, there’s a metastasis in this part. It’s the same one here, another one here. Well, maybe I can say, let’s go and do a big wedge here, and do a posterior right segmentectomy in this liver, and then hopefully the patient is cured. But perhaps other surgeons will think differently, they will say, “Oh, I will ablate this one here, and then I will do Y90, and then resect”. So which one is correct? Remember, surgery for most, if possible, will be the best. But of course, after chemotherapy to understand more the biology of the tumor in this patient, who has a lot of disease in the left side, and this is the same patient, a lot of disease in the right side, and you can see the amount of disease.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 23:47
A lot of some colleagues that I know around the world, they will say, “No, this patient is unresectable”. Well, look at the segment 4 which has its own blood supply and own outflow. Maybe we can create growth there. Remember, the liver has regeneration. Maybe we can do a technique that makes thesegment to grow and have hypertrophy, and then we can go and do resection. What is that? It’s called ALPPS, right? And we were able to help this patient. This patient survived for seven and a half years and did very well. He was able to be with his grandchildren and enjoy life. The cancer came back later, but it was very different than surviving a few months or one year on. And this is what I was mentioning about in this paper, where a lot of surgeons from around the world – and I was invited to be part of these, from Switzerland, Norway, Brazil, United States, many other centers in Asia as well. We were asked and given tasks about, ‘would you resect these patients or not according to CT scans?”. And what it was, and this was more than 15 cases, and the conclusion was, there’s minimal agreement on therapeutic strategies. It’s inconsistent, and patients should consider going for second and third opinions. And this is very true. I think this paper shouldn’t go into a journal of medicine. This should go to magazines that people read. Because this is true, you need to be cautious on selecting your teams, because everything is going to be different, depending on where you go and wherever you feel comfortable, will be the best place to go.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 25:39
What can we do nowadays when we see patients who have clearly unresectable disease, no place that we can do an ALPPS or a two-stage hepatectomy, what can we do with these patients? Well, this patient really received treatment here with us. Well, not necessarily with us, but long distance with us, under us, and impressively, the disease responded very well. And this is the same CT scans, but several months later, you can barely see those diseases. Patients get excited and say, “Well, my cancer is gone”. Wait a moment. No, it’s not gone. The cancer is going to be there the majority of time. And there’s evidence that it’s going to be there because it disappears in the CT scan or even in the MRI, it is still there at least 65-70% of the time the liver starts getting damaged. The cancer cell are there, and then they hide, and you cannot see them because the liver has already fatty disease in the liver, or some fibrosis, and we cannot see. The CT scan and the MRI are notmicroscopes. We can see around 3, 4, 5, 6, millimeters spots, but we cannot see microscopic spots, and they’re gonna come back. I think, with those patients, convert them with treatment and then we’ll check them.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 27:19
Well, this is what happened: the recurrence it’s pretty high. It’s almost universal, and survival is around 30% for five years. And the majority of the patients, around 81-82% of them, will have cancer back by five years. It’s better than not having a resection, but definitely there’s an improval in the survival of these patients who are converted to resectable, but sometimes there could be other options. And, I have talked about this previously, but for the people who are new or that are new today, towards the right side, and we need to remove all the right side and the left side is small, we can do a portal vein embolization with interventional radiology or for patients who have several tumors, but we find there’s an area where we can resect these tumors, and after resecting these tumors, then we can embolize or, get the right portal vein, similar to the wall. We will wait several weeks until the left side of the liver where there’s no tumors, will grow. That’s called ‘hypertrophy’, or regeneration of the liver. And then we can go back to the operating room for a second operation, remove the right side of the liver and the patient is free of cancer. There’s also the ALPPS procedure, which is a very similar situation, but that thing is different, because in the first stage, we divide the liver and the liver will grow very quickly and very accelerated. I had the opportunity of being a pioneer on the ALPPS in North America having good outcomes. But unfortunately, the vast majority of the patients with the two stage hepatectomy with the ALPPS the vast majority of them will have recurrence, and this is disease-free survival. That means, how many of the patients are free of cancer at three years? 80%, the cancer has come back in this study of 459 patients. In these 65 patients, 80%, and in this group, 74% of the patients will have. This is from France, this is from MD Anderson, and this is a systematic review that means that …(extended internet connectivity interruption)…

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 29:49
…we have better chemotherapy, we know. We have better treatments, and if you compare different eras, so in the 2000’s and the late 1990’s, we have seen an increase in the survival of patients after resection. And I think, better surgeons we’re understanding more therapy. We were talking about recurrence. What happened when there is recurrence after resection? The line that is color yellow, it’s a line where it’s showing when the patients have liver disease only, and when they only have lung disease only, when it comes back in the lungs, these patients have a better survival. I’m talking here about resection. So patients who had colon cancer, liver metastases, they go for chemo, they are resected, the tumor is removed, the liver is doing well, and unfortunately, they have lung metastasis, if there’s only lung metastasis, they have better survival, compared to those ones who have liver recurrence. So liver recurrence, why it’s coming often the liver, those “ghost” metastases, those disappearing liver metastasis. I mentioned it a few minutes ago. They disappear. It doesn’t mean that they disappear. There has been, until a few years ago, evidence that radiologically, there’s nothing in the right side. They were metastasis in the right side, we give chemo. They disappear. We can only see the left side. We go and operate on the left side, and then in few months or one year, there they are on the right side. What does that mean? Are these recurrence or is this residual disease? Most likely residual disease. Studies show that around 83% of the patients clear on develop metastases is when we look at new CT scans or MRIs. Now, I will show you some data now with tissue, not necessarily with radiology. But what do we know, and I mentioned about the behavior of the tumor to understand how the tumors behave, and that’s the biology of the tumor, the size and the number of the tumors is important, the tumor markers, the level. Nowadays, a lot of people are asking, “What about Signatera or the new Guardant360?”. Our center is working on this and understanding more, it might be a good tool for decision making, before a decision of surgeries or transplantation, and to follow up with the patients. We call it liquid biopsies, or circulating tumor DNA. How much time has the patient had the disease? If the patient is stable and has one year, two years, probably we could be more aggressive to be able to do something. The fact that a patient is responding to chemotherapy, or to systemic chemotherapy, or to hepatic artery pump infusion, that is a good sign that the tumor is behaving and that justifies us to be aggressive. So all of these, the presence or not of lymph nodes, the evidence of extrahepatic disease, the genetics of the tumor, all of these are tools that for us as physicians who dedicate time for cancer patients, help us to decide what we can do for these patients.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 33:41
And the next slide is just to show you, I know this is not a medical talk, but this is just to show you that the patients who have — the bigger the tumors, the more of the metastases, the outcome is going to be more complex. So you don’t have to really understand this. This is, I took it from a presentation that I gave to physicians and but what this slide is showing is the more tumor load, the worse the outcome. We need to help and find ideas on how to help these patients and what to do. The higher the CEA, the worse the outcome. And these are patients if we do liver resections with high CEA, with high tumor load, the presence of lymph nodes. We know that the outcome is going to be worse if there’s cancerous lymph nodes around the liver than if they are not cancerous lymph nodes around the liver. If a patient is progressing on their chemotherapy, that means that the tumors are growing, and then we go and resect, the outcome is worse than if the patient is responding to chemotherapy. The more mutations the patient has, if we compare it to the patients who have no mutations or only one mutation on the genetics, the more complex outcome the patient is going to have oncologically as well.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 35:02
So let’s put together these cases’ time. Imagine that we have a 53 year old patient who has liver metastases from colon cancer, the primary is located in the right side. The patient has four liver metastases in the right side of the liver, and there’s no evidence of disease outside the liver, then what are we going to do? Okay, well, clearly we should give systemic chemotherapy. We will understand more about the biology of that tumor, maybe three months, and then we restage. We do a lot of CEA again. We do CT scans again, and the patient is responding. All right, let’s go to surgery. What are we going to do? Are we going to remove both of the tumors together, the liver and the colon? Well, we have to see if the patient is fit enough. We have a good team that communicates with colorectal surgeons and the liver surgeons. We can do simultaneous resection. What about if it’s a very big liver surgery and the tumor is located in the rectum, right? One very low, the other one, very high. Can we do that? And maybe the patient has a very high BMI? It’s a patient who has some obesity? Well, that’s going to be a more complex surgery. Should we do it all in one stage? Well, we have to decide and talk inthe tumor board. What are we going to do first? If the liver has more disease, then we go first for the liver, and then for the rectal tumor, the colon. Or sometimes we can do minimally invasive surgery, we can do the colon, and then we can do the liver with minimally invasive surgery, or we can combine.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 36:45
So that is where the strategy of a team to develop what is the best for the patient comes in. What about if the patient is not responding? The same patient that I mentioned to you three months later, we do the CT scan and the tumors are growing. Now, I’m not going to tell the patient, “well, there’s nothing more to do”. No, that’s not an answer for me. Well, hepatic artery infusion could be a good option for these patients here. Why? What do we know about hepatic artery infusion? One of the good things is the conversion rate. It has a stronger conversion rate than the systemic chemotherapy, right? And we know that. I showed you at the beginning there’s no benefit to comparing both at the end, but in this situation, we know that systemic is not working. I totally justify going for surgery and getting the pump, and let’s see, hopefully this will work, and hopefully we can do something later. But you might ask yourself, so why not use the pump from the beginning? Well, to be honest, there’s some advantages, as I mentioned, and some disadvantages of the pump that I see. Let’s start with the advantages I mentioned, very good response and high rate of conversion, but you won’t necessarily have that with the systemic. The systemic can’t give you this as well. But the disadvantages, some of you know this, the travel arrangement, if you don’t live in a city or in a place where it has it financially, the pump has many times these functions. There’s an increased incidence of biliary and vascular complications. Some of the patients that maybe are here will be able to talk about it, some vascular complications that can happen aneurysms, bleeding or dysfunctions and biliary toxicity, which I really think is a little bit higher, perhaps, is underreported. But a lot of patients develop these biliary problems. It responds very well, and the tumors decrease. But you pay for these. And also here, I’ve seen some patients who have dislodgement, the pump flipped and needs to be reoperated on, and high risk of technical surgery complications could be happening.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 39:04
Let’s move to the case 2 study. Imagine a 46 year old patient that we removed the primary. The CEA is in 42. The patient has a KRAS mutation, one of these mutations, but there’s no evidence of extrahepatic disease, and this patient has all these multiple tumors. What do we want to do? Systemic chemo, HAIP infusion? Do we go for resections? Do we do an ALPPS? Do we take the patient for transplant? So we can have many options for these patients. I don’t think there is one correct answer at this moment. We need to remember to understand how that tumor behaves. I will go for systemic chemotherapy. Let’s go for systemic chemotherapy, and the patient received FOLFOX and FOLFIRI. And look at these, a lot of calcifications, and those tumors got smaller. Now are we going to do resection and ablation? Are we going to give Y90? Remember, I mentioned to you the patient… — I will go back… look at the many lesions that this patient had. Now it’s here. For me, it will be very easy to say, “Oh, I do a resection, a wedge here, maybe ablation here, and a wedge here”. But I know that all of these are hiding, they are sleeping, and they’re going to come back. So those are the ghost metastases, and we know that there’s a high recurrence rate. Wait and see, hepatic artery pump infusion. What should we do? I think we need to talk and understand the patient, what they need, in my opinion, in this case that I created, resection, perhaps not ideal due to the high recurrence. Ablation, the same thing, higher recurrence, of course, it’ss not as invasive as a surgery, but it will have high recurrence. And I think the benefit is questionable. Y90 probably, maybe if the patient is not tolerating more chemotherapy, or maybe combined with chemo as a bridge for some bigger operation. Should we wait and see? I don’t think it’s ideal, if there’s no other treatment options, and the patient’s family are in agreement, maybe we can do it. The hepatic artery pump, I think is a good option if there are no other plans for a bigger operation, and if the patient doesn’t want to continue with systemic chemotherapy, such as FOLFIRI. So you can see that it also depends a lot on what the patient wants and where does the patient want to go? In my situation, I will continue. The patient is tolerating chemo that FOLFIRI is more tolerated. I will continue more time with the FOLFIRI and the low CEA had no evidence of progression. Well, guess what? That patient got transplanted and was successful. 1.5 years of chemotherapy, no evidence of disease, and a good quality of life. Some issues on bile duct structures, but the patient is out of chemotherapy and enjoying life.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 42:13
And this is where it comes from, my field of transplantation, where all these data were coming from, from Norway, but not anymore. This data now, it’s coming from North America. This is the first paper that comes from North America. This is also one of the very high impact factor journals, JAMA surgery, where we published this showing the first 10 patients with living donor liver transplantation and unresectable liver metastases that fulfilled the criteria, showing very similar outcomes as the group of Norway. They have been doing this for more than 10 years. We just started doing this close to four years ago. And here is the United States. This is a study that also we recently participated, Dr Tommelyama. It’s here as well from our center, some of the groups from Stanford and Cleveland. And we published this together. 48 liver transplants at that moment, last year, around the end of the summer, went in the United States for liver transplants for colorectal metastasis. So it’s not only 10 or 15; – 48. So probably by this moment, there are 60 or probably more, and we were able to see that it has a pretty good outcome, similar to patients in Norway.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 43:42
What is that? Imagine having an outcome that this population of patients with unresectable disease, where they have a five year survival of 5%, then, now in five years, they have a 60% survival. That is pretty impressive. Now, some of the patients got living donor. Some of the patients got a diseased organ. Disease organ means it’s coming from someone who was brain dead, someone who died in the ICU and the family decided to donate the organ. So how do those patients receive a diseased organ? The reason that they were able to receive an organ is because they have a sick liver, not only because of the cancer, because all the multiple treatments with chemotherapy, Y90, hepatic artery infusion, and this liver was burnt out liver, and the patient has liver dysfunction, and the patient received a liver transplant, and those are the ones who didn’t do very well, the outcome was more complex on these patients, unfortunately. So what I want to see here, and the message that is very important for those patients for transplant, transplant shouldn’t be the last option. Transplant should come early in the algorithm because the outcome would be much, much better if we transplant the patient in the early stages. If we wait for the patient to not have more options and to be a burnout liver, we may be able to do a transplant, but the outcomes might not be the best. Technically, they won’t be doing very well. So this is an important message. We receive patients who are at the end, and we help them. And if we can do it, we do it. But if it comes earlier, I tell you the story is completely different. This is my institution protocol that we have been modifying after we have been learning in the last four years. We go for something that is called the Oslo score, that was developed in Norway. But we also added more things here that makes us more strict to be sure that things go in the right direction.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 45:57
One of our research fellows was working on this project, and we have 138 referrals, that was until, I think, January, patients that came to assess for being a transplant candidate. And from those patients, 53 were men. 46 were women. This is the location of the primary tumor, majority of the patients have the tumor in the left side or in the rectum, 20% of the states have been referring patients were situated here, and there were three patients that were international. The stars are centers that are in cities or states from where more patients have come to us. And from those evaluated, many of them drop out in the beginning, because I mentioned to you it is very strict, but there are still around 26 candidates, and we are monitoring them, hopefully they come into this field and are the ones who have liver transplantation. I have here 13, just a few days ago we did number 14. And this is what will happen, those ones who dropped out, many of them were disease progression. Many of them had other centers. But what I think is most important here is the referral was made an average of 10 months after the diagnosis. So again, the (internet connectivity dispruption) earlier the referral, the earlier we see them, we can come and work. Perhaps of those 112 patients, they will refer earlier, maybe, and this is speculation, but maybe around 15% of those patients maybe will have the chance of being transplanted. I might be wrong, and there’s no evidence of this, but that is my feeling just looking at the way that the disease progresses. I want to show you, and I hope you don’t mind, this is a real liver. This is a donor, and that’s what we do, and this is something that helps us. We use something that is called green indocyanine, where we have to divide the liver. The patient is going to donate the right side, and the left side of the liver will stay in the donor. And this is how we mark. (internet connectivity dispruption) And we know where we are going to be cutting with something that is called a hydro jet and you can see here we’re dividing –

Julie Clauer 48:59
Dr Hernandez, sorry, when the video was playing, it was hard to hear your voice. So do you mind just describing what was in the video again?

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 49:12
Can you hear me now?

Julie Clauer 49:14
Yes.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 49:15
Okay, so you saw the liver getting green, right? And this is with a special lamp. We inject something that is called green indocyanine. We are blocking the right side, the artery and the vein, and this is helping us to decide where exactly we have to divide the liver. And I think it’s pretty impressive to see that, and it’s a lot of advanced technology that is helping us for doing the correct operation. Nowadays, these green indocyanine is also used to detect sometimes liver metastases. Some centers in Asia are using it and they inject it one week before doing the liver resections in these patients. But while if you were able to see the green, indocyanine part. I will skip that one. The next slide here, if you are still seeing me, is how we divide the liver, and I will play it and I will talk. But this is with a water jet. With water we divide the cancer cells. You can see in the right side here, it has already divided all the liver, and this is the left side that stays in the donor. I will play it and I will talk.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 50:45
Okay, so that’s how we divide the liver, and we try to maintain like minimal blood loss in these patients, despite the fact that the liver is an organ that receives a lot of blood supply. In our experience doing living donor liver transplantation on these 14 patients, that is our survival: 80% survival at three years, and recurrence-free survival, only 90%. So this is, I would say, a little bit better than what is happening in Norway. But I think a lot of the patients, maybe some of them, will have recurrence at some moment. But the thing is, if it comes back and it comes back in the lungs, we can do a lot of other things.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 51:24
What are the advantages of having living donor liver transplantation compared to other options? Well, there’s a risk to the donors, definitely, but we try to decrease as much as possible the risk in the donors, doing a very good selection of these patients; Problems of bile ducts or vascular complications, we have been fortunate that we haven’t had any biliary or vascular complications in all our donors. And the advantages is that we remove patients from the waiting list. We do this in patients with cirrhosis, right? That’s a very good way of helping patients on the waiting list, that we transplant the patients prior to the recipient becoming very sick, it’s elective and non emergency, and what I call here, minimal cold ischemia time, is that the liver stays in the ice for a short period of time. And probably a lot of benefits that we can talk about more in other moments. Do we transplant patients after the pump? What happened? They can have very good response, as you know. We use the same criteria as those patients who have systemic chemotherapy. However, patients need to understand that there’s a higher surgical challenge. The hepatic artery where they put the catheter of the pump gets very damaged, and the damage is because of the same chemotherapy that is going through that artery. And that artery cannot be used for putting back together. And the liver needs that artery to get oxygenated blood. So we need to come up with a strategy. And our expert here, Dr. Tomiyama, myself, and other surgeons that work together, like Dr. Piena, Dr. Nair, and all the team together, we find arteries that are behind the spleen that we will need to dissect and flip it over to the liver to be able to do this, or something that is called a conduit, that we use, coming from the artery to provide blood supply to the liver. So definitely, it’s a more complex operation. There are some patients, for some reason, that have less complications or less complexity of the operation, but there are other ones that have a higher complication rate.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 53:44
This is a new study that I don’t think I have shown here, and this is pretty impressive, because this is a 10 years follow-up on the Norway patients. This is the first time that I’m showing a slide of Norway, right? Because now we have a lot of data from from the US, but we don’t have this data in the US yet, because this is our 10 years follow up from 60 patients of data, 10 year survival of 50%. These are patients who have unresectable liver metastases, stage four, who were going to have only palliative chemotherapy. They responded, they did a liver transplant, and at 10 years, 50% of them are alive. So this is pretty impressive, but this is only those ones who have an Oslo score of two, one or zero, which is strict, as I mentioned to you. I mentioned about pulmonary recurrence. When it comes in the lungs, we can treat these patients. We can resect it, and they do pretty well. When it comes in the liver, the outcome is not that good after transplantation. Just to mention about recurrence: Recurrence after resection is pretty high, that takes place in the liver, when in the liver after transplantation is pretty, pretty small, and the survival rate at five years, as I mentioned, 10 years, 50% at 10 years compared to 20% at 10 years on resection. I want to be very clear here: I’m not saying that instead of doing a resection, we should do a transplant. A patient who is resectable, we should do resection. A patient who is unresectable, which we hopefully, we can do a transplant, a patient who is unresectable and responded very well to chemotherapy, transplantation will have a huge benefit, in my opinion, on these patients. This study from our center, very recent study. We analyzed all the liver ‘explants’. That means what we removed, and those patients have a very good response, and we analyzed all the studies with the permission of the patients, and the analysis of the patients, and they signed the consent, and we analyzed how many metastases they had, and we compared to the CT scan or the MRI before the transplant, and they have —

Julie Clauer 56:17
Dr. Hernandez, I’m sorry this is such a good slide, can you put it on full screen, just because it’s so deep? It’s so detailed, I want to make sure people can see it. It’s such a good study. I’m so sorry.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 56:27
All right. So these are the patients. They explant – that means that the liver, when it came out, went to pathology, and the pathologist sliced it and analyzed it centimeter by centimeter, and these are the amount of tumors that they found at the moment. The brown livers right? This one that is a partial liver is because this patient had a left hepatectomy, or these patients had a right hepatectomy. But they analyzed, and as you can see, the vast majority of the livers in pathology have more tumors than what the CT scan, which is the one in the middle the CT scan, or the MRI before the transplant. What is this telling us? That 64% of the time, we were able to find more disease of what we were able to see in the scans. I showed you that with radiology, but this is the first time that we have the entire liver that we’re able to prove it. So this is, I think, a very important information to give. And I think this is showing us why, when we do liver resection after a lot of liver metastases disappear, why we see a very high recurrence rate. I have to be fair, right? It’s not, “Okay. Let’s go for transplant, and you’re done”, and then you go and play in the park. Well, some of them can do that, but for some of them, life after transplantation, there could be some complications. You have to be on immunosuppression. It’s not like chemotherapy at all. It’s pretty well tolerated. Sometimes there could be some things, especially in the first year, that you have to be measuring and knowing the levels of your immunosuppression, but it’s pretty well tolerated and low side effects in the vast majority of the times. There can be some acute complications, such as vascular complications that probably in the artery that sometimes we need to put a stent or something like that, to to avoid the artery to close, because it’s very small vessels that we use. Unfortunately, biliary complications is more common.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 58:38
What are those biliary complications? There could be leaks or strictures when we put together the donor and the recipient’s bile duct, sometimes we have to put those stents. And in some patients, we can remove it at one year, six months. And some of the patients require it for long term. And some of them, they require a metallic stent for life. Retransplantation could be an option for some patients. We have a patient that was transplanted and hasn’t had recurrence, but the liver developed some complications later on because of some biliary complications, and now the patient is listed for retransplantation. And also I put that with chemotherapy, the patients normally do not receive chemotherapy after transplant, but in case there’s recurrence, the patients can tolerate chemotherapy. And just to finalize here, I just want to show something that I know that one of the patients who came here with us, and I think it was in the group of COLONTOWN and decided to go to Germany, because this patient has some roots in Germany, went for a live donor liver transplantation with this concept that is called the ‘Rapid Concept’, and it’s using a live donor, but they use a small portion of liver instead of using the right side. They keep the right side with cancer but they wait for this growth in a few weeks, and then they come back when this left side is bigger, and remove it. And this is a new concept. There hasn’t been any center in the US or Canada doing this yet. I think it might happen at some moment. I think we have other options in North America. But this is a new concept that I just want you to know about the rapid surgery, which I think it’s a pretty impressive surgery, but perhaps is, there’s no need of doing it in that many patients. I want to leave this because this is for me, giving hope. This is hope for a lot of patients who are unresectable, or patients who perhaps have liver disease and lung disease and maybe disease in other places that are unresectable because there’s metastasis outside the liver. And I am not getting paid for it, nothing like that. I just wanted to, I asked them if they can share with me this short video. And I think some people have seen this. This is histotripsy. It’s an ultrasound that liquefies, destroys the tissue, creating dead cells. So imagine that we can use this. …I don’t think it’s going to run, so I apologize that it’s gonna… I have to do it this way.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 56:29
Can you hear my voice?

Julie Clauer 1:01:50
Yes, yes.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 59:56
Okay, so this is liquifying so it’s through an ultrasound with water, and it’s going to destroy the tumor in the liver, and it’s going to have an immediate reaction. So I’m really looking forward to doing this, and we don’t have to open the patient. This can be done from outside, but we need to anesthetize with general anesthesia, the patient in the operating room. General anesthesia, the patient gets intubated, so the patient is not moving. We rotate the patient, we put this machine and this area will go down to the abdomen of the patient, and there’s going to be a big bubble of water coming out here, like a balloon that incorporates to the skin of the patient. And we can assess the tumors in this ultrasound, and we can target the tumor and start decreasing it. Is this going to cure the patients? I’m not sure, but probably, and we need to develop more studies. The trials were done in the US and in Spain, in patients who were palliative the outcomes, it’s going to be helping all a lot of this, is going to be for trying to downsizing the tumor and to make the patient resectable, or to be able to bring those patients to transplant in different types of tumors, and a lot in colorectal liver metastases. And with that, I think I’m done.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:00:38
Well, conclusions. Let’s let’s say, you need a good team. You need to feel comfortable with them. Chemotherapy is very important to understand the behavior of the tumor. There are different modalities that can be helped, and patients need to know about them. And also the field of liver transplantation in those patients with stage four advanced multiple metastases, they should know about that, and surgeons should be in their toolbox. Transplant shouldn’t be the last option. It’s not the last option. Liver transplantation in selected patients is providing great results, and it’s important to have a multidisciplinary team approach. We need to collect more data, and that’s what we’re doing here, and we are doing a lot of research in our institution and taking tissue and understanding more about the molecular phenomena that are happening in those tumors that hopefully we can help patients in the future. And with this, I would say thank you very much, and I will stop sharing.

Betsy Post 1:00:38
Great. Thank you. Julie, do you want to do some of the questions? I think just scroll to the top. Or do you want me to do them?

Julie Clauer 1:04:39
You’re so good at it. I’ll do it if you want me to, but you’re so good at doing it,

Betsy Post 1:04:45
I’ll start it off. So thank you so much. Thanks everyone for hanging in. We are going to go in order for some of the questions that were sent through chat. So the first question that I’m seeing is, you mentioned Fatty Liver. Is this a common thing to occur after you have liver surgery?

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:05:06
No, it’s not a common thing to have after surgery. Is not an uncommon thing to happen after receiving chemotherapy. Fatty Liver is very common nowadays, in the US, in a lot of us, we can develop fatty liver just because our the way that we eat and our sedentary lives can create that. But if we receive chemotherapy, that creates fatty liver as well. So it’s more common with chemo, not necessarily because of the surgery. The surgery itself do not create fatty liver.

Betsy Post 1:05:42
This one, I actually think you addressed but it’s on your thoughts on doing the hepatic pump with the goal of resection. But I think you addressed that a little bit later after that question came through.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:05:54
I’ll just, to go quick, Betsy – is yes, pump, and surgery after pump. It’s a great thing that happens, and it has a very good response rate and conversion rate with the pump. Definitely. We know that there could be some hiding ghost metastases, in some of those patients. But it’s a risk that can happen, but it it makes it a little bit more complex, a bigger operation in the liver. Definitely, it’s a little bit more complex to do after the pump.

Betsy Post 1:06:32
So there was a paper that you showed from, I’m going to probably say this incorrectly, ‘brouquet’, ‘brocketts’, the 2011 paper where you showed the rate of disease-free survival, was there a rate of overall survival?

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:06:51
So what is the question?

Betsy Post 1:06:54
So she was saying that when you talked about that, or you referenced that particular paper, you showed the rate of disease-free survival. What was the rate of overall survival?

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:07:08
The one for brokette, let me see if it’s the one from Northern Europe, …I don’t know if which one is the one from Brockette, but what I can tell you is, disease-free survival after resection in patients who have response it’s disease-free survival. That means that patient, that won’t have disease at five years, right? It’s going to be around, generally, around 30% of the patients, depending on the amount of disease. So the majority of the patients, we know that they’re going to have recurrence of the disease after resection. Of course, as I mentioned, the more metastases we have and then going for resection, then the higher chances of having recurrence. So size matters for sure.

Betsy Post 1:08:10
Do we have data on outcomes for patients who get FOLFOX, then the hepatic pump, as compared to patients who get FOLFIRI and then the hepatic pump?

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:08:21
So, I’m not a medical oncologist, but I can tell you that the rate of response of FOLOFOX and FOLFIRI, is very similar. A lot of the time some of the initial studies, were done with FOLFOX. So that’s why they start with FOLFOX. The problem with FOLFOX is that many of you know that the side effects are neuropathy, and they can create problems with your fingers, with your toes, with your lips. So it’s not uncommon that the patient at six months does not tolerate so then they switch you to FOLFIRI. That is more tolerated than FOLFOX. So there’s no data which one of them will work best. I think both of them do have a very similar response rate, and normally when patients use a pump, they also receive systemic chemotherapy. So, many of them, they go on FUDR, which is the chemotherapy that is used in the pump, plus systemic chemotherapy, because, remember, the pump is only attacking the liver, but there is also systemic disease that the patients still need some chemotherapy for the systemic disease. We want those lymph nodes to be without cancer, so they need to attack from both sides.

Betsy Post 1:09:40
Do you think surgeons are on board with using CtDNA testing, and what actions could a patient take if there’s a positive ctDNA?

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:09:50
That’s a great question. A positive ctDNA, is something that is telling us there are circulating tumor cells. A lot of the times, the liver sheds DNA from the cancer, quite often, and we do CT scans and we cannot see it, and we do CT scans from head to toes, and we cannot see it, but later on, it’s going to come back. I think it’s difficult at this moment to justify if we resect the patient or we transplant the patient, and there’s no evidence of disease in the imaging, but the circulating tumor DNA is positive, it’s going up. It’s difficult to justify starting chemotherapy in that patient if we haven’t seen it, but I think collecting the data is going to be able to give us that answer in the future, because this is probably, I want to be cautious, probably better than having CEA measurements. A lot of the times the CEA is low and it never moves too much, and probably it’s more sensitive than circulating DNA. But we need to collect more of these data.

Betsy Post 1:11:00
Do you have an approximate percentage of people with colorectal cancer who will only develop a solitary liver met? I saw a video from a liver surgeon made a couple years ago, who said it was around 50%.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:11:17
That only developed liver Mets?

Betsy Post 1:11:19
One liver met.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:11:24
It happens. I don’t see that often, perhaps because my practice has turned into seeing patients with advanced and multiple liver metastases. One of our surgeons, Dr. Nair, just recently, did a robotic single resection of a met. And yeah, I think there are many of them, but I don’t know a percentage or a number that I could say. And though any patient who has one or five and they are resected, they need to have a close follow up, those patients, because recurrence can happen, and we need to have a close follow up.

Betsy Post 1:12:04
Is transplant an option if a stage four patient has recurrence in the liver after five years of being NED?

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:12:11
Definitely, the answer is yes, transplant could be an option for those patients who have recurrence of the disease, even after resection or after ablation, as long as we see that they fulfill the criteria that you know they are responding to any type of treatments, whether this is a local, regional therapy or surgery or ablation or chemotherapy. If they are responding and there’s no disease outside the liver, those patients could be candidates for transplantation.

Betsy Post 1:12:44
What are the common reasons that insurance companies deny coverage for a living-donor liver transplant?

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:12:51
I don’t think this is just for living-donor liver transplant. It’s for liver transplant because liver transplant for colorectal metastasis is not authorized or in the United States in insurance, and even if you live in a country where you know there’s a social system, like in Canada or in Norway or in France, you need to come with an idea on saying why you’re going to take a liver, like a cadaveric liver, and put it in a patient who is not normally on the waiting list. So you need to justify, very clearly that, – so here in the US, the insurance says, “Well, this is not an indication for liver transplantation”. And our team, what we have been doing, and we have turned to be, I would say, experts in this field, is fighting with insurance companies first in a polite and nice way, talking to them peer to peer and sending a lot of data and documentation. Initially, they were saying there’s no American data. Now we can provide that American data that I showed to you, and that helps us trying to get approval for these patients. And sometimes we need to use other medias, not necessarily the peer to peer. Sometimes, if it’s denied, denied, denied, sometimes, social media helps the patients a lot, and the insurance in the end, they accept. So far, we have been successful, but to do this, you need to have a team that is willing to move the needle.

Betsy Post 1:14:28
So many of us who come from rural areas have little support for determining a bridging strategy to get to transplant. Some of us might progress during this time when donors are being screened. How can we solve this problem and ensure people feel they have an appropriate bridging strategy?

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:14:50
Well, access to transplant… This is a big problem in the entire country, in the world, about access to healthcare systems, to different complex treatments. And this is not only for colorectal metastases. I think it’s also for other areas where I work in the field of complex liver surgery, complex cancer in the pancreas. You know, a lot of the patients, they are able to reach treatment because they have a better social media, they have a better/good insurance, or they live in a city that can provide different types of treatments, but not having access to these options, a lot of patients are in a disadvantage. I personally think that having places like on social media, like COLONTOWN, for example, or other groups that help support patients, and being able to provide this education exactly like what you’re doing today, it helps patients within the community, and you are the ones who have a voice and then spread it, and people who are able to reach out to you, and you can guide them and provide them the opportunities, right? It’s difficult, and hopefully it continues opening. And I think, making a voice, it’s so important to help different communities, people who have to live in small places, minorities that are disadvantaged, it’s really important to be able to provide this education.

Betsy Post 1:16:31
Definitely, I know we have at least one patient that’s kind of taking some of that on, so I can connect on that later with this person. Is there any comparative data comparing the hepatic pump versus Y90 therapy and converting nonresectable to resectable disease for surgical intervention?

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:16:55
I’m not aware that there’s a study comparing Y90 with the pump. I can tell you that I have a lot of experience with Y90 because as a transplanter, we do treatment of the most common primary tumor that is called HCC in liver. Nobody here, I think, is associated with the HCC. But this tumor is quite common, and we treat it very often in the US with Y90, and many of those patients later on go to transplant, and we see how they respond. Y90 works very well in HCC and in other cancers that is cholangiocarcinoma, it also is pretty helpful. But now using Y90 in liver metastases is not the norm. It’s not in very common use. We have used it very few times, but a lot of the patients that we see, some of them, they have been treated already with Y90. But those are the patients who’re going to go for liver transplant, the ones that I’m telling you that received some Y90, but comparing hepatic artery infusion with Y90, I’m not aware of any study comparing them. It’s a different strategy, and I think the indication is very different, because what the Y90 could be more located for a specific area of the liver, and the pump is more in an entire liver with a blood supply.

Betsy Post 1:18:28
Is liver transplant only available to patients that have cancer only in the liver?

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:18:37
To be very clear and orthodox, I have to say yes, but I have to tell you that, for example, we have a patient who had a lung metastasis, and that patient, they removed it, and the patient, one year later, after removal of the lung metastasis, came and said, “Can you transplant me?”, and there’s no evidence of recurrence in the lungs. And then the patient was a candidate because of liver, and we couldn’t find any other disease outside the liver. Am I going to say no? It was hard for us. We discussed it in our team, and we did a transplant, and the patient is doing well and there is no evidence of disease, I think more than two years now, or even two and a half, maybe a complex case, but the patient did very well. So I think there’s space for pushing the envelope in some specific patients. But to be very orthodox, if there’s disease outside the liver, it’s not in the best interest for the patient to have a liver transplant.

Betsy Post 1:19:46
When should a liver mets patient consider a second opinion or other opinions on their treatment?

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:19:58
That’s a tricky question. But I would say, if you go the first time and you feel very comfortable, and you know this person or this group or this team knows what they’re doing, and they’re giving you hope and opportunities to get treated and they’re looking for, ‘okay, this is the way that we’re going to get you to resection’. I would stay there. I wouldn’t move. If I feel that there’s something that I don’t feel very good, I will look for second, third opinions, fourth opinions. It’s not complex nowadays, especially, having virtual visits, the vast majority of the patients that my team says is with this disease are patients who we do telemedicine, right? We don’t ask the patient to be traveling to see us and spend thousands of dollars on a plane ticket and keeping them in the waiting room for a long time. They come here once, we’re going to treat them. But we manage the patient from a distance using telemedicine. So that is helpful, but if you don’t feel comfortable, or also if your disease is very complex, then probably you need to hear second, third opinions. And it doesn’t matter if you are with what you think is the best. A lot of the times, patients come with us for the first time. And if there’s complexity, I tell them, “Listen, go and talk to another one, the other person, other surgeon. And I want you, if you’re going to come to us, I want you to be sure that you are comfortable with us with the decision making”, so it’s important, it creates a better bonding with/ between the group, the surgeon and the patient and the family.

Betsy Post 1:21:51
Is a liver transplant preferable to multiple liver resections due to recurrences, or have liver resections as long as it is possible?

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:22:02
If I understand the question very well. So if you come, if your patient has a liver section, and then recurrence, and then resection, and then recurrence, is that something similar to having a liver transplant?

Betsy Post 1:22:15
So I think, I think he’s saying if you’re having multiple recurrences, should you then, be looking at transplant, or should I continue down this path of multiple liver resections?

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:22:29
Well, what I will be concerned with that patient that is having recurrence and recurrence and recurrence is that there’s going to be a moment that the recurrence is not going to be in the liver, it’s going to be outside the liver, and then that will change the plan and the strategy completely, and then transplantation is not going to be an option. Or also there’s going to be the moment that the tumors are going to mutate, and it’s going to change, and it’s not going to be responding to chemotherapy. So definitely the multiple recurrence, I think transplantation plays a very important role if we’re able to prove that there’s no disease outside. Hopefully that responds your question?

Betsy Post 1:23:19
Yes, that did. You were talking about the timing of transplantation and not to wait too long in people with liver-limited disease, when is a good time to start thinking about transplantation?

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:23:34
I think at any moment, you know, it’s March right now, and we recently saw a patient who was diagnosed with sigmoid cancer and multiple liver metastases, and the patient was going to the first session of chemotherapy. Before going to the first chemotherapy treatment the patient contacted us. I could say, “Well, there’s no problem. I can see the patient in six months”. No. Meeting with the patient, talking, meeting each other, connecting, creating a plan. I know it’s going to be a long term and probably the patient will drop off, hopefully not but guiding, talking to them and making connections with their oncology team from here, sometimes we connect with oncology teams from other centers. We talk to them, we explain what we’re doing. Some of them, they are aware of what we’re doing. Some of them, they are not aware about transplantation, for example, especially these complex cases. And sometimes we see patients that they were told that they were unresectable, and we say, “Wow, we think you’re resectable”. I can tell you a surgeon close to your place that maybe we’ll be able to do, or you want to come here, or something like that. So those things happen sometimes. So if the patient is in the early stages, we think it’s good to talk to the to the transplant team, they don’t have to wait for months or years ahead.

Betsy Post 1:25:12
Is there anything one can do to prevent developing fatty liver? You know, after having chemo or with chemo?

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:25:20
Not that I know, not that I know. I know that there was a study done in small animals about avoiding fatty liver with chemo, and I know that it was done with green tea. Green tea protected, but the amount of green tea that you will need to drink, you will need to be swimming in a big swimming pool and drinking all of it. So it was very high levels of green tea. That’s the only thing that I know that has help for decreasing fatty liver. But the amounts will have to be very high. And I think probably you will get intoxicated with green tea. Exercising, also watching the diet might be helpful, or at least decrease or delay the fatty liver, but the chemo will damage the liver.

Betsy Post 1:26:16
I’m going to mess this name up, just FYI. You can laugh at me, but it’s the new machine that you showed at the end that new technique. Are there any institutions that might be the first to jump on the histotripsy? See, I don’t know how to say it… technology!

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:26:33
Yeah, it’s called histo-trip-sy.

Betsy Post 1:26:36
See, that’s easy. I can say that now, okay.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:26:39
I told them to change the name, because, but I cannot say names but there are two institutions, one, you know, which one that is, and the other one is not that far from here, that are pretty advanced, but these companies are working in many other places, trying to get these placed out there. So I think it’s going to take a couple of years to be out there strong in the market. But I think they’re going to start with, 3, 4, 5, centers, starting to do it, and hopefully by the end of this year or in the Fall, I’m looking forward to being able to use that here.

Betsy Post 1:27:32
You mentioned we don’t have too many questions left. You mentioned one of the patients you presented data on received remote care under your team? Can you clarify what that means, and how would one involve your team remotely from you? And he said, I’m seeing Dr. Kooby, and Dr. Mitel from Emory in Atlanta, whom you might know.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:27:55
Yeah, well, what we do is, we invest a lot in the patient. We follow the patient pre-operatively, in the surgery, and sometimes the complexities that post op, and some patients clearly are concerned, especially because sometimes they want to have a very quick answer, right? We have been able to place a team of navigators that are helping all these patients. We have a coordinator on living-donor, one of the nurse practitioners helps us directly with patients with colorectal liver metastases. We need a nurse practitioner that was working with us that left, and we’re hiring a new one that is coming soon, so there’s a full team that follows these patients, and we’re going to put more resources in to follow these patients. What we do is we communicate with them and contact them, and then if it’s needed, if we there’s something surgically that is needed, we contact a liver surgeon or a hepatobiliary surgeon or a transplant surgeon in their place in Atlanta there, that’s the case that we do it. I know Dr. Kooby extremely well. We’re friends, we’re colleagues and a lot of other places that we know, and that’s what we’re trying to do, and connect with the patients pre-op as well, for the chemotherapy, and if it’s needed later on, to connect with the oncologist. That’s what we try to do as well.

Betsy Post 1:29:27
I can connect also with you, if you message me: the person that asked that question, so I can help you with that also. We just have a couple left. What are the chances of a stage three rectal cancer patient currently on FOLFOX to develop liver mets?

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:29:45
Wow, that’s a great question. So the patients who have a stage three, that’s a reason that they go for chemotherapy to decrease the chance of the patients to develop liver metastases. Those patients need to have follow up CT scans and CEA every six months, depending on the timing for the next five years, because we know that there can be some some recurrence rate. And I think it depends, also it’s not only stage three. There are different stage threes. There are A, B, and different depending on the amount of lymph nodes that were found in the rectal cancer. And it can go as high as 40% it can go as high as 60%, the chances of having liver metastases. The good thing is, the patient knows that there’s a risk, and there’s going to be a close follow up, and if they catch it earlier, then things can be done in an early stage. You don’t have to wait to have 10, 12, 15, metastases, and then, then there’s a complexity to this. So it’s terrible to have colon cancer, but you have, in earlier stages, you can be watching very closely for the metastasis and catch them in an early stage.

Betsy Post 1:31:24
And I think we just have one more: does the hepatic pump, those treatments cause significantly higher amounts of fatty liver?

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:31:34
Yes, but I think the fatty liver, it gets a little bit burnout. By burnout, what I mean, is it creates more fibrosis. Fibrosis creates scar tissue, and one of the problems of the pump is what I mentioned about the biliary damage. The liver produces bile, and it runs through little bile ducts, like a tree in the in the winter, right? No leaves. That’s exactly how a bile duct is inside of a liver. Those little branches and middle branches start getting damaged, and the bile cannot come down. And then this is when the patients start having the elevation of the bilirubin, or the liver enzymes elevated a little bit. So then they have to decrease the amount of FUDR, or they delay it, or they say, let’s stop it. And then it’s giving only systemic chemotherapy. So that’s the toxicity. It’s what happens. I’m not saying that this is bad, don’t use it. No, it has its benefits, it’s better to attack the cancer. But these are side effects that happen that creates, what’s called, fibrosis scar tissue. You saw those pictures that I put there with healthy livers from donors. If I would show you a liver after multiple treatments with the hepatic artery pump, you couldn’t recognize the liver. Of course, I will be putting the ones that we ended doing transplant because they got a lot of damage. There might be many that are not that damaged, but that could be created by too many treatments.

Betsy Post 1:33:09
I’m going to take this one last question. Is fatty liver irreversible? And what are the symptoms? Are there symptoms of it?

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:33:23
I think fatty liver is not irreversible. Fatty liver can be improved, especially when it’s not created by chemotherapy. And really, when we have a fatty liver with no chemotherapy, it can be changed in two, three months, in a patient who changed their habits of how they eat, how they work, how they do things in life that can be changed. Now, if it’s chemotherapy, that is creating the fatty liver? And if the chemotherapy is stopped, the patient will have improvement of the fatty liver and the liver definitely will. But I will be worried about,okay, if the patient had cancer and now stopped the chemotherapy, now what is the patient getting, right? So definitely, that will be a little bit of a concern. If the patient has fatty liver and went for resection, and there’s no evidence of recurrence, and it’s of chemotherapy, that liver is going to recover for sure.

Betsy Post 1:34:28
Do we have time for one more? There’s one more that just came in. I want to have to – it’s 9:35 – you’ve been so generous with your time, we’ll just take one more. Is the chance that the hepatic liver pump causes damage to the liver reduced for individuals who tolerated eight or 10 sessions of chemo FOLFOX without too much damage to the liver.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:34:51
Oh, well, it would be difficult for me to answer that. And probably, you know the experts on maybe the Dr. Kemmeny in MSK, who is the person in the world who knows more about this will be able to answer that question. So I don’t feel I have the knowledge for you being able to answer that. I think there’s no association between if you tolerate a lot of FOLFOX, that means that you’re going to be able to tolerate a lot of FUDR in the pump. I don’t think it’s that. I think it must be something different, because the mechanism of action of FUDR in the pump is different than the systemic FOLFOX. It’s a different mechanism of action. So I don’t think they are associated. But don’t feel expert to answer this question.

Betsy Post 1:35:43
So I just want to thank you, Dr Hernandez, for all of your time, your amazing presentation, taking all of the questions, and, just being so generous with all of us, so thank you so much, and thanks everyone for attending. This was great, and we really appreciate it.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:36:13
Well, yeah, thank you very much, Betsy. Thank you very much, Julie and everybody for being here. I think I probably prolonged too much my talk, sorry about that, and maybe was too much information. But I just wanted to be clear and showing that panorama about what is out there.

Betsy Post 1:36:23
Someone just said that three years ago this week, she was recovering from stage one ALPPS in Toronto. Her liver is clean to this day from that surgery.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:37:02
I’m very happy about that.

Betsy Post 1:37:03
Yeah. I thought you’d like that. Lots of thank yous in the comments.

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro 1:37:07
So thank you very much. And also I want to thank – because I wouldn’t be able to do this without the team – that the amazing team that I have surrounding myself, and the institution that is supporting me. So thank you everybody. I think there’s few members of my team that are in this talk, but well, thank you very much again.

DocTalk
2023
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
Ablation
Histotripsy
Liver
Stage IV
Transplant

Dr. Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro from the University of Rochester Medical Center discusses the range of treatment possibilities for bilateral liver metastases. Recorded in March 2023.

More Videos

Liver transplants — Examining the evidence
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2024
ERASur trial: Local treatment options for limited stage IV CRC
Dr. Hitchcock
2023
Advanced surgical treatments for CRC liver mets
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2021
Transplant patients are in the house!
2021
Hepatic Artery Infusion (HAI) chemotherapy for CRC liver mets
Hepatic Artery Infusion (HAI) chemotherapy for CRC liver mets
Dr. Gholami
2021
Modern-day management of liver metastases
Dr. Soares
2022
Why liver transplant for mCRC is taking off
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2022
Paths to long-term survival with CRC liver mets
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2023
Categories
DocTalks Hide from search

How ablation can be a cancer terminator for liver and lung mets

How ablation can be a cancer terminator for liver and lung mets

DocTalk
2023
Dr. Arellano
Ablation
Liver
Lung
Stage IV

Dr. Ronald Arellano from the Massachusetts General Hospital discusses the different types of ablation (microwave, RFA, IRE) and when and how to consider them when treating mCRC liver and lung metastases. Recorded in July 2023.

Betsy Post 0:00
So welcome everyone to tonight’s event, our DocTalk: Hasta La Vista baby, how ablation can be a cancer Terminator. We are so excited you could join us, and even more excited that we have a wonderful speaker this evening with many years experience. So with us this evening, we have Dr Ronald Arellano, and he is an interventional radiologist at Mass Gen hospital. He has a long, illustrious background with lots of expertise on ablation and other things in interventional radiology. He has been published many times. I was looking today, well over 100 maybe I didn’t find them all. That’s not my area of expertise, but I looked and you have some great publications out there as well. So thank you so much for taking your time, your energy, your effort to be with our patients and caregivers in COLONTOWN to talk about ablation this evening, and as it relates to liver lung, also for everyone that is listening, please know that there were questions that were given to me in advance by patients and caregivers in various groups. So I did send those in advance, and he is prepared to talk about the questions that were sent in advance at the end of his presentation. We will also hopefully have time for some live Q and A at the end, as he’s presenting, we don’t want to interrupt the presentation, so please put questions in chat. So there is a zoom chat, so please put questions in there, and we will take questions live at the end, as long as we have time. But all the questions that were posed in advance were given to him, and he is prepared to talk about those as well. So without further ado, I will actually have Julie stop sharing my slides so you can share yours, and I’m going to turn it over to you. And again, thank you so much for being here to help us this evening.

Dr. Arellano 2:20
Thank you, Ms post for that very kind introduction and for the invitation to be part of this very important group that you run. So thank you very much. Can you everybody hear me okay? And you can see my slides? Okay, again. Thank you for the invitation, and thank you for those kind words at the beginning. What I’d like to do for the next hour or so is to kind of go through some of the basics of the ablation. And the way I’ve approached this, what is as though we were meeting together in my clinic, and as though you were referred to me for an ablation. And most of what I’m going to talk about are sort of the talking points that I discussed with all of my patients regarding ablation. And then, as this post mentioned, I saved some questions for the end and happy to take live questions as well. So with that, we’ll get underway. So what I’d like to do this evening, or at this time, is to describe some of the ablation devices that we use to treat liver and lung metastases. We’ll discuss some of the indications for treatment, some of the potential complications of liver directed ablation, and then describe some literature, not too much, literature, that supports the use of ablation for treating liver and or lung metastases. And I will say that most of this talk will be focused on liver, but there’s a lot of overlap between liver and lung disease, and so much of what I say is going to apply to the lung as well, with some exceptions.

Dr. Arellano 3:52
So we’ll start off with the discussion of the different types of ablation devices. I feel very, well, fortunate in that when I arrived at the Mass General in 1998 that was pretty near the very beginning of the world of ablation as we know it now, to treat liver and renal and other and lung tumors. And so over the years, I’ve been fortunate to acquire experience with many of the different ablation devices. And so that’s what we’re going to go over here. Now most of the ablation devices that are currently used to treat liver and lung tumors are radio frequency ablation, microwave ablation, cryoablation and irreversible electroporation, which is commonly referred to as nano knife, or abbreviated as IRE of these four, I would say that radio frequency and microwave are the two most commonly used ablation devices. The first three, as are indicated by the asterisks, there are thermal based ablation devices with radio frequency ablation and microwave ablation. We kill tumors by burning them with cryoablation. We kill tumors by freezing them. Irreversible electroporation is non thermal, and the way I think about it ire is that, well, I’ll go into those details in a little bit, but basically it’s a non thermal technology.

Dr. Arellano 5:26
This is just a slide demonstrating that we use the power of the electromagnetic spectrum. Maybe some of us remember these things from our chemistry class, our physics class or science classes in high school or college or graduate school, but what we do is harness the power of electromagnetic energy and use that power and translate that power into heat with RFA and microwave and we use that heat to kill tumors. So in contrast to surgery, where a surgeon will go in and she will resect a tumor from the liver or remove something from a part of the body. In contrast to that, ablation kills tumor “insitu” or in place. We don’t physically remove tumors from the body, but we burn them in place. With radio frequency ablation, we basically put a patient into an electrical circuit. We place grounding pads on their thighs, and those grounding pads are connected to a power generator. That power generator has a radio frequency electrode attached to it, and we place that electrode into the tumor. Now, the mechanism by which this works, once the patient is set up for treatment and we turn on the switch for an ablation that generator sends High Frequency radio waves between the generator and the electrode that’s embedded within the tumor through the order of several 100,000 times per second. And what happens by putting this the patient in the electrical circuit, for the ions that we have in our tissues, things like sodium, potassium chloride, magnesium, those ions around the needle device, they begin to try to align themselves in the direction of the electrical current. And remember, that’s oscillating very rapidly. So as those ions move back and forth, they’re generating friction, and that friction is generating heat. The analogy is taking two sticks and rubbing them together, and that friction that generates a fire. We use that same principle at an electron level to generate heat, and it’s a heat then that is used to kill, to destroy, ablate tumors. Those terms are all used synonymously.

Dr. Arellano 7:54
And this is a diagram which represents what I just said. You can see a power generator. These are grounding pads that are placed on the skin. Now, when you think about this, you know what radio frequency really is, the physics behind this is the same as what is used in the operating room with the electrocautery. Again, when a surgeon makes an incision and to control the bleeding at the incision site, she’ll take a cautery device and press a button and zap that bleed, and it will control the bleeding. And it’s that heat that kills or it destroys the blood vessel to control the bleeding. We’re using that same principle to burn and to kill tumors within the liver. So these are the grounding pads that connect the patient to the power generator, the electrode that’s placed with either CAT scan or ultrasound guidance into the tumor. Again, this is a diagrammatic representation of what I described. As those electrical currents are going back and forth at very high frequency, the ions, the positive and negatively charged ions, are bumping up against each other, rubbing against each other and generating frictional heat to kill tumors. And this is an example of what we try to achieve. This is the frequency with which radio frequency is used, and this is just another diagrammatic representation of an electrode going into a tumor for treatment. Now, what we aim for our temperatures greater than 60 degrees Celsius. Now this is sort of a table, if you will, that shows what happens as we go from normal temperatures to slightly elevated temperatures to even higher temperatures. If we subject tissues, for example, to 46 to 48 degrees Celsius for at least 45 minutes, we cause irreversible cell damage. Now 50 to 52 degrees Celsius, we can cause coagulation necrosis, again, synonymous with ablation, with ablated tissue, in about four to six minutes. But in most cases, with radio frequency ablation, we rapidly achieve temperatures that are approaching 100 degrees Celsius. And so at that temperature, we have very close to near instantaneous, coagulative necrosis or cell death, and greater than 110 degrees we cause tissue vaporization, in which the tissue is basically vaporized. But most of the time we are working in the near 100 degrees Celsius range with radio frequency ablation. This is a slide that shows the histologic changes that we aim to see or that are seen after an ablation. On the left here is normal liver tissue, and after subjecting tissue to radio frequency ablation, we have areas of n, which is represents tissue necrosis. And then there’s a rim of hyperemia, which is increased blood flow along the margin of the zone of the ablation. And then, we transition into normal liver. So this is what we want to achieve. And when we say necrosis, what we’re really talking at a histologic level, when a pathologist looks under a microscope at ablated tissue, what they see is total Wipeout. Hasta la vista, gone, in that all the organelles, all the structures that allow a cell to replicate, to divide and to grow are completely destroyed, and so that tissue is is wiped out and completely ablated.

Dr. Arellano 11:51
Go to the next slide. Now, one of the principles that underlies successful ablation is that of a surgical an ablative margin, going back to the surgical analogy, if a surgeon were to cut this out, he or she would, if this were a lesion on the surface of the liver, the surgeon wouldn’t spend a lot of time teasing away visibly normal from abnormal tissue to enucleate the tumor. Really, what the surgeon would do is remove the tumor in addition to a little bit of the surrounding liver tissue to ensure that the resected margin, is free of tumor. In general, with ablation of colorectal metastasis, we’re aiming for a minimal margin of five millimeters, ideally 10 millimeters. I think more and more literature is now showing that for colorectal metastasis, as opposed to somebody with primary liver cancer, say, from cirrhosis, the best outcomes are achieved when we can create a margin around the tumor, an ablative margin around the tumor of at least one centimeter. So if we have a three centimeter tumor, really what we want to do is achieve a zone of ablation that’s five centimeters, a one centimeter circumferential rind or rim around this tumor, and that’s what we’re trying to achieve with ablation. In that margin, we take that into account as we prepare for ablations, as we analyze ablation, our approach, the location of the tumor its relation to critical structures, etc. And we’ll talk a little bit more about that later on. That’s radio frequency ablation.

Dr. Arellano 13:42
Microwave ablation is similar. The physics behind microwave ablation are very similar to radio frequency ablation. Again, we harness the the energy of microwaves, which within that electromagnetic spectrum in this range here, and we use that energy to generate heat and to ablate tissue. In contrast to radio frequency ablation, instead of agitating the ions within tissues, with microwave ablation, we are agitating water within tissues, and that’s the mechanism by which we use it in our in our kitchens, when we heat it’s the water within tissues that are agitated and generate the heat. We use that same technology to treat tumors, similar to radio frequency ablation, but again, in contrast to agitation of ions, we’re agitating the water within tissues and generating a very high, what are called dipole moments, or rotations of water within the water molecules within tissues. And then that friction and agitation generates heat, and that heat similar to radio frequency ablation, similar to that table that I showed, a few slides back. We can generate tissue temperatures up into the 100 degrees Celsius range. Now, between the two the end game between radio frequency ablation and microwave ablation, as well as the other ablation devices, it’s important to remember that the end game is necrotic tissue. Whether you heat it or you freeze it, or you electrocute it with ire what we aim for is dead tissue. There are little nuances, procedural nuances between the two, which don’t necessarily make one better than the other, because the end game is necrotic tissue.

Dr. Arellano 15:37
And so with radio frequency and microwave ablation. It’s based on heat, and this is the device that we use with the microwave. There are at least three microwave and more emerging now in the market, but this is the device that we use at the Massachusetts General Hospital. And really it’s a power generator, similar to radio frequency ablation, in contrast to RFA, we do not need to put a patient into an electrical circuit. Therefore, we do not need grounding pads. So the setup is a little bit easier, but this is the basic setup. This is our our microwave antenna and the power generator that’s used to place into the tumor. Now there are maybe some some minor advantages to microwave ablation versus radio frequency ablation, but not much. Again, the end game is necrotic tissue. We started out using radio frequency ablation at the Mass General Hospital in 1998 and then after about 10 years, there was one iteration of a microwave device that was very clunky and not easy to use. And then the physicists and engineers went back to the drawing board, and a few years later, they all came back with a much better, refined and user friendly device. Comparing the two, microwave might be a little bit quicker, because we’re able to achieve rapid temperatures in a quicker, shorter amount of time. We can ablate a similar sized tumor in less time than radio frequency ablation or cryo ablation or ire. And less burn or ablation time translates into less procedure time, less anesthesia time.

Dr. Arellano 17:22
So I’ve been using microwave ablation now for the last 10 years or so, for most of the livers that I trea. But it’s important to keep in mind that they all work. RFA, microwave, cryo ablation, ire all of them work. And it may be at your local institution, at your local hospital, it may be that the interventional radiologists there only have a radio frequency ablation device. Don’t be dismayed. It’s effective. It’s very powerful. It’s very useful. Most of the literature that’s out there, because RFA has been around longer, is centered on RFA, but there’s more and more and more emerging with microwave ablation. Let me go on to the next slide. So the next ablation device that’s not heat based, but is thermal ablation nonetheless, is cryoablation. With cryoablation, it’s also a needle based system. So with a radio frequency ablation, microwave and cryoablation, we place needles, electrodes, microwaved antennas, into the liver or lung, into the tumor, and once it’s there, we use that device to ablate with cryoablation. It’s a different physics behind this. Basically, the cryo needle is connected to a cryoblation device that is connected to gasses. Argon and helium are the two most common gases used now. Those gasses are pushed through the shaft of the needle and then near the tip of the needle, the diameter of that shaft downsizes, referred to as a choke, and as the gasses emerge from that choke or that downsize, and those gasses expand through the magic of physics, that expansion of gasses results in a drop in temperatures.

Dr. Arellano 19:18
With cryo ablation, we’re able to achieve temperatures of minus 40 degrees Celsius, and at that temperatures, we cause necrosis of tissue, different mechanism compared to microwave and radio frequency ablation. With cryo ablation, we subject tumors to a freeze thaw freeze cycle, meaning once our needle is in place, or needles are in place with cryo ablation, we hit the switch, and the gasses start going through the needles, not in the patient, but through the needles. And as over time, an ice ball is generated. During the freezing cycle, as this diagram illustrates cell shrinkage, dehydration. You have extra cellular ice crystals form, intracellular ice– so we kind of hit the cells with with basically ice, ice chips, if you will, and then we partially thaw that ice ball that we’ve created for about eight minutes, and during that thaw phase, there is some cellular swelling and bursting. The melted ice causes damage to the blood vessels within the tumor. And so it’s a second hit, if you will, to the tumors. And then we re subject those tumors to an additional cycle, 10 minute cycle of freezing. And once the 10 plus eight and then 10=28 minutes of treatment are completed, we thaw the tissues to allow removal of the cryoprobes. And then over time, those cells undergo cell death, what’s referred to as apoptosis, another diagrammatic representation of what I just told you. But the interesting thing about cryoablation is that it, in contrast, as far as we know now, to radio frequency ablation and microwave ablation, that this may activate the immune system and may have a role in immunomodulation and one of the the active areas of research now is combining ablation with immunotherapies to see if hand in hand in combination is working synergistically that they may have improved outcomes, including in treating patients with metastatic disease,

Dr. Arellano 21:40
Moving on now to irreversible electroporation or ire or nano knife. The simplistic way that I think about nano knife or ire is that we are electrocuting cells. So this is non thermal, replace needles in and around a tumor, and between those needles, we send high electrical current. We sent high electrical voltage between those needle pairs. So for example, if there are four needles centered around a tumor, there are up to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, electrode pairs with which we deliver electrical pulses. And these are high voltage electrical pulses. If we all think back to high school biology class or college biology class, we were taught about the cellular membrane, the phospholipid bilayer of the cell membrane. Basically, these are fat molecules that surround the cell. And what irreversible electroporation does is by subjecting cells to very high voltages, the cellular phospholipid membrane creates little tiny holes. For low voltages, you can have temporary openings of that cell membrane, and then the membrane repairs and closes itself. When subjecting the membrane to very high pulses, openings develop on that cell membrane, and the cell it cannot recover from that, there are permanent holes on that membrane. And so when you again thinking back to high school biology, that semipermeable membrane the cell contents inside the cell move out, and liquid and other contents outside the cell move in, it causes total disruption of the cell, leading to cell death, a term that is referred to apoptosis. So in contrast to burning with radio frequency and microwave or freezing with cryo ablation, we are creating openings, pores. That’s why it’s referred to as the Nano knife. Nano pores, which are tiny, less than a micron size, openings on the cell membrane that cause the cell to undergo disruption and ultimately cell death.

Dr. Arellano 24:00
This is the Nano knife. There’s only one currently available in the market now. And this diagram here just represents the different configurations of needle placement that we can use depending on the size of the ablated volume that we aim to create. Most tumors require at least two probes. And of all the ablation devices, this one is the most meticulous in terms of performing the procedure. These probes cannot be placed more than two centimeters apart. They could be as parallel as we can to place them, to make sure there are no gaps of untreated tissue as a result of the treatment. Now, again, in contrast to the other ablation devices that I’ve described, because we are using high voltage electrical current, patients heartbeat can go into dyrsrhythmia as a result. And so Nano Knife or IRE requires the use of general anesthesia, so that means intubation, whereas the other procedures, most of them can be easily performed with monitored anesthesia care or intra procedural conscious sedation. But with IRE, we need very close cardiac monitoring. Patients need to be connected to a cardiac monitor with our device, as well as with with an EKG monitoring and anesthesia evaluation. And patients need to be completely paralyzed, similar to patients who undergo electroconvulsive therapy. Because of the high voltage, they can result in very severe muscular contractions if patients are not completely paralyzed. So IRE requires cardiac monitoring as well as general anesthesia and complete paralysis to minimize severe muscle contractions.

Dr. Arellano 25:54
Now here’s an example of a patient, not colorectal cancer, but liver cancer from cirrhosis. There is a tumor here, and this represents a location where I defer to IRE as opposed to the other ablation devices. This tumor, which is depicted by the arrow and I’m outlining on my cursor here, is what we call a centrally located lesion. Here’s one of the large veins that supply blood to the liver. The arteries that supply the liver are these white lines here. The bile ducts are all this area here. Using a heat based device, remember, to treat this tumor and thinking about that margin, what we need to do is create a zone of ablation that is about this size here, and that size is going to encroach primarily on the bile ducts and possibly result in bile duct injury. And so therefore, for centrally located tumors such as this, I tend to use irreversible electroporation because it’s non thermal, and therefore it has less of a risk of causing biliary stricture, vascular injury as a result. This is what we call a coronal view. So now we’re looking at the patient as though this patient is standing in front of us, and we’re looking front to back. These dots represent the electrodes within the tumor. And again, those when I talk about electrode pairs, those high voltages go for about 90 cardiac pulses. There’s pulses going here, here, here, here, and then across here and across here. So it takes about 12 to 15 minutes to complete an ablation cycle with irreversible electroporation. The device delivers a pulse between a specific cardiac cycle. It’ll deliver 10 pulses, based on the cardiac beat, 5 second rest another 10 pulses. It’ll do 70 pulses between each pair, then switch to another pair and do another and deliver another 70 pulses. So add it up. That’s about 10 to 15 minutes or so of ablation.

Dr. Arellano 28:05
This is what we look for after an ablation. This is immediately after the IRE. Remember that that white tumor is here. This represents that zone of ablation that we achieved after that irreversible electroporation device. Now procedure. This is an example of pre what it looked like. This was immediately after the procedure, and this is about six months after the treatment. What was initially bright is dark. This little rim here is just some residual hyperemia. This is not active tumor as a result. And you can appreciate that the tumor has diminished in size as well as no longer enhancing. Okay, so those are at least the four different ablation devices that are currently available that most people use now to treat liver as well as lung tumors. Now, when you know, how do we screen patients? How do we qualify patients for this, for treatment? This is an example of someone that I would not accept for ablation, that for whom I would not recommend ablation. I don’t think anybody would recommend for ablation. This patient has large tumors scattered throughout most of the right hepatic lobe. I didn’t include an example of a left hepatic lobe, though. This probably bridges part of the left hepatic lobe. The size of the tumor as well as the extent of the tumor. You can imagine, to achieve a zone of ablation that exceeds the margin of this tumor, we would be ablating for about two weeks to get all that treatment, which is just not feasible. So this is a gross example of someone who would not qualify for ablation. In contrast to this patient here, this patient has two liver lesions, one in the left hepatic lobe here, and the second one in the right hepatic lobe, which is here. This is a patient who is appropriate for ablation in general. There’s no hard and fast rules in terms of number or size, but there are general guidelines that most surgeons as well as interventional radiologists consider and abide by with with minor variations, depending on clinical experience, judgment, etc. But in general, up to three tumors, each being less than three centimeters or up to three centimeters in size that and tumors in a safe location, and most areas in the liver are going to be relatively safe, I would say that patient would qualify for an ablation without question.

Dr. Arellano 30:46
Is that a hard and fast rule? No, a three and a half centimeter tumor, I would definitely consider it for an ablation. A four centimeter tumor? I would if it were a solitary tumor. I also would consider for an ablation, understanding that I need to generate a six centimeter ablation zone with microwave ablation that can easily be done in about 15 minutes. It would take a longer time to do with radio frequency ablation, and and standard time with cryo ablation. But up to two centimeters, up to three. Now, somebody came to me with two centimeters today, I would treat. If nine months from now, they came back with another one or two centimeters that were in favorable locations within that size range, I would definitely consider for treatment. So keep in mind, there’s no hard and fast rules, but in general, anywhere between three maybe up to five centimeters, pushing the limits at five but three centimeter tumors, up to three tumors at any given time, I think would be appropriate for ablation.

Dr. Arellano 31:47
Now this is an imaging example of what I showed. This is a post ablation scan. This is three and a half years after the initial ablation, and you can see that within this area of unenhanced, ablated tissue. there’s what I refer to as the ghost of the tumor. If you look closely, you can see, I’m going to try and convince you that what I’m outlining here is a ovoid area that’s a little bit darker than here. That’s the the ablated tissue. And this is the margin around that tissue, and this is what we’re trying to achieve. And we use imaging as our primary tool to assess treatment response. So we’re looking for the size of the ablation zone that exceeds the size of the tumor. And this is an example of the same on the left lobe lesion. Within this zone of ablation is this ghost or dead tumor, and this is the margin of ablation. They’ll have a pre procedure, usually contrast enhanced CT and or MRI, sometimes a PET CT. If we can get a PET CT ahead of time, we can use that also to localize the tumor. But also equally important is to use that PET CT post procedure looking for absence of hot spots on the FDG avidity, or the hot spots on a PET CT scan. Sometimes, depending on the state, insurance companies will balk at doing two PET scans in a short amount of time. In a perfect world, we would have a baseline PET CT do the ablation, and then a month later, get a post, or month to six weeks later, get a post CT scan to look for absence of enhancement, absence of FDG, avidity on a PET scan, if we have it. So this is the general gist of what I had prepared. I’m happy to take any questions now from the chat or transition over to some of the prepared questions that were sent in earlier.

Betsy Post 33:57
I think if you want to do the questions that were sent earlier, I think a lot of the questions in the chat probably are very similar, so why don’t we start with those, and then we can move to the ones in the chat.

Dr. Arellano 34:08
Okay, so for these commonly asked questions, I’ve included some, I’ve written down some comments, and others. I’m just going to kind of freeform it as we go along. Let’s see. “Why would you use one type of ablation versus another?” Well, again, it’s important to keep in mind that whether it’s cryo ablation or microwave or RFA or irreversible electroporation, the end game is dead tissue. It’s ablated tissue, whether you’ve frozen it or burned it or electrocuted it. So, you know, we at MGH are fortunate in that we have these devices available to us that we’ve acquired over time, and so we have a little bit of flexibility there. I will say that for the last 10 years or so, we’ve transitioned away from RFA knowing that it’s good. It, but into into microwave ablation, and that’s primarily because, for a three centimeter tumor, let’s say, with microwave ablation, I can create a five centimeter zone of ablation in about 10 or 15 minutes, depending on how much power and time that I adjust on the machine. For a similar sized lesion with radio frequency ablation, depending on the device that can take anywhere from, you know, maybe up to 15 minutes, but sometimes up to 20 depending on the device that you use. What we used to use, we used a device that would generate about a 1.75 length by 1.25 diameter. So a cylinder of burn tissue. So to achieve a zone of ablation around a three centimeter tumor, we’d have to complete a 12 minute burn cycle, readjust the needle in a different location of the tumor, do an overlapping ablation, and to do that three or four times to achieve the goal of burning the tumor and generating that zone of ablation. Nothing wrong with that. I did that for 15 years, and it works just fine, but you can achieve the same volume of ablated tissue with microwave ablation, which is why I use it. Some don’t have a microwave device, and they use ablation, RFA, which is just fine. Others won’t have neither and have only a cryoablation device. Cryo would be fine. The general rule for cryoablation is that you place one needle per every two centimeters. So for a three centimeter tumor, you might need three, maybe up to four needles. So there’s time to place those needles in again with ultrasound or CT guidance, and then the 28 minute freeze, thaw free cycle, and then the treatment is done. So of the three, they’re all effective. But I get the job done easier, quicker with with a single needle, with microwave. That’s what I do. But depending on where you are, the local ablation devices at your local facilities or hospital would be just fine. So that’s my rationale for choosing ablation a microwave over RFA. But I’ve used all three, and I advocate for all three because they’re all very, very effective. I hope that answers that question

Dr. Arellano 37:19
“Is there a limit on the number of metastases that can be ablated?” Where I alluded to this earlier during the presentation, again, this is variable. If somebody has six or seven lesions in the liver, even though they may be all three centimeters or less, I think that’s really pushing the limits of anesthesia time to try to treat all at once. And you have to worry. I worry. And I think my colleagues in medical oncology and surgical oncology, we worry that if somebody has that many tumors, that that tumor biology is is going to be on the aggressive side, and so that even if we try to pick off seven in one setting, it may be that in very short order, many more will develop. So again, anywhere from three, ideally three, maybe four, maybe five tumors I would consider but definitely three, most tumors, three centimeters in size or less. Again, 3.5 maybe four, I would treat a solitary tumor up to five. If the patient was not a surgical candidate, and the tumor was stable after chemotherapy, I would consider it. But I would also advise that, because of that size, you may have to come back for touch up work, repeat ablation in that the first go around, I may get 80 or 90% of the tumor, but on the follow up imaging, if that shows a little bit of incompletely treated tumor, I’d bring you back and extend the size of the ablation to generate a larger margin, and then, Yeah. So these are the points that I may put up here. Maybe I’ve treated up to three lesions at a time, and I think that’s fine. Again, with microwave it usually goes pretty quick, but with cryo, it’s going to be a long, a longer procedure time, maybe even so with microwave ablation, we always have whenever we do an ablation, even though we’re focusing on killing the tumor, equally important is considering the location of that tumor and the adjacent structures, and the risk of what we call non target organ injury in the liver. Those non target risks can be the bile ducts, as I mentioned earlier. If it’s in the dome of the liver, which is the top part of the liver, we have to think about the lung, the heart, if it’s on the inside surface of the liver, bowel, stomach, sometimes the pancreas, especially the patient is a very thin patient. So all these things we have to take into consideration when we evaluate patients tumors for treatment. So I hope that answers that question

Dr. Arellano 40:05
“What’s the ideal size of colorectal mets that I would consider for an ablation, and why are larger metastases not eligible for ablation?” Well, again, I think I’ve addressed some of this on previous questions, and in the talk. It’s really about the margin. Again, for a three centimeter tumor, we’re talking about a five centimeter margin, a four centimeter tumor, a six centimeter zone of ablation, So one centimeter, two centimeter, three centimeter. For five centimeter tumors, we’re talking about a seven centimeter margin of ablation. That’s a lot of ablated tissue, and it may not be feasible to get that size of an ablation at one setting. So that may require repeat ablations. Again, even if a lesion is situated well within the liver, surrounded by a lot of normal liver, as that size of ablation enlarges, we might begin to encroach on the bile ducts. So I think most people who do ablation would consider tumors that hover around that three to three and a half, maybe up to four centimeter range. And the literature would reflect that the best outcomes when comparing ablation with surgery are going to be best in that three centimeter range. So those are the general guidelines that we use as we consider ablation. So larger tumors harder to achieve complete tumor ablation and margin because of the size, at least in one setting.

Dr. Arellano 41:44
“Anatomic limitations to ablations”. Well, again, I’ve mentioned a little bit of this before, non target organ injury. When we consider it a tumor, we had to consider it in terms of its neighborhood. What are the neighbors adjacent to the tumor? And when we think about the size of the ablation as we’re evaluating tumor is that zone of ablation going to approach structures? Now we have a lot of experience at the MGH, and over the years, we’ve developed and adopted techniques to help mitigate some of these limitations, these anatomic limitations, to allow us to achieve tumors that may otherwise would have been considered unablatable. I have an example. I think I have it coming up. I’ll show an example, lesions that are in the top of the liver, what we refer to as the dome of the liver. To target those lesions, there are several factors that come into play for non target considerations. Number one is the lung. It may be that in order to get our device into that tumor, we have to go through lung tissue, and that puts the patient at risk for a collapsed lung, pneumothorax. In reality, when we see a small pneumothorax, it’s of no clinical consequences. For patients who have severe underlying lung disease where collapsed lung or pneumothorax or air in the chest cavity, which is technically what that is, can change respiratory dynamics, but nevertheless, I try to avoid that whenever possible. So one of the techniques that we use quite a bit is for lesions that are in the top of the liver, or lesions that are on the outer edge of the liver, what we call sub capsular tumors that are near the lining of the abdominal wall. We put a needle into the abdominal cavity and put a needle right over the left lobe of the liver, and through that needle, we put fluid into the abdominal cavity, creating what’s called ascites, which is fluid accumulation in the abdominal cavity. And what that ascites does is pushes the liver away from the diaphragm. If my left hand here is the diaphragm, the lung is up here, it pushes the liver away from the diaphragm, and therefore it allows us to take a path to the liver, avoiding the lung tissue.

Dr. Arellano 43:59
A diaphragm is innervated by what’s called the phrenic nerve. The phrenic nerve, if it’s irritated, can cause about a week to 10 days worth of sharp shoulder & neck pain. Patients describe it as a sensation of somebody taking an ice pick and just kind of jabbing their shoulder blade constantly for a week or so. And so I try to avoid irritating that phrenic nerve as much as possible for that reason. And so this technique of creating artificial ascites, we can oftentimes move the liver away from the heart, from the lung, from the diaphragm. And similarly, I, over the years, have come to respect the peritoneum, which is that inner lining of the abdominal cavity. There are a lot of nerve cells on that peritoneum, and for tumors that are right on the surface of the liver, again, thinking about that zone of ablation, if there was no separation, would extend to that peritoneal lining and burn that and that can be another source of a week or 10 days of discomfort for patients. So when for subcapsular lesions, dome lesions, I place fluid in the abdominal cavity to protect the lung, the phrenic nerve and the peritoneum, and it therefore allows me to be as aggressive as I can on treating the tumor while minimizing non target injury. So centrally near the bile ducts, as I mentioned earlier, I would not use a temperature based device. I would probably use the Nano knife or the IRE device, because it’s non thermal and it has more of a protective effect on the bile ducts, and low chance of causing biliary stricture, which, over time, can lead to loss of liver tissue. So those are the maneuvers that I’ve mentioned here. I hope that answers that question,

Dr. Arellano 45:55
“How often is too often to have an ablation, and how frequently can ablation be used? Or the downsides to multiple ablations?” Well, again, if somebody came to me with two or three liver lesions today, and I treated them, and they were tumor free in the liver for a year or six months, then they popped up another one, as long as that tumor is in a location and it’s of a size that’s a minimal to ablation, I think they’re a candidate for repeat treatment. I think these questions allude to preservation of liver tissue, which is a very legitimate concern and legitimate question. Most patients that I treat with liver metastases do not have underlying cirrhosis, and when patients have underlying cirrhosis, you have less wiggle room, because when you think about that margin of quote, unquote, normal liver you’re going to treat, you’re taking out normally functioning liver. So with patients with cirrhosis and decompensation, they may be at higher risk of liver dysfunction after an ablation. So I have to be careful about those patients, but I will say, I think those patients are in the minority, most patients who have tissue that is normal or relatively normal, ablations can be repeated multiple times. So you know, as far as downsides, again, it’s just a matter I think, if there’s no cirrhosis, the risk of tipping somebody into liver failure as a result of multiple ablations, I think, is very low. But with somebody with cirrhosis and compromised liver function, most definitely have to take that into consideration, and that might be a limitation to how aggressive we can be to treat colorectal metastases in the liver.

Dr. Arellano 47:43
“The timing of ablation with chemotherapy and or surgery?”. Well, this is very variable. The reason I left this blank is because it’s very variable. There are some cases, instances in my institution where the surgeon will go in and remove a right lobe full of liver tumors and leave behind one left lobe liver lesion and after a month or so, after recovery, the patient will be referred to me for ablation of the left lobe liver disease using imaging guidance. Another variation is they’re going to resect liver lesions on the right side, multiple liver lesions on the right but intraoperatively, they may call me to bring the ablation device into the operating room, and using ultrasound guidance, will target that in the operating room to treat at that time. I’ve done that from my perspective, it’s not ideal, only because we have a very busy schedule, and we have many patients scheduled at a time, and so to break away and do that, usually it’s unannounced. In other words, they don’t, they haven’t always let us know that this is what they’re doing, but they encounter something in the operating room, and they’ll call me and say, Is it possible to come up? And I oblige. So, you know, I think if you’re going to have surgery, first sufficient time to recover from surgery, three to four weeks and then come in for an ablation, would probably be just fine. Chemotherapy. Again. This is a big variable. Most patients that are referred to me have undergone chemotherapy already, at least, or are in the midst of chemotherapy. They may be in a chemotherapy holiday, and it may be that chemotherapy has treated most of the lesions, and there’s one recalcitrant lesion that just won’t budge. And so, either during chemotherapy or off chemotherapy, I can, I can treat patients. So there’s no hard and fast rules with regard to the timing of chemotherapy.

Dr. Arellano 49:42
“How long do you need to be off?” I’ve treated patients while they’ll get a dose of chemotherapy last week, and their next dose is two weeks from now. I can treat them in that window, that interval window, or once they’ve completed their chemotherapy. I can also treat it as well. So it’s variable. Yeah. This is an example of that artificial ascites that I mentioned. Here’s a tumor high in the dome of the liver. Here’s the heart here. And what this gray crescent here represents is the fluid that I’ve placed in that cavity. And you can see here, this line here is that diaphragm right up against the edge of the liver. So to treat here, to generate that zone of ablation that exceeds the size of the tumor that most definitely I’m going to irritate or burn that diaphragm. Now there have been reports of diaphragmatic rupture, phrenic nerve injury and burning a hole in the diaphragm and bowel loops migrating through that hole into the chest cavity and causing strangulation and other problems, all the more reason why I like to protect the diaphragm whenever I’m doing an ablation, whenever it’s possible. This is that example of creating artificial acsites. Here’s the heart, and here’s that fluid, and here’s our needle, demonstrating that our needles in place, the edge of the liver is here. So even if my zone of ablation goes out to the edge of the liver, no chance of irritating the diaphragm or injuring the heart during the ablation. So this is an example of what I spoke to a few minutes ago of artificial ascites. Same example here.

Dr. Arellano 51:20
“What are the possible complications of ablation?” Well, I mentioned some of them already. The literature talks about phrenic nerve injury, bowel injury, for sure, bile duct injury, as a result of stricture, narrowing scar tissue on the bile ducts, bile cannot leave the liver, and if it goes untreated, then over time that you lose volume of liver that’s affected by the dilated bile ducts. But overall, the complication rate is relatively low. It hovers between five to 8%. Bleeding. Obviously, whenever we puncture the liver with any sharp device, there’s a risk of bleeding. But for somebody who has normal coagulation profiles, who’s not on blood thinners, that bleeding risk is really three to 5%. One of the techniques that many people utilize when they’re doing ablation is, once they’ve completed, bring the tumor on their way out of the liver, you can ablate the path of a needle, thereby further minimizing the risk of ablation. Infection is a reported risk. I usually give antibiotics for patients who undergo liver ablation, certainly patients who have pancreatic cancer who undergo liver ablation for pancreatic metastases. Usually those patients, if they had a Whipples procedure where they’ve removed the tumor from the pancreas and redirected flow and into the bowel and reattach loops of bowel to the stomach, those patients are a definitely higher risk for liver abscesses. And those patients, I don’t treat very many of them, but those that I’ve treated, I do usually do a week course of antibiotics before the ablation, followed by another week after the ablation to minimize that risk of infection. The lung injury, which I’ve alluded to, which I try to avoid by putting the fluid into the abdominal cavity. And the bile duct injury that I’ve mentioned already.

Dr. Arellano 53:21
“Am I able to ablate the same area more than once? If there’s a recurrence?” Most definitely, yes, if a recurrence or if something that’s incompletely treated, which is not technically a recurrence, for example, if I do an ablation today, I usually get follow up imaging a month later, and if that shows incompletely treated tumor, I’ll schedule the patient to come back for, as I say, touch up work and extend that zone of ablation. If I treated a tumor today and a new tumor developed six months from now, most definitely, I can treat that tumor as long as it’s in a favorable location. So yes, repeat ablations are feasible. I’d always say that repeat ablations are much easier than repeat surgical resections. After surgery, there’s scar tissue, to gain exposure and access to the liver and mobilizing the liver for resection, I’ve never done it, but I’ve heard from enough surgeons over time that it’s a very difficult task for them to repeat resection, it is seldom done. But repeat ablations, as long as the location is favorable and the size is favorable, most definitely feasible.

Dr. Arellano 54:30
“Why IRE versus ablation?” I think I’ve addressed this already, really for centrally located tumors, those near the bile ducts, I’ll use IRE. Anything else that I can safely target for an ablation, RFA, cryo or microwave. I’ll use ablation first because it’s quicker and easier. We don’t need general anesthesia. We don’t need general or complete neuromuscular paralysis for any of the other devices. So, and I will say, most of the ablations that I perform are done with an anesthesiologist administering medications. But seldom do we use general anesthesia. Most of the procedures are performed using monitored Anesthesia Care. The same types of medications patients receive who undergo colonoscopies, so through an IV, a combination of medications that make you sleepy and drowsy and for the most part, forgetful, for most of the procedure.

Dr. Arellano 56:11
“SBRT versus ablation”. You know, I think they’re equally competitive, sometimes in challenging locations, or for larger tumors, SBRT is more favorable than ablation, but for for a similarly sized lesion, a three centimeter lesion in a favorable location, sbrt or ablation, I think are equally effective, both achieve and the end game of destroyed or killed tissue. I don’t want to sound biased, so I’ll leave it at that lung mets, I think lung mets are certainly feasible. I personally do not perform lung mets. We do lung ablations at the Mass General, most of the principles that I’ve discussed here, the zone of the ablation, a favorable location, diaphragm in the lungs. Certainly, we’re dealing with the heart, much more tumors that are near the heart, near the central airway, the trachea, the bronchi. You have to take all those factors into consideration when considering what type of device and the zone of ablation that you want to create. I know my colleague at the Mass General uses primarily cryoablation for his liver tumors. But others have reported the use of microwave ablation and radio frequency ablation, as well as IRE for lung tumors.

Dr. Arellano 56:49
“Ablation versus resection”. This is a paper that was published in 2020 we looked at almost 2400 patients who were treated with RFA or microwave versus an R0 resection. It was very difficult for me to tease out from this paper what an R0 resection meant. Was it a complete resection of the a lobe of the liver versus partial resection? And that wasn’t very clear, easily delineated. But this is an example of something that would not be ablated based on its size, but resected, they would not ablate this, they would resect this. I would argue at our institution, we would consider ablation even though we’re close to the stomach again, there are maneuvers that we can use to push the stomach away and to move away from the diaphragm. Again in a patient like this, who they considered was an ablation patient, as well as a potential resection of patient. I think a resection would be a right hepatectomy versus localized tumor ablation. And the reason why that difference is important is because local tumor recurrence, if you do a right hepatectomy, there’s no chance of tumor recurring on the right lobe, because it’s gone versus an ablation. If you’re taking out just the tumors and leaving behind other liver, normal liver, there’s always the potential of local recurrence, and it’s important to delineate that local recurrence, is it local recurrence of the ablated zone, versus a new tumor in a different part of the liver, which it qualifies for local recurrence? Let me stop here, because I think we’re approaching eight o’clock. I’m happy to go on a little bit more, or if there are other questions that I can address for anybody.

Betsy Post 58:25
So there are some questions in the chat,

Betsy Post 58:30
I think a lot of them, though, you’ve addressed, let me just kind of gloss over some that I think you’ve already talked about. Someone was talking about recurrence rate for different types of ablation. So if there is information on recurrence rates for,

Dr. Arellano 58:46
yeah, I think a general statement that I’ll say is for, let’s say this ideal lesion of three centimeters or so in this paper that I refer to here, what this paper showed that at 1, 3, 5, and eight year survival, resection versus ablation with RFA or cryo ablation were equal for tumors less than three centimeters in size. For larger tumors, maybe resection had a slight advantage, but again, it’s hard to know what was resected was a complete global resection, lobar resection, or a right hepatectomy versus wedge resection or partial hepatectomy. That’s not very clearly delineated in that paper, but I think for three centimeter sized tumors, I think the local recurrence rate, if you’re doing only a wedge resection, I think the recurrence rates are comparable, which are going to be low, probably, well, certainly in the one to three, at the five year range, they’re going to be very low. These numbers, I didn’t type in the numbers. We’re talking about 97 versus 80s, versus the 70s, versus the 40% survival rates for 1, 3, 5, and eight years here. So I. Within five years, resection versus ablation are pretty equal for ablation. .

Betsy Post 1:00:08
Great. We do have a question about a patient with lung mets. So if there’s a patient with mets in both lungs approximately maybe 10, is that something that’s considered, if you did ablation in multiple procedures, is that something that could be considered or is 10 plus too many?

Dr. Arellano 1:00:31
Unfortunately, I think most, most interventionalists, oncologists and surgeons, would probably say 10 is is too many, because each puncture for each tumor is going to be a collapsed lung risk. And so even if you, even if you spread that out over time, let’s say you targeted three or four today, and then you let the patient recover, and you brought them back three or four weeks later and did another round of another three or four, etc, you’re extending treatment over multiple months for 10 on either side, we’re talking probably close to a year. And then during that interval, there’s always the risk of new tumors developing. And so there’s a lot of talk in medical circles about tumor biology. Some tumors tend to be less aggressive than others. And so for someone with 10 tumors, some would give chemotherapy, I think, and then and wait it out for a time interval to assess what’s called a test of time. If you’ve maxed out or treated aggressively with chemotherapy, maybe treated a couple or two or two or three at once, and then waited, and if new tumors develop in a short interval, then it’s best to back off. But if things are stable over time, I think 10 on either side is still too much, but three to five maybe depending on the local interventionalist, the surgeon, the oncologist. I will say in all these scenarios, I think the best care is through a multi disciplinary approach. So you want to have a medical oncologist, a surgical oncologist, an interventional radiologist or interventional oncologist on your team, you want them to be part of your team, caring after you, so that, the more minds together, I think the better outcomes there are, but 10, I’m afraid, is probably too many.

Betsy Post 1:02:26
And some of the questions I think were answered, so I’m just kind of skimming. One of them about lung mets. Are the side effects or efficacy of cryoablation and RFA, MWA similar to what you address with liver?

Dr. Arellano 1:02:44
Yeah, I think so. We did a study several years ago comparing patients who had liver biopsies or kidney biopsies with those who had liver and renal ablations. And we know that when we do embolization of tumors, will we kill tumors by cutting off their blood supply, patients experience what’s called a post embolization syndrome. Usually it’s fatigue, it’s muscle achiness, maybe a low grade temperature. Early on in our game with ablation, I asked the question, well, if we ablate a patient, do they have a similar experience? And what we found was that, yes, indeed, they do, but it’s very minor. I’ve always been impressed when I do an embolization procedure on a patient, they can, they can take a loop. They can get hit with that post embolization syndrome for a good solid week, they’re feeling like they have a bad case of the flu. In contrast with an ablation procedure, they experience those symptoms, but to a much less degree, most patients say they begin to feel a day or two after the ablation, as though they’re going to come down with the flu. They’re tired. They have their minor muscle achiness, doesn’t limit their quality of life. It just kind of they know that they’re waiting for the other shoe to drop, as they say. But after three or four days, those symptoms resolve and they’re back at their baseline. So most patients, I would say, 99% of the patients, have this post ablation syndrome. But for the most part, it’s a minor nuisance. And most patients say, like, yes, I I remember you telling me about it, and then I had it, but it was nothing major,

Betsy Post 1:04:18
Great. And if you could just take a couple more, that would be amazing. Hopefully that’s okay with you.

Dr. Arellano 1:04:26
Absolutely.

Betsy Post 1:04:26
Some of these are really good. And I think one of them that we didn’t talk about is the size, the smallest size you would have ablated?

Dr. Arellano 1:04:40
Yeah, that’s a very good question. You know, I recently treated a patient who had tumors that were hovering in the nine to 10 millimeter or one centimeter range. And the challenge with– the good news is that the tumors are very small. The challenge, though, is I see the tumors by imaging. Most of the places I do are going to be done with CT guidance, sometimes with ultrasound guidance. Most of these tumors, as I mentioned earlier, or patients will have a pre procedure, CAT scan, MRI scan or a PET scan. We don’t do PET guided CTs, but some institutions do, and so they can administer a dose of the pet agent, look for it lighting up, and target that area of enhancement. For the ablation, we don’t have that capability at the moment. And so for tumors that are small, when I do an ablation, most of the time they’re done without CT scans. Doesn’t mean so even though I may not see the tumor very well, I can still do the ablation using anatomic landmarks. I didn’t go into this on the talk. But basically, when I do ablation for small tumors in that range of one centimeter, let’s say I will have, if they have had an MR. I’ll have the MR up and a monitor next to my CT scan and I’ll relate the location of the tumor relative to landmarks within the liver, branches of the hepatic vein, branches of the portal vein, and measure, you know, it’s like a like a sailor navigating the seas, and they, they plot their course. I use a similar approach, where I even though I don’t see the tumor, when I measure its distance relative to intra live liver anatomy, even though I don’t see it, I know it’s there, and I target that area with an ablation, and so even though I don’t see it, I use educated, what I like to think is educated guesswork to guide my needle placement and do the treatment. We did that approach for biopsies that were poorly seen or not visible and with without giving contrast to confirm our needle position, we got an answer 92% of the time when we gave contrast to confirm we were on target to the lesion, it was actually 92% at the time, a little bit less. So using that same technique, I’ll target lesions, I’ll place my needle where the lesion is based on other imaging, contrast enhanced MR or CT scan, and I’ll tell my trainees that even though we don’t see the lesion, we know it’s there, and this is what we’re going to target, and this is how we’re going to approach the lesion. So the smallest lesion. So for lesions that that that hover at about seven to nine or so, sometimes I can see them, and it’s easy to target. When I don’t see them, that’s the technique that I use.

Betsy Post 1:07:44
That’s great. Do any of these ablative procedures impact the eligibility for liver surgery and does ablation impact the regeneration capability of the liver?

Dr. Arellano 1:07:58
To answer the first question, does ablating a tumor preclude you from surgery later on? No, if I treat a solitary tumor today, and you’re tumor free for X amount of time, and then over time, a couple of other lesions develop. I think the options at that point, can you repeat ablation? Possibly. If there are many tumors and they’re confined to the same lobe, then I think, if the argument can be made to resect that lobe of the liver, then by all means, I think it can be done. There might be a little bit of scar tissue on the edge of the liver, but not to the degree of as an open abdomen from prior surgery. I will say, just to parenthetically, you know, patients who have had bowel resections. And going back to the question of complications, you know, sometimes, especially with RF, even though I may be treating a liver lesion, there have been a couple of reports of a bowel injury, a burn injury to the bowel, even though the bowel is physically removed by several centimeters away. And some have postulated that adhesions that can develop in the abdomen after surgery and act as a thermal arc, and then that is sort of a theoretical explanation for why that happened. But that’s only because we’re talking about surgery here. But I think if surgery is an option, ablation does not preclude surgery. The second question was regeneration. If a patient has not had surgery, the amount of normal liver that I ablate is really a small amount of liver such that the liver will not hypertrophy as a result of that ablation. As I mentioned earlier, most patients will not have underlying liver disease, such as cirrhosis. With a cirrhotic liver, when you do a resection that whatever was removed from the liver, or if you do an ablation, whatever was killed, that area does not regrow. The surrounding liver hypertrophy, that kind of bulks up like as though being on steroids, it kind of bulks up and tries to pick up the slack for what was either cut out or ablated. So having an ablation, per se, does not necessarily affect the liver’s ability to hypertrophy,

Betsy Post 1:10:23
Great. And then there are two questions about CEA. Will the CEA drop after ablation? And if so, is it immediate?

Dr. Arellano 1:10:32
Yeah, another good question. Oftentimes, in conjunction with developing metastases within the liver, the CEA levels will elevate. And in addition to imaging as our metric to assess treatment response, looking for that zone of ablation, no enhancement in the tumor, absence of FDG avidity, oftentimes, CEA levels do drop. How immediate it’s a hard question to answer, because it’s nothing that we studied. I don’t know if the literature shows any reports on that and what I mean by that. If I did an ablation today, I wouldn’t trend the CEA levels daily for a month. Usually, what I’ll do is get a CEA at the time of their follow up imaging, when they start an IV and they’re going to do a blood draw anyway, we’ll send a CEA level at that time. And in most cases, it drops. If it doesn’t drop, then it prompts a question, could there be tumors that we’re not detecting, either in the liver or elsewhere, and that may then prompt a PET scan to look for a cold tumor or tumors that may be outside the liver.

Betsy Post 1:11:47
Great. I think we’re almost done. Thank you so much for being so generous with your time. Someone just I think they’re only like one one more that we didn’t get to. How common is needle track seeding? My IR, who did my cryoablation for my lung met said it’s pretty rare.

Dr. Arellano 1:12:04
Yeah, I would agree. I think it’s pretty rare. And when you think about it, many of our trainees and patients will ask that question. And fortunately, it’s very rare. It’s been described before, but it’s very rare. And the reason I think it’s very rare is because, remember, when we put our needle in, we’re burning not only the tumor, but the adjacent tissue. And so if seeding is to occur when the needle or the probe or the device is removed, in my mind, that’s another way of saying the ablation was ineffective. By even though we’ve subjected a tissue to 100 degrees Celsius for 10 or 15 minutes, or frozen for 30 minutes, we’re saying that despite that nuclear bomb, if you will, on that tumor that a cell survived, or cells survived and and they were able to make their way, be deposited along the liver track on the way out. I think it’s very rare. I think when seeding has occurred, it may have occurred as a result of multiple punctures or a direct puncture of the tumor. For those tumors that are on the edge of the liver, even though the shortest path to the tumor may be a direct puncture of the liver, I avoid direct punctures because if that tumor bleeds, you could potentially seed along that track or deposit tumor if blood migrates into the abdominal cavity, tumors can be spread that way. So the shortest distance isn’t always the best distance. In most of the cases, I go through a little bit of normal liver and route to a tumor to minimize if there is bleeding, there should be minimal risk of seeding, but I think the risk of needle track seeding is very low. As I say, some people will ablate the track. They’ll subject the pathway of the needle to a little bit of heat, enough heat to kind of cause coagulation, to minimize that risk of bleeding, and therefore the theoretically seeding. But to me, it’s more of a theoretical argument. A lot of people had a lot of time to sit around and drink coffee and talk about theory. That’s one of the topics that comes up. But I think it’s, it’s an interesting question, but not a practical one.

Betsy Post 1:14:33
Thank you. And I think just, I think this might be the last one. Could you talk a little bit about why a surgeon would use resection and ablation at the same time to address liver tumors. So when you hear about a liver surgeon who’s saying, I’m going to resect this and ablate that, and also, could you speak to would an IR be involved in that? Or is it something a surgeon would do?

Dr. Arellano 1:14:55
Yeah, you know there are some surgeons who do intraoperative ablations. There are some who will call the interventional radiologist to do it. Again, it all depends on the local institution and the local practices. If a surgeon is going to, I think part of the rationale is, if I’m going to subject my patient to anesthesia, open them up to a major liver re section and be there. And if I’m going to take out the right level the liver and there’s one easily targeted lesion in the left, why not just take care of everything then and there. Close them up, close up the patient and let them recover. Which is fine from my perspective, if it’s planned out ahead of time. It just makes everyone’s life easier. But sometimes even if they call me if I’m free, and I’ll go up to the OR and do that, because it’s in the best interest of the patient. Is there anything wrong with doing the liver resection, closing them up, and then a month later, bringing them to me to do the ablation? Not necessarily. So I think you know what goes into that decision making? I think it’s local factors, local preferences, the local IR team, the how busy things are, the feasibility, the availability of people, et cetera, et cetera. One is not necessarily better than the other. They’re both very good options,

Betsy Post 1:16:13
Great. And I think someone said, is ablation outpatient, I think you said yes.

Dr. Arellano 1:16:18
Yeah for the most part, all with very few exceptions, ablation procedures are outpatient procedures. And I’ll say, over the years, at least at our institutions, the anesthesiologists have been fantastic in terms of being part of this team, this multidisciplinary team. They’ve developed protocols to facilitate recovery. All our ablations now they do a nerve block to which has had a tremendous impact in terms of comfort level, inter procedural as well as recovery. In the early days of ablation, when after an ablation, we recovered patients for four hours now with with anesthesia, nerve block and their protocol that they use, every ablation will take about an hour and a half to do. And by two hours post ablation, patients are sitting up, they’re eating a sandwich, and they’re getting ready to go home. So most patients, by two hours post ablation, are ready to be discharged from the hospital.

Betsy Post 1:17:20
Great. And the last one, and you’ve been so generous of your time, this the last one, I promise. Someone was saying, if there’s a bad liver bleed after an ablation, does that make you more susceptible to a recurrence?

Dr. Arellano 1:17:34
Not necessarily. The bleed may be if a tumor is five centimeters away from the capsule of the liver, if that area is ablated. Remember, this is we’re coagulating tissue, similar to what the surgeons use to control bleeding when they’re making incisions and using electrocautery so the tumor itself is not likely to bleed. The bleed can occur nevertheless, at the site of the puncture which is separate from the tumor. And so I think the risk of bleeding after an ablation, or the risk of seeding after an ablation, is low. Again, as I mentioned earlier, if it’s a direct puncture of the tumor and there’s bleeding that occurs before you start ablating then there could be a risk of seeding. But, and that’s the reason why I always go through whenever possible, and this is most of the time, plan a course, a trajectory from the skin into the liver, through normal liver, and then into the tumor, even though that may be 10 centimeters as opposed to a five centimeter direct puncture of the liver, shorter is not necessarily better or easier or safer. So a bleed could be if it’s from the capsule. I don’t think there’s a higher chance of seeding if it’s a direct puncture and there’s bleeding before you start turning on the switch and ablting, there’s a potential risk of seeding for sure.

Betsy Post 1:18:58
Thank you. So I just want to thank you so much for being here. I think this Doc Talk has been phenomenal. You made it so easy to understand. I know that I learned a lot, and I’ve been doing this for years, and educating patients. So I just want to thank you on behalf of COLONTOWN, all of our patients and caregivers, you did an incredible job. We’re going to use this for years to come, because it’s been recorded. Your slides were amazing, and your time and your attention, I just cannot thank you enough. I think it was phenomenal. So we will have this recorded for patients. And if you have any parting words, we’d love to hear those.

Dr. Arellano 1:19:36
Well, again, I want to thank you for the invitation to speak to COLONTOWN and thank you for the questions you submitted and the questions that were brought up here. I hope this has been helpful. And I have one of these slides. I have my email at the very end here, but if anyone wants to reach out to me, I’m happy to, field questions. So thank you very much for your attention.

Betsy Post 1:20:03
Thank you, and I have to give you a little love, because someone said, Thank you so much. I’m a proud patient of MGH, so

Dr. Arellano 1:20:13
Thank you. Thank you very much.

Betsy Post 1:20:15
Thank you so much. And I’ll be in touch, and I’ll definitely make sure that everyone has that information. Okay,

Dr. Arellano 1:20:22
Well, thank you very much. Okay, good luck. Everyone. Take care. Bye, bye, bye.

DocTalk
2023
Dr. Arellano
Ablation
Liver
Lung
Stage IV

Dr. Ronald Arellano from the Massachusetts General Hospital discusses the different types of ablation (microwave, RFA, IRE) and when and how to consider them when treating mCRC liver and lung metastases. Recorded in July 2023.

More Videos

Liver transplants — Examining the evidence
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2024
ERASur trial: Local treatment options for limited stage IV CRC
Dr. Hitchcock
2023
Advanced surgical treatments for CRC liver mets
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2021
Transplant patients are in the house!
2021
Hepatic Artery Infusion (HAI) chemotherapy for CRC liver mets
Hepatic Artery Infusion (HAI) chemotherapy for CRC liver mets
Dr. Gholami
2021
Modern-day management of liver metastases
Dr. Soares
2022
Why liver transplant for mCRC is taking off
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2022
Paths to long-term survival with CRC liver mets
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2023
Categories
DocTalks Hide from search

HAI pump trial

HAI pump trial

DocTalk
2023
Dr. Cercekny
Dr. D'Angelica
Dr. Lidsky
Dr. Kemeny
HAI
Liver
Stage IV
Trials

In this DocTalk, the four lead investigators of the HAI PUMP Trial (EA2222) —  Dr. Andrea Cercek (MSK), Dr. Michael D’Angelica (MSK), Dr. Michael Lidsky (Duke), and Dr. Shishir Maithel (Emory) — joined us to introduce the soon-to-open trial for the HAI Pump for unresectable CRC liver metasteses, review the trial design, inclusion criteria, and answer questions. Recorded in August, 2023.

Betsy Post 00:01
Welcome, everyone. Thank you so much for joining us this evening for our latest DocTalk. I’m so pleased tonight to be with us here for our COLONTOWN DocTalk. Dr. Louise Connell from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Dr. Connell, I think is very well known in COLONTOWN. So if you’ve been around for a while, you definitely know her name. If you are familiar with liver Mets, and especially if you’re interested in the hepatic pump, I know that you definitely have seen her name. And our groups such as Liver Lovers Lane and HAI Pump People, I’m sure that we have some of her patients here tonight to support her as well. So we are so thankful for your time, Dr. Connell, especially for doing this after hours so that we could get maximum participation from our patients and our caregivers. So thank you, again, for agreeing to do this, we’re really excited to hear from you on how you treat patients specifically with the pump. I know that you have some things about the future about the pump, which is really exciting. I’m very excited to hear that. And then we did have patients and caregivers submit questions in advance. So we will get to those questions at the end of Dr. Connell’s presentation. So at the end of her talk, she will, we’re going to do some Q&A based on some questions that we received in advance. As she is presenting, we would ask that you please stay muted so that we can make sure we’re being respectful of her presentation her time, but do put your questions in the chat. So please do use the chat feature to submit your questions. And we will get to those live questions at the end of the presentation and the pre-submitted Q&A. So with that again, Dr. Connell, thank you so much for being here. The floor is yours.

Dr. Connell 01:55
Okay, thank you, Betsy. And first of all, I just want to say thank you very much for the invitation to speak here tonight to you all. COLONTOWN is is a resource that I hear so much about from my patients, and a platform that I think provides so many of you with information that you bring to the clinic, to advocate for yourselves and to, you know, advance your care. And I think, you know, it’s been such an important resource that, you know, if there’s any way that I can help provide additional information, particularly about the liver pump. This is an honor to be asked to do this. So tonight, my slides section is small on purpose, because I really wanted to give you all an opportunity to ask questions. And I would encourage you to submit any questions that you have for me. I did just want to provide some background on you know where we are today, today in terms of metastatic colorectal cancer treatments, and in particular, the role for HAI therapy. I think many of you already know much of this information. But in particular, for patients and caregivers who perhaps are new to this or maybe considering a pump, I did want to provide just some background slides on the pump treatment.

Dr. Connell 03:15
I’m going to just advance my slides here. So first of all, I just wanted to put up this disclaimer to acknowledge some of my consulting work. But truly the presentation today is purely for informational and educational purposes. And it’s really based on my clinical experience with patients and my knowledge in terms of pump management.

Dr. Connell 04:16
And at diagnosis, we see approximately 20% up to a third of patients will have liver Mets at diagnosis whereas the majority of patients will go on to develop liver metastatic disease during their follow-up. The question is what are our treatment options nowadays for metastatic colorectal cancer and, I’ll just briefly run through this on this slide on the next slide. But essentially we have or our cornerstone standard of care chemotherapy treatments, and we combine these drugs with biologics. I think increasingly we’re hearing about biomarker-driven approaches and I’ve highlighted here are the four key targets that we look for in patients who are newly diagnosed being microsatellite status. Their RAS status, BRAF status and HER2 status. 

Dr. Connell 05:00
And, of course, you know what I think I’ve always in patients because of the work that I do is the role for local regional approaches and particularly in patients who have liver only disease or liver dominant disease and looking to intermix this and combine it with my chemotherapy drugs and with biomarker-driven approaches to get the best outcomes for patients. So in terms of patients with liver dominant or liver only disease, you know, I consider resection, ablation, of course, hai therapy and also y 90 as well as I should mention radiation treatments to the liver. And also, I think local regional approaches have a role to play in patients who have lung metastases or illegal metastatic disease which is out where you may have an isolated tumor or a small tumor. And you know, maybe you can be more localized with your treatment approach and for the lung that would include ablation resection and also stereotactic radiation. D=So the progress that has been made in the last you know, 50 years is phenomenal. Unfortunately, a long time ago, when patients were diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer, and there were no drug options, the recommendation was for best supportive care and, then over time, really, it was single agent 5FU. And this slide shows where we are today in terms of drug treatments. On the left hand column, you really see our cornerstone drugs, which is the Fluorouracil, Capecetibine have been being the oral version Irinotecan and oxaliplatin, and this is what we all know, as, you know, fall Folfox, Folfirir, the combinations of these drugs, looking at VEGF inhibitors such as Bevacizumab, EGFR inhibitor, centuximab, or, or panitumumab in patients who are RAS Wildtype and then on the right column, we see the newer drugs that are out there, right. 

Dr. Connell 07:01
So with patients who have BRAF mutated colorectal cancer, the combination of NRAS and Centuximab, HER2 is now you know, very to the fore in terms of drug therapy, which a centuximab and trust panitunamab. And then there’s been a lot of focus recently in terms of MSI, high disease and Immunotherapy options. And what I always say to my patients in clinic is that this is very important to determine for patients, but it’s such a small group of patients that we see.

Dr. Connell 07:21
And then the third line drugs you know what I would say briefly about these drugs Regorafenib Taz 102, which I typically combined with Bevacizumab, or for Fruzaqla is that these are drugs that, you know, have limited clinical benefit, and they have a high side effect profile. And I’m very selective in terms of which patients I decide to use these drugs for. More commonly, I would personally use TAZ102 with Bevacizumab and but that differs from patient to patient. And what I’ve highlighted on the far right is what I consider the star of the show which is liver directed treatment. And I think it’s so important to think about it in our patients and the core drug that we have is fluoxetine, and then we use Mitomycin you know, further and, you know, down the line for patients or if they’ve, you know, beginning to develop progression on fluoxetine, and I can talk about that a little bit more in the question and answer section.

Dr. Connell 08:52
So what is a Hepatic artery infusion treatment so traditional chemotherapy is delivered through through a vein. You know, in colorectal cancer, we typically have a meta port in place because of the fight through fluorouracil being given in an infusional form. The drug travels through the body’s bloodstream to reach the liver, and only a small portion of the drug will ultimately reach tumors in the liver. And as many of us who are patients and on treatment know, and it comes with side effects and typically, you know, issues such as diarrhea, mouth sores, you know, low blood counts such as neutropenia has. The benefit of hepatic artery infusion therapy is that it’s delivered through a pump first of all, which is implanted just below the skin in the abdomen. The drug is administered through the hepatic artery, directly to tumors in the liver, and it delivers up to 400 times a higher drug concentration to tumors in the liver. So we’re really getting to directly to the problem. And this is just a graphic showing. You know how that works with the pump.

Dr. Connell 10:13
Basically that the liver is a unique organ in that it has a dual blood supply. And we manipulate this information through the use of hepatic artery and fusion treatment. So there’s essentially two vessels which supply the liver, the hepatic artery and the portal vein. And liver metastases are perfused by the Patek artery, whereas what we call normal parenchyma, or normal liver tissue is perfused, primarily by the portal vein. So with hai therapy, we’re delivering the fluorouracil, which is a prodrug of 5FU or so into the hepatic artery, and we get very high concentration of the drug to the liver. And as I mentioned in the previous slide, it’s almost 400 times higher than those achieved by intravenous administration. And, and the important thing here is that essentially, the drug is entirely soaked up by the liver around 97% of the drug, it has a very short half life. So there’s minimal systemic exposure for patients and toxicity from the drug.

Dr. Connell 11:42
So I have two very brief slides just looking at some of the clinical evidence. And on this slide, we see the clinical evidence for HAI therapy in patients who have unresectable colorectal liver metastases. So the first study highlighted here was published in 2017. And basically, this was a case control study, which looked at the use of HAI with modern systemic chemotherapy combinations compared to systemic chemotherapy alone. And you can see even from the bar charts, there’s a there’s a difference there that’s quite visible between the purple bar, which is essentially the combination treatment and the orange colored, which is systemic treatment alone. And what was seen in this case control study is that median overall survival was doubled in patients, when they received combination treatment at around 32.8 months compared to our modern systemic chemotherapy options, which was 15.3 months. And this was even when conversion to resection was not achieved in patients. And this was statistically significant.

Dr. Connell 12:43
On the on the right side, then we see another paper and this was published in 2018. And this looked at like long term results from a prospective trial, and which again, looked at the response to hai therapy, and with systemic treatment, and basically, the overall tumor response rate to the combination of HAI with systemic chemotherapy was 73%. And there was a very high response rates in patients who were chemo naive. So when it was given in the first line, it was 86%, whereas in patients who were previously treated, it’s still very high, it’s 67%. And what we saw here is that 52% of patients were converted to resection with the combination treatment, despite the fact that the majority of these patients had what we would consider a high disease burden within the liver, and many of them had had previous chemotherapy.

Dr. Connell 15:19
I just briefly put up here, and this is really to January questions, you know, what’s the future for HAI therapy? Or how can we further advance what we know? And I think there’s two very important points to bring up here. And I know, these are questions that come up for me in the clinic is, you know, can we combine hai therapy with other systemic treatment options? One that’s very topical, you know, is kind of get it with Immunotherapy. And another would be, you know, some of these other newer drugs that are out there, you know, in particular for a patient to perhaps is her2 positive, BRAF mutated patients. So, you know, can we give them and right now, the honest answer is we don’t have the safety data to combine these drugs together. But it’s something that we do need to consider going forward in terms of trials. And, and also, I would like to highlight the HAI Consortium, and I think that’s a very important group. And it’s essentially a group of centers within the United States and also outside the United States, where we’ve come together, and we’re trying to generate trials. And there is a trial, which has been activated, which I know has been previously discussed here. And I think this is going to be a group that’s going to help propel forward future trials on hai therapy and and help all of you as well as patients in the future going forward. And it’s a very important collaboration to be able to replicate. I think what we’ve seen achieved at Memorial Sloan Kettering in particular with HAI treatment, and can we, you know, replicate that throughout the United States and more globally for patients.

Dr. Connell 17:01
So, what does it mean for a patient then to live with the palms, so just to get to some practicalities, so it does require a surgery to place the pump. And that’s important to say to patients and the majority of patients it’s placed at the time of an open surgery. In some patients where, for example, the colon primary, or the rectal primary has already been removed, and there is going to be no liver resection. There are some newer techniques such as robotic, placement and minimally invasive which are done by some of our surgeons. In terms of recovery. The honest answer is you can you can travel. And you can also continue to do most of the activities that you’ve enjoyed doing before. And during active treatment, the pump has refills every two weeks, you do not get drug every time it alternates between fluoxetine with heparin saline. And it is important to be mindful of the travel schedule. And I do say that to my own patients, because there is a residual within the pump, but you do not want the pump to run dry. So it’s very important to you know, mention any travel to your your treating physician and to try to accommodate that for patients as well. And otherwise, what I also want to highlight, and I mentioned this a little bit with the consortium, but there’s been a huge increase in terms of the number of centers since 2019, that are able to put in a level upon number one, and also for local refill centers. And this is something that is continuing to gain momentum. I think this is something that I learned, I’ll be honest with you during the COVID pandemic was so important for patients because there was huge difficulty in in people being able to commit to coming here every two weeks to New York at for pump refills and, and there’s a lot more physicians out there, and who who can now help assist with local refills. And that can be huge for patients, even if they’re not able to get the flux your dean locally, for example. But coming to coming to New York once a month is much better than having to commit to traveling every two weeks for example. And, and you know, it is important to also to mention that and we are trying to help train local oncologists also who maybe don’t have experience with the pump, but to be able to help some of some of you and some new patients who really want to commit to this to have refills locally. And then just to briefly mention, you know, some of the safety elements with fluoxetine. So, the anterior pump is indicated for the use of fluoxetine and it is contraindicated to the use of this and patients who have extensive extrahepatic disease or if you have limited liver function. And then always important to mention, you know some of the adverse events that can occur with the pump which are rare but serious and we can discuss them a little bit further in the q&a section.

Dr. Connell 19:59
So with that, I’m going to hand it over to Betsy, and we’ll go through the questions. So I’ll stop sharing here.

Betsy Post 20:08
Great, thank you so much. And then please, as we go along, if you do have questions, actually, I have one, two for the end, please do put those in the chat and we will get to those shortly. So the first question we have Dr. Connell is Why is HAI therapy generally done at the same time as systemic chemotherapy?

Dr. Connell 20:31
Yeah, so, you know, this question comes up a lot. And I think the important thing here is the there is a synergy between fluoxetine through the pump and giving it with systemic treatment in particular arena Tekin, and our EGFR inhibitors, but also importantly, we have to protect against the risk of extra hepatic disease, right. So if I have a patient and they’re on track to try to get to a liver resection, what is absolutely devastating for a patient is to get to a surgery. And the procedure is aborted because extra hepatic diseases detected and or for something to develop on a scan prior to surgery. So it’s really to help protect outside the liver, to allow us to focus on the treatment of the liver metastases with the flexibility and treatment.

Betsy Post 21:23
Thank you. How do you determine which systemic regimen that you’re going to use with the metastatic colorectal cancer liver met patients? And how does having a pump alter that?

Dr. Connell 21:35
Yeah, and so the first thing to say is that, while we typically and in the majority of patients give systemic chemotherapy with the HAI therapy, the dosing is automatically lower than it would be if a patient was receiving systemic chemotherapy alone. Because we have to balance the toxicities from using the two in combination. And so there is a different standard dosing of this systemic FOLFOX, for example, as opposed to somebody who’s on FOLFOX own in terms of what to use for patients. So there’s a few things to look at. I think the first thing is, in a patient who is previously untreated, the standard would be to use Folfox.

Dr. Connell 22:19
With the liver pump, and in somebody who possibly comes and they’ve had both treatments, what I take into consideration is I look and see, you know, what response, did the patient get to each individual systemic treatments previously, right? Did their cancer previously progress on Folfox? Do they maybe have stable disease on full theory, but they didn’t get enough of a response, and also the side effects that patients have had from previous treatment. So if somebody comes into me in clinic, and they have very severe neuropathy from previous oxaliplatin, I’m not going to jump to using that drug. So I think what’s important to consider is how the patient’s cancer has responded to previous drugs before the time interval that they’ve had from a particular regimen to perhaps another recurrence or something else developing and also the side effects for the patients from previous treatment.

Betsy Post 23:13
Thank you. The next question is, are there any situations where the HAI therapy might be done without systemic chemotherapy at the same time,

Dr. Connell 23:27
Um, very, very rarely, I have one patient since I began practicing here that I’ve done it in so I very, very select patients. In general, the preference is to give with systemic chemotherapy. Again, you know, in, in the scenario where I decided not to do it, it was a very detailed discussion with the patient about why we were not doing it and the risks of of not doing it together. But in general, it’s given. It’s given with some form of systemic chemo. And, you know, what I prefer for my patients is at least we give a single agent even if a doublet such as you know, 5FU with oxaliplatin or 5FU with Ironotecan is too much. And but as I said, it’s very rare that I do it. I’ve only done it once since I’ve been practicing here and had very real reasons for not doing systemic side effects may be possible in the liver area during HAI therapy.

Dr. Connell 24:28
Yeah, so the side effect profile is very different to systemic chemo. The two main things that I say to patients is we learned early on and many of the studies that were done with the liver pump the the risk of ulceration in the gut in the GI tract, so all patients are put on a medication to help prevent reflux. So pantoprazole protonix, and in patients who say to me that they’re having increasing reflux symptoms, for example, or they’re having some pain or discomfort, you know, just under the chest, and I’d have a very low threat To get an endoscopy to look for an ulcer, so that’s the first thing. But it’s much less common nowadays because we’re routinely giving protonix with it. I think what the big thing is, you’ve got to watch the delivery of blood work very closely. And in the majority of patients, you don’t come to clinic with any symptoms, right? You feel fine, you feel well, in general, patients feel better than they felt on previous systemic chemotherapy because okay, I’m still giving it but I’m giving a little bit less than you would have had previously. And what I always say to people, actually, when they come to me is it can be a little bit frustrating, right? If you fly to me from San Francisco, or you come from Canada, and you feel great, and then I see the liver enzymes, and I say, sorry, I can’t give the drug today or you know, we’ve had to give a few weeks holding off on the drugs. So the honest answer is we’ve learned from experience that we do have to be very mindful of the liver bloodwork, and then the majority of patients picked up on the bloodwork and the patient doesn’t have any symptoms themselves. However, in some patients, if you begin to develop any symptoms, such as jaundice, you know, anything like that, then a very low threshold to get your liver enzymes checked. And even if you’re local, to check them to see because that’s the biggest thing that we have to watch for is liver toxicity.

Betsy Post 26:16
How long does active treatment last? And what is the average number of treatments? And does this change? Does this change if the HAI therapy is being done before or after liver resection?

Dr. Connell 26:30
Yeah, yes. So the answer to the final question is yes. So if somebody has had a liver resection, and we’re using this as an adjuvant treatment, it’s six months of treatment. And then we stop. And in the majority of patients, we’ll get four doses in of the fluoxetine of the liver drug in the six month period, when we look at, you know, liver enzyme alterations, but we stop automatically at six months, and however many doses the patient has managed to successfully get that’s it. And in a in a person who is not resected, or I’m trying to convert to resections, when unresectable disease or in the conversion setting, there really isn’t a limit in terms of the number of doses that a patient can get. And the it really depends on how their liver is tolerating the drug, you know, what kind of response that we’re getting, you will have to make a change to the to the drug dosing. And what I’ve seen in practice is that typically, that happens around two to three months into treatment. It’s not uncommon, that it could happen even after the first dose, but there will be some dose modification. And patients can still respond on low doses. And that’s also important to say, because again, I also acknowledge that, you know, really, you’re committing to come in here for these treatments or to hai center. And it’s very disappointing, if you hear you’re getting a quite a significant dose reduction. And but you still respond to this. And it’s different to what we know about the dose reductions that are done with systemic chemo.

Betsy Post 28:04
Thank you. Is it possible to do treatment again, with the pump later on, if needed? 

Dr. Connell 28:14
Yes, exactly. Yes, you can. And this is why, you know, our, our preference is for patients to keep the pump, right, because particularly, what I would say to patients is, if you are using it as adjuvant therapy after liver resection, or you’ve been converted to resection from the pump, at the time of surgery, the recommendation, so your NED at that point, right is at least two years. Ideally, we prefer patients to keep the pump in longer. But the highest risk period for recurrence is the first two years and the rationale behind that is because the pump is not something that can be put back in right a little bit like a metal porch, right? So we want to keep that option open. Particularly if, if it’s helped you get to your surgery, number one, and you know, so that we can use it again. So absolutely, yes, you can use the drug again.

Betsy Post 29:11
Thank you already answered the next one, which was does the pump stay in when active treatment is done? And for how long?

Dr. Connell 29:18
Yes. Yeah. Yeah. And so yeah, and this question comes up and the honest answer is as well what I would say is i i Never tell someone to take a pump out I wait for them to tell me that they’re ready for it to come out because I think it’s a very personal decision. I think it’s something that for many patients has been you know, revolutionary, I guess and and I think, you know, we can educate and guys and that but it has to feel right to you as a patient to know when is the right time to remove it. If somebody really wants it out within six months. I’m like, please keep it for two years but beyond that, I really leave it up to the patient’s decide

Betsy Post 29:59
Are there other drugs ever used in the pump like oxaliplatin?

Dr. Connell 30:05
Yeah, so, oxaliplatin has a very low extraction rate into the liver. It is used in Europe because they have a slightly different device there. We don’t routinely use it here. But we do use Mitomycin and that’s something I referred to briefly during my talk. And I have seen patients who perhaps are beginning to develop some resistance to Flox your deen or maybe are beginning to run into more issues with their liver enzymes. And I’ve used Mitomycin in those patients and seen you know, some very good responses with the middle myosin what I would just say about that is you can give it in combination with fluoxetine. So you can give both drugs at the same time if your liver enzymes are good. So if the liver bloodwork is good, if the liver enzymes are high, tickling the outsource or perhaps the bilirubin, and that it’s safer to give Mitomycin on its own, but that’s typically our second drug that we use. We don’t give oxaliplatin.

Betsy Post 31:09
What are the causes for the mitomycin following HAI therapy with the traditional treatment?

Dr. Connell 31:19
Why would we give it right?

Betsy Post 31:21
I think you already spoke to that. 

Dr. Connell 31:24
So yeah, yeah. So I think if you’re getting a slowing down in response, possibly to flux, your routine, maybe you are getting some response, but you’re beginning to run into some of these liver toxicity issues. And so they would really be the main reasons that we do it. And really, I would use it in a situation where it’s liver only progression, of course, like I wouldn’t use it if there was signs of anything happening

Betsy Post 31:47
Um, and then since I’m not an oncologist, I might mess up these names. But what are the views on the use of Bev, which I know is Avastin. So we’ll take that one first. The new third line or a drug that was just FDA approved for colorectal cancer, liver Mets, or the EGFR inhibitors. So what are the views on those three and maybe address them separately? Because I know it could be different after the HAI therapy when the pump is running glycerin.

Dr. Connell 32:18
Okay, so I’ll start with EGFR inhibitors first, because that’s probably the easiest ones you can give EGFR inhibitor is at the same time that you give fluorouracil safe to do works very well with the liver pump.

Dr. Connell 32:32
And you can also give it after liver treatments. So there’s no limitation at all with EGFR inhibitors and actually works very well with with FUDR, or Avastin is something that we’d urge early on, that should not be used the same time that we’re giving fluoxetine. So it’s it’s a combination, so it should not they should not be used together. And but a patient can have Avastin or Bevacizumab later on, if you’re simply just getting glycerol through your pump. And so, if for example, I have somebody who the liver is still no evidence of disease, there’s, you know, issues arising outside the liver in the lung, perhaps or lymphnodes. Have I given Avastin? Absolutely I have, I generally prefer to try to delay the use of Avastin further out from using the liver drug because I have seen in some patients some delayed issues with billary complications if I’ve tried to use the Bevacizumab a little bit too quickly after stopping the liver pump treatment. And but yes, you can use them separately but not together and then forget never the honest answer is we don’t know yet. Because it’s such a new drug definitely would not use them together. And I think you know, you would think along the same lines as you know, what we do with Stivarga, etc. You know, they can be given but not together. And the honest answer is and I kind of led to this during my sliders, I really reserved the use of any of these drugs too much, much later on for patients. I think if you can do something like long ablations or radiate, I think you’re helping the patient more than jumping to any of these newer, third fourth line drugs that are approved.

Betsy Post 34:17
Thank you. And these are questions that we see in Colin town all the time, and these were the most frequent questions that I received for you. So these have to do with Y90 So if a patient has had Y90 How does this affect their ability to receive HAI therapy after?

Dr. Connell 34:38
Yeah, okay. So this comes up quite a lot. The honest answer is if I see a patient before a Y90 Maybe they come with a second opinion we usually prefer to give the pump before Y90 that’s the honest answer. So usually what I say to patients is, you know, pump first and any of these proceed procedures like Y90 or radiation I would reserve for later on. And have I had patients who’ve had y90 And I’ve given pump treatment to absolutely, I think we have to look at those cases individually. And it’s something that we would show at our tumor board. And we would really look at the extent of the Y90, for example, how the blood vessels in the liver look after the Y90.

Dr. Connell 35:24
Often you need to dose reduce the flux your routine a little bit faster in those patients so I can get the drug in for the patient, but I can’t get as much drug in. And but I’ve had people respond after y 90 I think our preference is to do pump first.

Betsy Post 35:45
If a patient has HAI therapy, and then does Y90? Would the patient be able to use the HAI pump again, if it is still functional?

Dr. Connell 35:56
Yeah, and so this is an interesting one. I haven’t personally ever done that myself. I think from a technical point of view, it would come back to what I said previously, is that you’d have to really look structurally at the liver and see, you know, there’s there’s newer Y-90 techniques out there. And I know whether our interventional radiologists here they do more selective Y90 So if perhaps, you know, there was a regional Y90 And then you’re trying to treat the rest of the liver. Technically, you could. I think just with with my own practice, and the way that I view it, because I keep Y90 for Later on, it just hasn’t worked out that way with the patients that I’ve seen. But again, I think this is something that you would have to have the right imaging, it would have to be viewed as a multidisciplinary team, whether that’s the right thing for the patient, you know, including an interventional radiologist, including a radiation oncologist right, is radiation safer than Y90 A surgeon and a medical oncologist to decide what’s the right thing for that particular person.

Betsy Post 36:56
Some additional questions have to do with transplants. This is something that we’re hearing more and more about, especially for unresectable disease, obviously, and we have patients a lot of times that are making a decision, sometimes between the pump or transplant, but something that we’re hearing now is the question first, could the pump be used as a bridge to liver transplant?

Dr. Connell 37:18
Yeah, so this is very typical? I think without intentionally setting out that way. And I’ve had some patients who’ve done very well with transplantation after pump treatment, I think the tricky thing about the transplant process is that it’s a long process for patients. Right. So my own experience with my patients has been is that sometimes they’re waiting like 12 to 18 months. And I’m trying to control everything with the pump at the same time. So I have used it but not intentionally. I’m on discussions with transplant centers. And speaking with surgeons here, this is something that I think we’re going to need to study. And we’re going to need to collaborate on to see if we can help more patients by combining the two techniques.

Betsy Post 38:37
Another question, how do you consider the option for liver transplant as part of your overall treatment plan or approach for patients?

Dr. Connell 38:47
Yeah, so. So when I see patients, you know, this can often come up. And I think with transplant, what I say to people is we got a real sense of how the pump is helping a patient in unresectable disease, like, you know, about six months in, you know, look, and you’re talking back and forth with the surgeons, you know, do we think that we’re going to be able to convert to resection here? Do we have any of these options like why nine tear or radiation? And I think it’s always appropriate to get an opinion from a transplant center, and particularly if it’s something that the patient themselves is questioning, right, because you want to hear directly. And there’s a little bit of bias right between different different specialties and obviously I’m very Hai and but I’ve certainly collaborated with transplant centers, and then you know, when somebody is listed for transplant in practice, what I do is I follow what they want me to do, so I don’t change any treatment, you know, they tell me what they want to do. The important things about transplant is a few things. So you cannot have any extra hepatic disease obviously so there can be no evidence of extra hepatic disease. And the second thing is that the primary tumor has to be removed.

Dr. Connell 40:03
So, you know, they would be the two things. But if you have liver only disease and and resection is not feasible, and you’ve heard that from the liver surgeon and you’ve heard that from your medical oncologist then then I do think transplant is something that needs to be considered. And they removed the pump at the time of transplant as well. 

Betsy Post 40:26
So is there data available to show how successful ATI therapy is? And I know that we did talk? You talked about that earlier, but I didn’t know if you wanted to elaborate on that a little bit more.

Dr. Connell 40:39
Yeah, so we do have data. And I’ve shown some of the data here, I think what’s important is that we need more randomized to data. And I think, you know, that’s what the consortium is going to help with and why we’re trying to collaborate with other institutions. And I think trying to address this question of, is the pump so successful? Because it’s given here in New York or you know, Kansas, can I get the same level of care? Or in Chicago, or, you know, Atlanta? And I think the honest answer is there’s so much more knowledge out there about the pump. And we do need to do more trials. And also, I also mentioned this as well, there’s so many newer drugs out there, right. And patients want to know can kind of get them together, is it safe to get them together? And this has to be done in a trial setting.

Betsy Post 41:27
So another question we get quite a bit. So now that Dr. Kemeny has retired, how was care being distributed for patients that are being seen at Memorial Sloan Kettering?

Dr. Connell 41:39
Yeah. And so what I would say about that is, honestly, all of us can can can do pump treatment, I think a huge part of Dr. Kennedy’s legacy. What’s visible to patients and caregivers is is what she did for you, right? Understandably, a huge part of her legacy for us at Memorial is the teaching and training that she gave to us. And, you know, she was a phenomenal mentor to me. And to many of my colleagues.

Dr. Connell 42:10
All of our practices differ a little bit. So some of us do more pump than others. But honestly, all of us can do pump in terms of her practice. And it’s been divided between Athol I think for for active patients, understandably, because I was mentored under her I have many of her patients. I think, what’s also important to say, though, is that, for any of you who have, you know, some complex decision making, there’s something to be to be, you know, figured out, you know, is it now the right time to think about y 90, you know, have I achieved what I can with the pump, that’s never a decision that’s made in isolation by an individual, whether that’s a medical oncologist, it’s our tumor board is a huge resource for people and, and that’s often what I what I see myself as like, You’re not coming here to memorial for me, you’re coming for the expertise from the whole group. And never think that a decision a very important decision like that, look, will I say to this patient that you should go and get a transplant opinion, you’re not going to hear that just for me, I’m going to speak with my surgeons I’m going to speak with with them, and we’re going to show your case at the tumor board. And I think that’s very important to know, is that there’s huge collaboration amongst us as medical oncologists, and also multidisciplinary team involvement in any major decisions for patients.

Betsy Post 43:31
I know that you spoke about the Consortium, and that all the pomp programs, especially since my team that have opened up, but How can patients across the country get good access to HAI therapy?

Dr. Connell 43:44
Yeah, so I think there are more centers, who are implanting the pumps, number one, and also so many more centers where, you know, they’re able to assist with with local fields, I think the consortium is really helping with that. I would also say that there’s a huge collaboration between us, you know, I definitely speak with medical oncologists at other institutions. You know, I relied on mentoring, when I started off with this, and I try to share what I’ve learned in the nuances, you know, with oncologist with other centers, I think, when you start off, you know, what I always say to people is, you have to be comfortable with the person that’s treating you, right. And whether that’s having a pump or not having a pump, I think, number one, you have to be comfortable. So, you know, and you also have to think from a practical point of view, you know, look, if financially and with my family or my work commitments, is it feasible for me to fly up and down to New York every two weeks? And for many patients, it is for others. It’s not. Do I have a local doctor who can do this? Did I did We did our personality match? You know, and but I think there is so much more knowledge out there nowadays and there’s also huge camaraderie between us and sharing of knowledge. And, I think the consortium and the trials and everything that’s going to come out of that is going to further reinforce that for patients.

Betsy Post 45:11
One more question, and then we’re going to take the live questions, we have quite a few. How does the start of that new pump trial impact the ability of new patients to receive HAI therapy?

Dr. Connell 45:23
Yeah, so it’s a very relevant question. And you know, what I would say about the pump trial, it’s a very, very select group of patients, right? It’s a very important study, right to help answer this question, in a randomized setting of, you know, conversion to resection for patients with HAI versus modern systemic chemotherapy. So it’s for patients who’ve had more than three months, but less than six months of systemic chemotherapy in the first line. So it’s a very small group of patients. And the honest answer is the reason that we’re doing that is because we don’t know the question, right, we are the answer, we wouldn’t be doing it if we already knew that one was better than the other. And that’s important to say about any trial. If you’re a patient who is untreated, you had no chemotherapy, you can have a pump off trial, if you’ve had more chemotherapy, like you’ve had a year of chemotherapy, you don’t, you don’t qualify for the trial. So it’s a very, very select group of patients. And that will be explained to you as well, in the in the in the clinic setting.

Betsy Post 46:30
So moving on to some of our live questions, we have one, is there a certain temperature that you have to keep your body under while you have a pump?

Dr. Connell 46:42
Yeah, so this question comes up quite a bit, you know, I think you have to be sensible, right? So he will speed up the rate of infusion of the drug. Hot tubs are a no, no, you can get in a swimming pool. And so body temperature can affect us, I don’t give anyone like a specific number. But I just say like, you have to be mindful of it. And I have a patient who said they have a hot tub with that, put it on regular temperature. So you know, swimming, and all of that is fine. But sitting in heat, you don’t want to put heat pads directly on the pump. If you have pain in your back for another reason, you can put heat out there, but you just want to do want to put it directly over the pump.

Betsy Post 47:25
Is it true that you can’t lift more than 10 pounds when the pump isn’t?

Dr. Connell 47:31
Yeah, so again, this comes up quite a bit. So usually I say around 15 pounds to patients. In the beginning, I think you have to be very mindful of that similar with any surgery to be honest with you. Over time, honestly, what happens is you have a very good sense of your pomp and also scar tissue forms. And so I tell patients that, you know, using a binder, you know, be sensible. But a lot of people say, Well, you know, my toddler is 30 pounds, you know, and I’m never gonna say to somebody, you can’t lift your child up, you know. So I think within reason, and I think if you’re, you know, the further out, you get the sense you have your palm, the binder, scar tissue, and, and, you know, for lifting children in the beginning, I usually say to people, you know, sit down and lift them up onto your knee, you know, things like that. So I try to be creative with how you do things. But I do think we have to be practical in that regard. And the concern about the weight lifting is the connection between the catheter and the pump, and also the risk of, you know, the pump flipping, and the more secure it is over time that the lower the risk of that

Betsy Post 48:39
Um, there’s a question about the drug and mutations. And I know specifically, we do have some BRAF patients here. So question, there’s a question about, is the HAI therapy equally effective for all mutations?

Dr. Connell 48:56
Yeah, so it’s a very good question. I think what I would say to you is, is that we do use the pump and in all patients, I certainly have myself patients who have BRAF mutations, and I’ve used the pump, and I’ve seen some very good results with it. So I wouldn’t discriminate based on that. And but I think it’s something that we’re going to need to study a little bit further to see how we best serve people going forward. But I definitely have patients who’ve done well. And you know, maybe later on I’ve used the combination I mentioned earlier, such as graphics to toxic map, and but if they have liver only disease, we still put pumps and we still get flux your routine and I’ve definitely seen good responses. I have a patient who was probably an outlier but from from early 2019, and still NED

Dr. Connell 49:47
and had, you know, resection, had liver pump to get your resection and as BRAF mutated, you know,

Betsy Post 49:55
right. I think you answered this, but I’ll ask it for those pursuing liver resection, is there a recommended number of fudr treatments from the pump before considering surgery?

Dr. Connell 50:10
And so the honest answer is there isn’t a set number per se, if somebody has unresectable disease. So what we do is we scan every two months because we want to keep a close eye on the response that we’re getting and how the liver is tolerating it, right? So you’re scanned every

Dr. Connell 50:29
which is a little bit different to the adjuvant in the adjuvant setting, you’re scanned every three. But what I usually say to people is that honestly, at two months, it’s it’s not very common that patients are ready for surgery, it’s typically around the four to six month mark, but there isn’t a set number is really depends on the location of tumors, the technicality if somebody has liver, you know, bi lobe disease, so both the right and the left side involves the surgeon will say to me, Look, we need to do these portal vein embolization, you know, certain procedures to help get to a second stage liver surgery. So the some of those factors to come in. But there’s no hard and fast rule with the number of doses that a patient has to have

Betsy Post 51:13
HAI pump decisions require very close coordination between the medical oncologists and surgical oncologist Are there any best practices from that cross specialty communication that you would highlight is beneficial to apply? Even beyond the HEI application?

Dr. Connell 51:31
Yeah, so, you know, what we’ve learned to serve patients best is that multidisciplinary involvement is so so important. Right? And, and I kind of, you know, said that earlier on, like, any major decision point you need to think about, you know, how am I helping the patient right now? And also, how is this going to affect what I want to do in the future for the patient? Right. So in my own practice, here, I do my clinics alongside the surgeons at for that reason. And you know, when I asked some of these questions, we also have very heavy input from our interventional radiologists. And I think that’s very important is to try to get the different options there. And sometimes there is there’s two options, right maybe let’s say for the liver, it could be resection or it could be ablation, and then we can see both and help make the decisions by getting the input from from both specialties for example.

Betsy Post 52:32
Are there restrictions on jogging and working out?

Dr. Connell 52:37
Okay, so what I would say about that is if you put 20 of us in a room, a mix of surgeons and medical oncologists, everybody would say something different and it’s very controversial. And I allow my patients to light jog and the the concern again is really the connection of the catheter to the pump. And again, what I say to people is exactly what I said weightlifting you know, if someone comes in to me and you know jogging is your is your your cam time, you know, your therapy so to speak. You know, it’s very hard to say to somebody, you know, don’t jog and but I say you know, try to be sensible about it, have a binder on Wait a while and I do allow patients to do like jogging. The surgeons do lap people jog and there’s other medical oncologists who say no, and we love stationary bike. We love the peloton. That’s, that’s probably the safest thing that you can do and the best thing and a good form of workout. But yes, I do say to patients, they can jog.

Betsy Post 53:41
So if there is a patient that has, for example, ovarian or peritoneal disease, but the patient was potentially able to have all of that removed. Could they still get pumped?

Dr. Connell 53:56
Um, so for over a yes. So if you have liver and ovary because we know that colorectal metastases to the ovary, are quite resistant to chemotherapy, so in general, the bias is to lean towards surgery in that situation anyway. So you would often do if you can do a liver and you would also remove the ovaries at the same time. So yes, with peritoneal disease, there’s a little bit of pause. I’ll be honest with you. The tricky thing about peritoneal disease is that you often can’t fully appreciate peritoneal disease on scans. And and it’s only at the time of surgery that you really have an understanding. And I’ve had some patients where perhaps there’s been like limited peritoneal disease, you know, a year ago it was removed and maybe they come looking for a pump. And and usually if there’s, you know, a period of time, typically a year, year and a half, not thing happening in the parish name again, then, you know in select cases we’ve put pumps in. And but I wouldn’t say to you upfront that I’ve put a pump in for a patient when they have active peritoneal disease at the same time.

Betsy Post 55:14
For every two to three months scans, do you do CT MRI, and I’m gonna throw in there you PET scan stew? Might as well add it in.

Dr. Connell 55:24
Yeah, and, okay. Um, so in that regard, what I would say to you is I started off using CT and patients. So I do routinely, CT chest, abdomen and pelvis. Over time. From looking at the CT scan, you understand with the individual patient, whether you’re seeing things clearly in the liver or not, if not, particularly in patients who maybe have, you know, a lot of chemotherapy prior to the pump being placed, because the chemotherapy changes the texture of the liver, what we call like fatty liver change, or sclerosis. So in those patients in MRI may give additional information. So the honest answer is, my starting off rule is CT only, I’ll involve an M or liver if I feel like I’m not seeing things clearly with a CT. And I really don’t routinely use a PET scan, unless I get to a point in a patient where a specific question has come up on a on a CT, for example, I do a patch, and I see that the patch is giving more information than the CT has. Similarly, if I do a patch on a patient, and I see that I’m not getting anything different from it, then I don’t routinely follow with Pat. And I think that would be the standard approach. For most patients. The tricky thing with PET scans is there can often be you know, false positive things on a PET scans and something lights up. And it’s it’s not anything related to the cancer and then it causes, you know, a lot of concern, understandably. Yeah, so that’s how I would view it. But I do have some patients where I know that only MRI shows that are only pet shows that and then once I learned that with the patient, then I continue to use that imaging modality. But I still always do my CT as well.

Betsy Post 57:12
We have one more question about I think exercise I see here. What about horseback riding? I’m a serious equestrian.

Dr. Connell 57:21
Yeah, so this came up for me recently. The issue with with horse riding is the bouncing activity. Right and the concern for the catheter? Again, I don’t think it’s a complete contraindication I think, and I know I’m repeating myself a lot but wearing the binder, a similar lead to what I’m seeing with light jogging. I mean, you can I don’t even know the word for isn’t trotting. for horse riding, you know, you have to be mindful of that. And but I wouldn’t, you know, I wouldn’t say you can’t do it again, if that’s something that a patient is passionate about, and it’s their form of relief, or escape from what’s going on, then I think that’s important to consider. So have a binder be mindful. That’s what I would say.

Betsy Post 58:07
We just have two or three more. So how would you know if there’s a problem with the connection from the pump? Perhaps from over lifting, etc?

Dr. Connell 58:19
Yeah, the honest answer with that is that most patients don’t know. And it’s picked up on scans. That’s the most common scenario. And that’s really where we see it. If somebody has, you knows, for example, they’ve had a trauma, you know, so So I had a patient a few years ago, and they were in there on a regular bicycle, and they flipped over the handlebars, and they were like, This doesn’t feel right, you know, so I scanned and you know, there you knew there was some incident proceeding, and you would check for it or they had pain afterwards. But the honest answer is in the majority of patients picked up on scans and you don’t feel any difference.

Betsy Post 59:03
Let’s see, I know I’m gonna mess this this word up.

Dr. Connell 59:08
So what are the thoughts around using the capecitabine with the pump while receiving radiation to treat the primary replacing traditional systemic treatment? Okay, yeah, so this comes up quite a bit. So when patients have a rectal tumor and you know, you can treat them with chemo radiation. So we do, you know, and you know, that’s in terms of a rectal tumor, the surgery is much more life altering. So if you can effectively get a complete clinical response or fully treat the rectal tumor than chemo radiation is recommended. What do I do in my patients? So the issue with Capacetibine Xeloda is that it causes more increase in liver enzymes, and it can affect the dosing of the fudr. So what I do for patients is if

Dr. Connell 1:00:00

We have a rectal primary and we’re doing chemo radiation. And we’ve just put a pump in for liver disease, you can give the fudr you can give the liver treatment during the chemo radiation. But instead of using the Xeloda and or capecitabine of being I use fluorouracil which is sort of the old way that they that they used to do chemo radiation. And because again, I want to try to maintain the higher doses in the pump and keeps it being tends to interfere with that more. So.

Betsy Post 1:00:36
I think I got to almost every question, one of my questions that I have, if I can just sneak one in I know it’s 802. But with all the centers opening up, I feel like we’re seeing some oncologists are using the Urso dial and some are not. And I don’t know if you feel comfortable speaking to that, and how you use it in your practice and how the decisions made to use that or not?

Dr. Connell 1:00:59
Yeah, it’s a very good question. I mean, I think what I would say to you as well is there’s even differences in the practice here at Memorial as well. I, I use it quite early on in patients, because I think, you know, the two ways we manage the liver inflammation are the steroids through the pump at the time of the flush as well as versatile. And, and in the long term for patients being on steroids continuously. You know, there’s this kind of late side effects with that there’s the weight gain that comes from steroids, there’s a few patients where versatile can be a little bit tricky. So sometimes patients can notice the very loose stool. So if I have a patient who’s struggling with, you know, diarrhea issues or anything like that, from arena Tekin, or even five floor yourself, I kind of hold off on the earth a dial, but I tell them why I’m not doing it, you know, but I do tend to use it early on. And I also tend to keep it on board longer, even after I’ve weaned down the steroids in the pump, and I have someone off treatment, because I think it helps with the liver inflammation, I typically start off on twice a day in some patients, you may have to go up to three times a day. But again, if you even select 10 oncologists here at Memorial, everyone would do something a little bit different. But I give the options to patients. And I also explain, as I said, when I don’t use it and what my concerns are for that particular person.

Betsy Post 1:02:31
Well, it’s 8:04. And I think we have gotten to most of the questions. There is one here that I’m not sure we may have to get back to because it’s you know, the top centers for ATI. And with so many new centers that have opened up since 2019. I think by volume, we’d have to kind of look into that to see who they are. I know Duke is one of them. I know they’re very, they’re a high volume center now. But with the opening of the consortium, I know we have a lot more centers throughout the US. So I can take that offline. And definitely I can talk to the folks at inteiro on that as well. Just about the volume at the other centers. But yeah, so I just wanted to say again, thank you so much for your time, I learned a lot. And it was so good to hear just from a medical oncologist. So in addition to Dr. Kemeny and hear how you’re using it, your practice, and I learned a lot of just about the trial and other things. And your take on that. And I really appreciate it. I know you were so generous with your time and answering all of these questions for the patients. And we really all appreciate it. So thank you so much. And I know we’ll be in touch if we have additional questions. So thanks for everybody that attended tonight and thanks for all your participation. We really appreciate it. So have a great evening. Thanks again. And we’ll see you soon.

Dr. Connell 1:03:46
Thank you everybody. Bye

DocTalk
2023
Dr. Cercekny
Dr. D'Angelica
Dr. Lidsky
Dr. Kemeny
HAI
Liver
Stage IV
Trials

In this DocTalk, the four lead investigators of the HAI PUMP Trial (EA2222) —  Dr. Andrea Cercek (MSK), Dr. Michael D’Angelica (MSK), Dr. Michael Lidsky (Duke), and Dr. Shishir Maithel (Emory) — joined us to introduce the soon-to-open trial for the HAI Pump for unresectable CRC liver metasteses, review the trial design, inclusion criteria, and answer questions. Recorded in August, 2023.

More Videos

HAI pump trial
Dr. Cercek
2023
Liver Met Formation and How HAIP Can Help: The UCSF Experience and Research Insight
Dr. Maker
2024
LIVER LOVERS Legend: Dr. Yuman Fong on All Things Liver
Dr. Fong
2024
Y90 for CRC liver mets — What patients need to know
Dr. Dayyani
2024
Liver transplants — Examining the evidence
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2024
Optimal management of colorectal liver mets & HAI discussion
Dr. Padmanabhan
2024
State of the art liver surgery with robotic technology
Dr. Sucandy
2024
HAI for metastatic CRC
Dr. Connell
2024
Categories
DocTalks Hide from search

Interview with an icon: Dr. Kemeny on HAI pumps

Interview with an icon: Dr. Kemeny on HAI pumps

DocTalk
2023
Dr. Kemeny
Liver
Stage IV
HAI

In this DocTalk, Dr. Nancy Kemeny from Memorial Sloan Kettering discusses HAI pumps for treating liver metastases in colorectal cancer. Recorded in September, 2023.

Betsy Post 00:01
Welcome, everyone. Thank you so much for joining us this evening for our latest DocTalk. I’m so pleased tonight to be with us here for our COLONTOWN DocTalk. Dr. Louise Connell from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Dr. Connell, I think is very well known in COLONTOWN. So if you’ve been around for a while, you definitely know her name. If you are familiar with liver Mets, and especially if you’re interested in the hepatic pump, I know that you definitely have seen her name. And our groups such as Liver Lovers Lane and HAI Pump People, I’m sure that we have some of her patients here tonight to support her as well. So we are so thankful for your time, Dr. Connell, especially for doing this after hours so that we could get maximum participation from our patients and our caregivers. So thank you, again, for agreeing to do this, we’re really excited to hear from you on how you treat patients specifically with the pump. I know that you have some things about the future about the pump, which is really exciting. I’m very excited to hear that. And then we did have patients and caregivers submit questions in advance. So we will get to those questions at the end of Dr. Connell’s presentation. So at the end of her talk, she will, we’re going to do some Q&A based on some questions that we received in advance. As she is presenting, we would ask that you please stay muted so that we can make sure we’re being respectful of her presentation her time, but do put your questions in the chat. So please do use the chat feature to submit your questions. And we will get to those live questions at the end of the presentation and the pre-submitted Q&A. So with that again, Dr. Connell, thank you so much for being here. The floor is yours.

Dr. Connell 01:55
Okay, thank you, Betsy. And first of all, I just want to say thank you very much for the invitation to speak here tonight to you all. COLONTOWN is is a resource that I hear so much about from my patients, and a platform that I think provides so many of you with information that you bring to the clinic, to advocate for yourselves and to, you know, advance your care. And I think, you know, it’s been such an important resource that, you know, if there’s any way that I can help provide additional information, particularly about the liver pump. This is an honor to be asked to do this. So tonight, my slides section is small on purpose, because I really wanted to give you all an opportunity to ask questions. And I would encourage you to submit any questions that you have for me. I did just want to provide some background on you know where we are today, today in terms of metastatic colorectal cancer treatments, and in particular, the role for HAI therapy. I think many of you already know much of this information. But in particular, for patients and caregivers who perhaps are new to this or maybe considering a pump, I did want to provide just some background slides on the pump treatment.

Dr. Connell 03:15
I’m going to just advance my slides here. So first of all, I just wanted to put up this disclaimer to acknowledge some of my consulting work. But truly the presentation today is purely for informational and educational purposes. And it’s really based on my clinical experience with patients and my knowledge in terms of pump management.

Dr. Connell 04:16
And at diagnosis, we see approximately 20% up to a third of patients will have liver Mets at diagnosis whereas the majority of patients will go on to develop liver metastatic disease during their follow-up. The question is what are our treatment options nowadays for metastatic colorectal cancer and, I’ll just briefly run through this on this slide on the next slide. But essentially we have or our cornerstone standard of care chemotherapy treatments, and we combine these drugs with biologics. I think increasingly we’re hearing about biomarker-driven approaches and I’ve highlighted here are the four key targets that we look for in patients who are newly diagnosed being microsatellite status. Their RAS status, BRAF status and HER2 status. 

Dr. Connell 05:00
And, of course, you know what I think I’ve always in patients because of the work that I do is the role for local regional approaches and particularly in patients who have liver only disease or liver dominant disease and looking to intermix this and combine it with my chemotherapy drugs and with biomarker-driven approaches to get the best outcomes for patients. So in terms of patients with liver dominant or liver only disease, you know, I consider resection, ablation, of course, hai therapy and also y 90 as well as I should mention radiation treatments to the liver. And also, I think local regional approaches have a role to play in patients who have lung metastases or illegal metastatic disease which is out where you may have an isolated tumor or a small tumor. And you know, maybe you can be more localized with your treatment approach and for the lung that would include ablation resection and also stereotactic radiation. D=So the progress that has been made in the last you know, 50 years is phenomenal. Unfortunately, a long time ago, when patients were diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer, and there were no drug options, the recommendation was for best supportive care and, then over time, really, it was single agent 5FU. And this slide shows where we are today in terms of drug treatments. On the left hand column, you really see our cornerstone drugs, which is the Fluorouracil, Capecetibine have been being the oral version Irinotecan and oxaliplatin, and this is what we all know, as, you know, fall Folfox, Folfirir, the combinations of these drugs, looking at VEGF inhibitors such as Bevacizumab, EGFR inhibitor, centuximab, or, or panitumumab in patients who are RAS Wildtype and then on the right column, we see the newer drugs that are out there, right. 

Dr. Connell 07:01
So with patients who have BRAF mutated colorectal cancer, the combination of NRAS and Centuximab, HER2 is now you know, very to the fore in terms of drug therapy, which a centuximab and trust panitunamab. And then there’s been a lot of focus recently in terms of MSI, high disease and Immunotherapy options. And what I always say to my patients in clinic is that this is very important to determine for patients, but it’s such a small group of patients that we see.

Dr. Connell 07:21
And then the third line drugs you know what I would say briefly about these drugs Regorafenib Taz 102, which I typically combined with Bevacizumab, or for Fruzaqla is that these are drugs that, you know, have limited clinical benefit, and they have a high side effect profile. And I’m very selective in terms of which patients I decide to use these drugs for. More commonly, I would personally use TAZ102 with Bevacizumab and but that differs from patient to patient. And what I’ve highlighted on the far right is what I consider the star of the show which is liver directed treatment. And I think it’s so important to think about it in our patients and the core drug that we have is fluoxetine, and then we use Mitomycin you know, further and, you know, down the line for patients or if they’ve, you know, beginning to develop progression on fluoxetine, and I can talk about that a little bit more in the question and answer section.

Dr. Connell 08:52
So what is a Hepatic artery infusion treatment so traditional chemotherapy is delivered through through a vein. You know, in colorectal cancer, we typically have a meta port in place because of the fight through fluorouracil being given in an infusional form. The drug travels through the body’s bloodstream to reach the liver, and only a small portion of the drug will ultimately reach tumors in the liver. And as many of us who are patients and on treatment know, and it comes with side effects and typically, you know, issues such as diarrhea, mouth sores, you know, low blood counts such as neutropenia has. The benefit of hepatic artery infusion therapy is that it’s delivered through a pump first of all, which is implanted just below the skin in the abdomen. The drug is administered through the hepatic artery, directly to tumors in the liver, and it delivers up to 400 times a higher drug concentration to tumors in the liver. So we’re really getting to directly to the problem. And this is just a graphic showing. You know how that works with the pump.

Dr. Connell 10:13
Basically that the liver is a unique organ in that it has a dual blood supply. And we manipulate this information through the use of hepatic artery and fusion treatment. So there’s essentially two vessels which supply the liver, the hepatic artery and the portal vein. And liver metastases are perfused by the Patek artery, whereas what we call normal parenchyma, or normal liver tissue is perfused, primarily by the portal vein. So with hai therapy, we’re delivering the fluorouracil, which is a prodrug of 5FU or so into the hepatic artery, and we get very high concentration of the drug to the liver. And as I mentioned in the previous slide, it’s almost 400 times higher than those achieved by intravenous administration. And, and the important thing here is that essentially, the drug is entirely soaked up by the liver around 97% of the drug, it has a very short half life. So there’s minimal systemic exposure for patients and toxicity from the drug.

Dr. Connell 11:42
So I have two very brief slides just looking at some of the clinical evidence. And on this slide, we see the clinical evidence for HAI therapy in patients who have unresectable colorectal liver metastases. So the first study highlighted here was published in 2017. And basically, this was a case control study, which looked at the use of HAI with modern systemic chemotherapy combinations compared to systemic chemotherapy alone. And you can see even from the bar charts, there’s a there’s a difference there that’s quite visible between the purple bar, which is essentially the combination treatment and the orange colored, which is systemic treatment alone. And what was seen in this case control study is that median overall survival was doubled in patients, when they received combination treatment at around 32.8 months compared to our modern systemic chemotherapy options, which was 15.3 months. And this was even when conversion to resection was not achieved in patients. And this was statistically significant.

Dr. Connell 12:43
On the on the right side, then we see another paper and this was published in 2018. And this looked at like long term results from a prospective trial, and which again, looked at the response to hai therapy, and with systemic treatment, and basically, the overall tumor response rate to the combination of HAI with systemic chemotherapy was 73%. And there was a very high response rates in patients who were chemo naive. So when it was given in the first line, it was 86%, whereas in patients who were previously treated, it’s still very high, it’s 67%. And what we saw here is that 52% of patients were converted to resection with the combination treatment, despite the fact that the majority of these patients had what we would consider a high disease burden within the liver, and many of them had had previous chemotherapy.

Dr. Connell 15:19
I just briefly put up here, and this is really to January questions, you know, what’s the future for HAI therapy? Or how can we further advance what we know? And I think there’s two very important points to bring up here. And I know, these are questions that come up for me in the clinic is, you know, can we combine hai therapy with other systemic treatment options? One that’s very topical, you know, is kind of get it with Immunotherapy. And another would be, you know, some of these other newer drugs that are out there, you know, in particular for a patient to perhaps is her2 positive, BRAF mutated patients. So, you know, can we give them and right now, the honest answer is we don’t have the safety data to combine these drugs together. But it’s something that we do need to consider going forward in terms of trials. And, and also, I would like to highlight the HAI Consortium, and I think that’s a very important group. And it’s essentially a group of centers within the United States and also outside the United States, where we’ve come together, and we’re trying to generate trials. And there is a trial, which has been activated, which I know has been previously discussed here. And I think this is going to be a group that’s going to help propel forward future trials on hai therapy and and help all of you as well as patients in the future going forward. And it’s a very important collaboration to be able to replicate. I think what we’ve seen achieved at Memorial Sloan Kettering in particular with HAI treatment, and can we, you know, replicate that throughout the United States and more globally for patients.

Dr. Connell 17:01
So, what does it mean for a patient then to live with the palms, so just to get to some practicalities, so it does require a surgery to place the pump. And that’s important to say to patients and the majority of patients it’s placed at the time of an open surgery. In some patients where, for example, the colon primary, or the rectal primary has already been removed, and there is going to be no liver resection. There are some newer techniques such as robotic, placement and minimally invasive which are done by some of our surgeons. In terms of recovery. The honest answer is you can you can travel. And you can also continue to do most of the activities that you’ve enjoyed doing before. And during active treatment, the pump has refills every two weeks, you do not get drug every time it alternates between fluoxetine with heparin saline. And it is important to be mindful of the travel schedule. And I do say that to my own patients, because there is a residual within the pump, but you do not want the pump to run dry. So it’s very important to you know, mention any travel to your your treating physician and to try to accommodate that for patients as well. And otherwise, what I also want to highlight, and I mentioned this a little bit with the consortium, but there’s been a huge increase in terms of the number of centers since 2019, that are able to put in a level upon number one, and also for local refill centers. And this is something that is continuing to gain momentum. I think this is something that I learned, I’ll be honest with you during the COVID pandemic was so important for patients because there was huge difficulty in in people being able to commit to coming here every two weeks to New York at for pump refills and, and there’s a lot more physicians out there, and who who can now help assist with local refills. And that can be huge for patients, even if they’re not able to get the flux your dean locally, for example. But coming to coming to New York once a month is much better than having to commit to traveling every two weeks for example. And, and you know, it is important to also to mention that and we are trying to help train local oncologists also who maybe don’t have experience with the pump, but to be able to help some of some of you and some new patients who really want to commit to this to have refills locally. And then just to briefly mention, you know, some of the safety elements with fluoxetine. So, the anterior pump is indicated for the use of fluoxetine and it is contraindicated to the use of this and patients who have extensive extrahepatic disease or if you have limited liver function. And then always important to mention, you know some of the adverse events that can occur with the pump which are rare but serious and we can discuss them a little bit further in the q&a section.

Dr. Connell 19:59
So with that, I’m going to hand it over to Betsy, and we’ll go through the questions. So I’ll stop sharing here.

Betsy Post 20:08
Great, thank you so much. And then please, as we go along, if you do have questions, actually, I have one, two for the end, please do put those in the chat and we will get to those shortly. So the first question we have Dr. Connell is Why is HAI therapy generally done at the same time as systemic chemotherapy?

Dr. Connell 20:31
Yeah, so, you know, this question comes up a lot. And I think the important thing here is the there is a synergy between fluoxetine through the pump and giving it with systemic treatment in particular arena Tekin, and our EGFR inhibitors, but also importantly, we have to protect against the risk of extra hepatic disease, right. So if I have a patient and they’re on track to try to get to a liver resection, what is absolutely devastating for a patient is to get to a surgery. And the procedure is aborted because extra hepatic diseases detected and or for something to develop on a scan prior to surgery. So it’s really to help protect outside the liver, to allow us to focus on the treatment of the liver metastases with the flexibility and treatment.

Betsy Post 21:23
Thank you. How do you determine which systemic regimen that you’re going to use with the metastatic colorectal cancer liver met patients? And how does having a pump alter that?

Dr. Connell 21:35
Yeah, and so the first thing to say is that, while we typically and in the majority of patients give systemic chemotherapy with the HAI therapy, the dosing is automatically lower than it would be if a patient was receiving systemic chemotherapy alone. Because we have to balance the toxicities from using the two in combination. And so there is a different standard dosing of this systemic FOLFOX, for example, as opposed to somebody who’s on FOLFOX own in terms of what to use for patients. So there’s a few things to look at. I think the first thing is, in a patient who is previously untreated, the standard would be to use Folfox.

Dr. Connell 22:19
With the liver pump, and in somebody who possibly comes and they’ve had both treatments, what I take into consideration is I look and see, you know, what response, did the patient get to each individual systemic treatments previously, right? Did their cancer previously progress on Folfox? Do they maybe have stable disease on full theory, but they didn’t get enough of a response, and also the side effects that patients have had from previous treatment. So if somebody comes into me in clinic, and they have very severe neuropathy from previous oxaliplatin, I’m not going to jump to using that drug. So I think what’s important to consider is how the patient’s cancer has responded to previous drugs before the time interval that they’ve had from a particular regimen to perhaps another recurrence or something else developing and also the side effects for the patients from previous treatment.

Betsy Post 23:13
Thank you. The next question is, are there any situations where the HAI therapy might be done without systemic chemotherapy at the same time,

Dr. Connell 23:27
Um, very, very rarely, I have one patient since I began practicing here that I’ve done it in so I very, very select patients. In general, the preference is to give with systemic chemotherapy. Again, you know, in, in the scenario where I decided not to do it, it was a very detailed discussion with the patient about why we were not doing it and the risks of of not doing it together. But in general, it’s given. It’s given with some form of systemic chemo. And, you know, what I prefer for my patients is at least we give a single agent even if a doublet such as you know, 5FU with oxaliplatin or 5FU with Ironotecan is too much. And but as I said, it’s very rare that I do it. I’ve only done it once since I’ve been practicing here and had very real reasons for not doing systemic side effects may be possible in the liver area during HAI therapy.

Dr. Connell 24:28
Yeah, so the side effect profile is very different to systemic chemo. The two main things that I say to patients is we learned early on and many of the studies that were done with the liver pump the the risk of ulceration in the gut in the GI tract, so all patients are put on a medication to help prevent reflux. So pantoprazole protonix, and in patients who say to me that they’re having increasing reflux symptoms, for example, or they’re having some pain or discomfort, you know, just under the chest, and I’d have a very low threat To get an endoscopy to look for an ulcer, so that’s the first thing. But it’s much less common nowadays because we’re routinely giving protonix with it. I think what the big thing is, you’ve got to watch the delivery of blood work very closely. And in the majority of patients, you don’t come to clinic with any symptoms, right? You feel fine, you feel well, in general, patients feel better than they felt on previous systemic chemotherapy because okay, I’m still giving it but I’m giving a little bit less than you would have had previously. And what I always say to people, actually, when they come to me is it can be a little bit frustrating, right? If you fly to me from San Francisco, or you come from Canada, and you feel great, and then I see the liver enzymes, and I say, sorry, I can’t give the drug today or you know, we’ve had to give a few weeks holding off on the drugs. So the honest answer is we’ve learned from experience that we do have to be very mindful of the liver bloodwork, and then the majority of patients picked up on the bloodwork and the patient doesn’t have any symptoms themselves. However, in some patients, if you begin to develop any symptoms, such as jaundice, you know, anything like that, then a very low threshold to get your liver enzymes checked. And even if you’re local, to check them to see because that’s the biggest thing that we have to watch for is liver toxicity.

Betsy Post 26:16
How long does active treatment last? And what is the average number of treatments? And does this change? Does this change if the HAI therapy is being done before or after liver resection?

Dr. Connell 26:30
Yeah, yes. So the answer to the final question is yes. So if somebody has had a liver resection, and we’re using this as an adjuvant treatment, it’s six months of treatment. And then we stop. And in the majority of patients, we’ll get four doses in of the fluoxetine of the liver drug in the six month period, when we look at, you know, liver enzyme alterations, but we stop automatically at six months, and however many doses the patient has managed to successfully get that’s it. And in a in a person who is not resected, or I’m trying to convert to resections, when unresectable disease or in the conversion setting, there really isn’t a limit in terms of the number of doses that a patient can get. And the it really depends on how their liver is tolerating the drug, you know, what kind of response that we’re getting, you will have to make a change to the to the drug dosing. And what I’ve seen in practice is that typically, that happens around two to three months into treatment. It’s not uncommon, that it could happen even after the first dose, but there will be some dose modification. And patients can still respond on low doses. And that’s also important to say, because again, I also acknowledge that, you know, really, you’re committing to come in here for these treatments or to hai center. And it’s very disappointing, if you hear you’re getting a quite a significant dose reduction. And but you still respond to this. And it’s different to what we know about the dose reductions that are done with systemic chemo.

Betsy Post 28:04
Thank you. Is it possible to do treatment again, with the pump later on, if needed? 

Dr. Connell 28:14
Yes, exactly. Yes, you can. And this is why, you know, our, our preference is for patients to keep the pump, right, because particularly, what I would say to patients is, if you are using it as adjuvant therapy after liver resection, or you’ve been converted to resection from the pump, at the time of surgery, the recommendation, so your NED at that point, right is at least two years. Ideally, we prefer patients to keep the pump in longer. But the highest risk period for recurrence is the first two years and the rationale behind that is because the pump is not something that can be put back in right a little bit like a metal porch, right? So we want to keep that option open. Particularly if, if it’s helped you get to your surgery, number one, and you know, so that we can use it again. So absolutely, yes, you can use the drug again.

Betsy Post 29:11
Thank you already answered the next one, which was does the pump stay in when active treatment is done? And for how long?

Dr. Connell 29:18
Yes. Yeah. Yeah. And so yeah, and this question comes up and the honest answer is as well what I would say is i i Never tell someone to take a pump out I wait for them to tell me that they’re ready for it to come out because I think it’s a very personal decision. I think it’s something that for many patients has been you know, revolutionary, I guess and and I think, you know, we can educate and guys and that but it has to feel right to you as a patient to know when is the right time to remove it. If somebody really wants it out within six months. I’m like, please keep it for two years but beyond that, I really leave it up to the patient’s decide

Betsy Post 29:59
Are there other drugs ever used in the pump like oxaliplatin?

Dr. Connell 30:05
Yeah, so, oxaliplatin has a very low extraction rate into the liver. It is used in Europe because they have a slightly different device there. We don’t routinely use it here. But we do use Mitomycin and that’s something I referred to briefly during my talk. And I have seen patients who perhaps are beginning to develop some resistance to Flox your deen or maybe are beginning to run into more issues with their liver enzymes. And I’ve used Mitomycin in those patients and seen you know, some very good responses with the middle myosin what I would just say about that is you can give it in combination with fluoxetine. So you can give both drugs at the same time if your liver enzymes are good. So if the liver bloodwork is good, if the liver enzymes are high, tickling the outsource or perhaps the bilirubin, and that it’s safer to give Mitomycin on its own, but that’s typically our second drug that we use. We don’t give oxaliplatin.

Betsy Post 31:09
What are the causes for the mitomycin following HAI therapy with the traditional treatment?

Dr. Connell 31:19
Why would we give it right?

Betsy Post 31:21
I think you already spoke to that. 

Dr. Connell 31:24
So yeah, yeah. So I think if you’re getting a slowing down in response, possibly to flux, your routine, maybe you are getting some response, but you’re beginning to run into some of these liver toxicity issues. And so they would really be the main reasons that we do it. And really, I would use it in a situation where it’s liver only progression, of course, like I wouldn’t use it if there was signs of anything happening

Betsy Post 31:47
Um, and then since I’m not an oncologist, I might mess up these names. But what are the views on the use of Bev, which I know is Avastin. So we’ll take that one first. The new third line or a drug that was just FDA approved for colorectal cancer, liver Mets, or the EGFR inhibitors. So what are the views on those three and maybe address them separately? Because I know it could be different after the HAI therapy when the pump is running glycerin.

Dr. Connell 32:18
Okay, so I’ll start with EGFR inhibitors first, because that’s probably the easiest ones you can give EGFR inhibitor is at the same time that you give fluorouracil safe to do works very well with the liver pump.

Dr. Connell 32:32
And you can also give it after liver treatments. So there’s no limitation at all with EGFR inhibitors and actually works very well with with FUDR, or Avastin is something that we’d urge early on, that should not be used the same time that we’re giving fluoxetine. So it’s it’s a combination, so it should not they should not be used together. And but a patient can have Avastin or Bevacizumab later on, if you’re simply just getting glycerol through your pump. And so, if for example, I have somebody who the liver is still no evidence of disease, there’s, you know, issues arising outside the liver in the lung, perhaps or lymphnodes. Have I given Avastin? Absolutely I have, I generally prefer to try to delay the use of Avastin further out from using the liver drug because I have seen in some patients some delayed issues with billary complications if I’ve tried to use the Bevacizumab a little bit too quickly after stopping the liver pump treatment. And but yes, you can use them separately but not together and then forget never the honest answer is we don’t know yet. Because it’s such a new drug definitely would not use them together. And I think you know, you would think along the same lines as you know, what we do with Stivarga, etc. You know, they can be given but not together. And the honest answer is and I kind of led to this during my sliders, I really reserved the use of any of these drugs too much, much later on for patients. I think if you can do something like long ablations or radiate, I think you’re helping the patient more than jumping to any of these newer, third fourth line drugs that are approved.

Betsy Post 34:17
Thank you. And these are questions that we see in Colin town all the time, and these were the most frequent questions that I received for you. So these have to do with Y90 So if a patient has had Y90 How does this affect their ability to receive HAI therapy after?

Dr. Connell 34:38
Yeah, okay. So this comes up quite a lot. The honest answer is if I see a patient before a Y90 Maybe they come with a second opinion we usually prefer to give the pump before Y90 that’s the honest answer. So usually what I say to patients is, you know, pump first and any of these proceed procedures like Y90 or radiation I would reserve for later on. And have I had patients who’ve had y90 And I’ve given pump treatment to absolutely, I think we have to look at those cases individually. And it’s something that we would show at our tumor board. And we would really look at the extent of the Y90, for example, how the blood vessels in the liver look after the Y90.

Dr. Connell 35:24
Often you need to dose reduce the flux your routine a little bit faster in those patients so I can get the drug in for the patient, but I can’t get as much drug in. And but I’ve had people respond after y 90 I think our preference is to do pump first.

Betsy Post 35:45
If a patient has HAI therapy, and then does Y90? Would the patient be able to use the HAI pump again, if it is still functional?

Dr. Connell 35:56
Yeah, and so this is an interesting one. I haven’t personally ever done that myself. I think from a technical point of view, it would come back to what I said previously, is that you’d have to really look structurally at the liver and see, you know, there’s there’s newer Y-90 techniques out there. And I know whether our interventional radiologists here they do more selective Y90 So if perhaps, you know, there was a regional Y90 And then you’re trying to treat the rest of the liver. Technically, you could. I think just with with my own practice, and the way that I view it, because I keep Y90 for Later on, it just hasn’t worked out that way with the patients that I’ve seen. But again, I think this is something that you would have to have the right imaging, it would have to be viewed as a multidisciplinary team, whether that’s the right thing for the patient, you know, including an interventional radiologist, including a radiation oncologist right, is radiation safer than Y90 A surgeon and a medical oncologist to decide what’s the right thing for that particular person.

Betsy Post 36:56
Some additional questions have to do with transplants. This is something that we’re hearing more and more about, especially for unresectable disease, obviously, and we have patients a lot of times that are making a decision, sometimes between the pump or transplant, but something that we’re hearing now is the question first, could the pump be used as a bridge to liver transplant?

Dr. Connell 37:18
Yeah, so this is very typical? I think without intentionally setting out that way. And I’ve had some patients who’ve done very well with transplantation after pump treatment, I think the tricky thing about the transplant process is that it’s a long process for patients. Right. So my own experience with my patients has been is that sometimes they’re waiting like 12 to 18 months. And I’m trying to control everything with the pump at the same time. So I have used it but not intentionally. I’m on discussions with transplant centers. And speaking with surgeons here, this is something that I think we’re going to need to study. And we’re going to need to collaborate on to see if we can help more patients by combining the two techniques.

Betsy Post 38:37
Another question, how do you consider the option for liver transplant as part of your overall treatment plan or approach for patients?

Dr. Connell 38:47
Yeah, so. So when I see patients, you know, this can often come up. And I think with transplant, what I say to people is we got a real sense of how the pump is helping a patient in unresectable disease, like, you know, about six months in, you know, look, and you’re talking back and forth with the surgeons, you know, do we think that we’re going to be able to convert to resection here? Do we have any of these options like why nine tear or radiation? And I think it’s always appropriate to get an opinion from a transplant center, and particularly if it’s something that the patient themselves is questioning, right, because you want to hear directly. And there’s a little bit of bias right between different different specialties and obviously I’m very Hai and but I’ve certainly collaborated with transplant centers, and then you know, when somebody is listed for transplant in practice, what I do is I follow what they want me to do, so I don’t change any treatment, you know, they tell me what they want to do. The important things about transplant is a few things. So you cannot have any extra hepatic disease obviously so there can be no evidence of extra hepatic disease. And the second thing is that the primary tumor has to be removed.

Dr. Connell 40:03
So, you know, they would be the two things. But if you have liver only disease and and resection is not feasible, and you’ve heard that from the liver surgeon and you’ve heard that from your medical oncologist then then I do think transplant is something that needs to be considered. And they removed the pump at the time of transplant as well. 

Betsy Post 40:26
So is there data available to show how successful ATI therapy is? And I know that we did talk? You talked about that earlier, but I didn’t know if you wanted to elaborate on that a little bit more.

Dr. Connell 40:39
Yeah, so we do have data. And I’ve shown some of the data here, I think what’s important is that we need more randomized to data. And I think, you know, that’s what the consortium is going to help with and why we’re trying to collaborate with other institutions. And I think trying to address this question of, is the pump so successful? Because it’s given here in New York or you know, Kansas, can I get the same level of care? Or in Chicago, or, you know, Atlanta? And I think the honest answer is there’s so much more knowledge out there about the pump. And we do need to do more trials. And also, I also mentioned this as well, there’s so many newer drugs out there, right. And patients want to know can kind of get them together, is it safe to get them together? And this has to be done in a trial setting.

Betsy Post 41:27
So another question we get quite a bit. So now that Dr. Kemeny has retired, how was care being distributed for patients that are being seen at Memorial Sloan Kettering?

Dr. Connell 41:39
Yeah. And so what I would say about that is, honestly, all of us can can can do pump treatment, I think a huge part of Dr. Kennedy’s legacy. What’s visible to patients and caregivers is is what she did for you, right? Understandably, a huge part of her legacy for us at Memorial is the teaching and training that she gave to us. And, you know, she was a phenomenal mentor to me. And to many of my colleagues.

Dr. Connell 42:10
All of our practices differ a little bit. So some of us do more pump than others. But honestly, all of us can do pump in terms of her practice. And it’s been divided between Athol I think for for active patients, understandably, because I was mentored under her I have many of her patients. I think, what’s also important to say, though, is that, for any of you who have, you know, some complex decision making, there’s something to be to be, you know, figured out, you know, is it now the right time to think about y 90, you know, have I achieved what I can with the pump, that’s never a decision that’s made in isolation by an individual, whether that’s a medical oncologist, it’s our tumor board is a huge resource for people and, and that’s often what I what I see myself as like, You’re not coming here to memorial for me, you’re coming for the expertise from the whole group. And never think that a decision a very important decision like that, look, will I say to this patient that you should go and get a transplant opinion, you’re not going to hear that just for me, I’m going to speak with my surgeons I’m going to speak with with them, and we’re going to show your case at the tumor board. And I think that’s very important to know, is that there’s huge collaboration amongst us as medical oncologists, and also multidisciplinary team involvement in any major decisions for patients.

Betsy Post 43:31
I know that you spoke about the Consortium, and that all the pomp programs, especially since my team that have opened up, but How can patients across the country get good access to HAI therapy?

Dr. Connell 43:44
Yeah, so I think there are more centers, who are implanting the pumps, number one, and also so many more centers where, you know, they’re able to assist with with local fields, I think the consortium is really helping with that. I would also say that there’s a huge collaboration between us, you know, I definitely speak with medical oncologists at other institutions. You know, I relied on mentoring, when I started off with this, and I try to share what I’ve learned in the nuances, you know, with oncologist with other centers, I think, when you start off, you know, what I always say to people is, you have to be comfortable with the person that’s treating you, right. And whether that’s having a pump or not having a pump, I think, number one, you have to be comfortable. So, you know, and you also have to think from a practical point of view, you know, look, if financially and with my family or my work commitments, is it feasible for me to fly up and down to New York every two weeks? And for many patients, it is for others. It’s not. Do I have a local doctor who can do this? Did I did We did our personality match? You know, and but I think there is so much more knowledge out there nowadays and there’s also huge camaraderie between us and sharing of knowledge. And, I think the consortium and the trials and everything that’s going to come out of that is going to further reinforce that for patients.

Betsy Post 45:11
One more question, and then we’re going to take the live questions, we have quite a few. How does the start of that new pump trial impact the ability of new patients to receive HAI therapy?

Dr. Connell 45:23
Yeah, so it’s a very relevant question. And you know, what I would say about the pump trial, it’s a very, very select group of patients, right? It’s a very important study, right to help answer this question, in a randomized setting of, you know, conversion to resection for patients with HAI versus modern systemic chemotherapy. So it’s for patients who’ve had more than three months, but less than six months of systemic chemotherapy in the first line. So it’s a very small group of patients. And the honest answer is the reason that we’re doing that is because we don’t know the question, right, we are the answer, we wouldn’t be doing it if we already knew that one was better than the other. And that’s important to say about any trial. If you’re a patient who is untreated, you had no chemotherapy, you can have a pump off trial, if you’ve had more chemotherapy, like you’ve had a year of chemotherapy, you don’t, you don’t qualify for the trial. So it’s a very, very select group of patients. And that will be explained to you as well, in the in the in the clinic setting.

Betsy Post 46:30
So moving on to some of our live questions, we have one, is there a certain temperature that you have to keep your body under while you have a pump?

Dr. Connell 46:42
Yeah, so this question comes up quite a bit, you know, I think you have to be sensible, right? So he will speed up the rate of infusion of the drug. Hot tubs are a no, no, you can get in a swimming pool. And so body temperature can affect us, I don’t give anyone like a specific number. But I just say like, you have to be mindful of it. And I have a patient who said they have a hot tub with that, put it on regular temperature. So you know, swimming, and all of that is fine. But sitting in heat, you don’t want to put heat pads directly on the pump. If you have pain in your back for another reason, you can put heat out there, but you just want to do want to put it directly over the pump.

Betsy Post 47:25
Is it true that you can’t lift more than 10 pounds when the pump isn’t?

Dr. Connell 47:31
Yeah, so again, this comes up quite a bit. So usually I say around 15 pounds to patients. In the beginning, I think you have to be very mindful of that similar with any surgery to be honest with you. Over time, honestly, what happens is you have a very good sense of your pomp and also scar tissue forms. And so I tell patients that, you know, using a binder, you know, be sensible. But a lot of people say, Well, you know, my toddler is 30 pounds, you know, and I’m never gonna say to somebody, you can’t lift your child up, you know. So I think within reason, and I think if you’re, you know, the further out, you get the sense you have your palm, the binder, scar tissue, and, and, you know, for lifting children in the beginning, I usually say to people, you know, sit down and lift them up onto your knee, you know, things like that. So I try to be creative with how you do things. But I do think we have to be practical in that regard. And the concern about the weight lifting is the connection between the catheter and the pump, and also the risk of, you know, the pump flipping, and the more secure it is over time that the lower the risk of that

Betsy Post 48:39
Um, there’s a question about the drug and mutations. And I know specifically, we do have some BRAF patients here. So question, there’s a question about, is the HAI therapy equally effective for all mutations?

Dr. Connell 48:56
Yeah, so it’s a very good question. I think what I would say to you is, is that we do use the pump and in all patients, I certainly have myself patients who have BRAF mutations, and I’ve used the pump, and I’ve seen some very good results with it. So I wouldn’t discriminate based on that. And but I think it’s something that we’re going to need to study a little bit further to see how we best serve people going forward. But I definitely have patients who’ve done well. And you know, maybe later on I’ve used the combination I mentioned earlier, such as graphics to toxic map, and but if they have liver only disease, we still put pumps and we still get flux your routine and I’ve definitely seen good responses. I have a patient who was probably an outlier but from from early 2019, and still NED

Dr. Connell 49:47
and had, you know, resection, had liver pump to get your resection and as BRAF mutated, you know,

Betsy Post 49:55
right. I think you answered this, but I’ll ask it for those pursuing liver resection, is there a recommended number of fudr treatments from the pump before considering surgery?

Dr. Connell 50:10
And so the honest answer is there isn’t a set number per se, if somebody has unresectable disease. So what we do is we scan every two months because we want to keep a close eye on the response that we’re getting and how the liver is tolerating it, right? So you’re scanned every

Dr. Connell 50:29
which is a little bit different to the adjuvant in the adjuvant setting, you’re scanned every three. But what I usually say to people is that honestly, at two months, it’s it’s not very common that patients are ready for surgery, it’s typically around the four to six month mark, but there isn’t a set number is really depends on the location of tumors, the technicality if somebody has liver, you know, bi lobe disease, so both the right and the left side involves the surgeon will say to me, Look, we need to do these portal vein embolization, you know, certain procedures to help get to a second stage liver surgery. So the some of those factors to come in. But there’s no hard and fast rule with the number of doses that a patient has to have

Betsy Post 51:13
HAI pump decisions require very close coordination between the medical oncologists and surgical oncologist Are there any best practices from that cross specialty communication that you would highlight is beneficial to apply? Even beyond the HEI application?

Dr. Connell 51:31
Yeah, so, you know, what we’ve learned to serve patients best is that multidisciplinary involvement is so so important. Right? And, and I kind of, you know, said that earlier on, like, any major decision point you need to think about, you know, how am I helping the patient right now? And also, how is this going to affect what I want to do in the future for the patient? Right. So in my own practice, here, I do my clinics alongside the surgeons at for that reason. And you know, when I asked some of these questions, we also have very heavy input from our interventional radiologists. And I think that’s very important is to try to get the different options there. And sometimes there is there’s two options, right maybe let’s say for the liver, it could be resection or it could be ablation, and then we can see both and help make the decisions by getting the input from from both specialties for example.

Betsy Post 52:32
Are there restrictions on jogging and working out?

Dr. Connell 52:37
Okay, so what I would say about that is if you put 20 of us in a room, a mix of surgeons and medical oncologists, everybody would say something different and it’s very controversial. And I allow my patients to light jog and the the concern again is really the connection of the catheter to the pump. And again, what I say to people is exactly what I said weightlifting you know, if someone comes in to me and you know jogging is your is your your cam time, you know, your therapy so to speak. You know, it’s very hard to say to somebody, you know, don’t jog and but I say you know, try to be sensible about it, have a binder on Wait a while and I do allow patients to do like jogging. The surgeons do lap people jog and there’s other medical oncologists who say no, and we love stationary bike. We love the peloton. That’s, that’s probably the safest thing that you can do and the best thing and a good form of workout. But yes, I do say to patients, they can jog.

Betsy Post 53:41
So if there is a patient that has, for example, ovarian or peritoneal disease, but the patient was potentially able to have all of that removed. Could they still get pumped?

Dr. Connell 53:56
Um, so for over a yes. So if you have liver and ovary because we know that colorectal metastases to the ovary, are quite resistant to chemotherapy, so in general, the bias is to lean towards surgery in that situation anyway. So you would often do if you can do a liver and you would also remove the ovaries at the same time. So yes, with peritoneal disease, there’s a little bit of pause. I’ll be honest with you. The tricky thing about peritoneal disease is that you often can’t fully appreciate peritoneal disease on scans. And and it’s only at the time of surgery that you really have an understanding. And I’ve had some patients where perhaps there’s been like limited peritoneal disease, you know, a year ago it was removed and maybe they come looking for a pump. And and usually if there’s, you know, a period of time, typically a year, year and a half, not thing happening in the parish name again, then, you know in select cases we’ve put pumps in. And but I wouldn’t say to you upfront that I’ve put a pump in for a patient when they have active peritoneal disease at the same time.

Betsy Post 55:14
For every two to three months scans, do you do CT MRI, and I’m gonna throw in there you PET scan stew? Might as well add it in.

Dr. Connell 55:24
Yeah, and, okay. Um, so in that regard, what I would say to you is I started off using CT and patients. So I do routinely, CT chest, abdomen and pelvis. Over time. From looking at the CT scan, you understand with the individual patient, whether you’re seeing things clearly in the liver or not, if not, particularly in patients who maybe have, you know, a lot of chemotherapy prior to the pump being placed, because the chemotherapy changes the texture of the liver, what we call like fatty liver change, or sclerosis. So in those patients in MRI may give additional information. So the honest answer is, my starting off rule is CT only, I’ll involve an M or liver if I feel like I’m not seeing things clearly with a CT. And I really don’t routinely use a PET scan, unless I get to a point in a patient where a specific question has come up on a on a CT, for example, I do a patch, and I see that the patch is giving more information than the CT has. Similarly, if I do a patch on a patient, and I see that I’m not getting anything different from it, then I don’t routinely follow with Pat. And I think that would be the standard approach. For most patients. The tricky thing with PET scans is there can often be you know, false positive things on a PET scans and something lights up. And it’s it’s not anything related to the cancer and then it causes, you know, a lot of concern, understandably. Yeah, so that’s how I would view it. But I do have some patients where I know that only MRI shows that are only pet shows that and then once I learned that with the patient, then I continue to use that imaging modality. But I still always do my CT as well.

Betsy Post 57:12
We have one more question about I think exercise I see here. What about horseback riding? I’m a serious equestrian.

Dr. Connell 57:21
Yeah, so this came up for me recently. The issue with with horse riding is the bouncing activity. Right and the concern for the catheter? Again, I don’t think it’s a complete contraindication I think, and I know I’m repeating myself a lot but wearing the binder, a similar lead to what I’m seeing with light jogging. I mean, you can I don’t even know the word for isn’t trotting. for horse riding, you know, you have to be mindful of that. And but I wouldn’t, you know, I wouldn’t say you can’t do it again, if that’s something that a patient is passionate about, and it’s their form of relief, or escape from what’s going on, then I think that’s important to consider. So have a binder be mindful. That’s what I would say.

Betsy Post 58:07
We just have two or three more. So how would you know if there’s a problem with the connection from the pump? Perhaps from over lifting, etc?

Dr. Connell 58:19
Yeah, the honest answer with that is that most patients don’t know. And it’s picked up on scans. That’s the most common scenario. And that’s really where we see it. If somebody has, you knows, for example, they’ve had a trauma, you know, so So I had a patient a few years ago, and they were in there on a regular bicycle, and they flipped over the handlebars, and they were like, This doesn’t feel right, you know, so I scanned and you know, there you knew there was some incident proceeding, and you would check for it or they had pain afterwards. But the honest answer is in the majority of patients picked up on scans and you don’t feel any difference.

Betsy Post 59:03
Let’s see, I know I’m gonna mess this this word up.

Dr. Connell 59:08
So what are the thoughts around using the capecitabine with the pump while receiving radiation to treat the primary replacing traditional systemic treatment? Okay, yeah, so this comes up quite a bit. So when patients have a rectal tumor and you know, you can treat them with chemo radiation. So we do, you know, and you know, that’s in terms of a rectal tumor, the surgery is much more life altering. So if you can effectively get a complete clinical response or fully treat the rectal tumor than chemo radiation is recommended. What do I do in my patients? So the issue with Capacetibine Xeloda is that it causes more increase in liver enzymes, and it can affect the dosing of the fudr. So what I do for patients is if

Dr. Connell 1:00:00

We have a rectal primary and we’re doing chemo radiation. And we’ve just put a pump in for liver disease, you can give the fudr you can give the liver treatment during the chemo radiation. But instead of using the Xeloda and or capecitabine of being I use fluorouracil which is sort of the old way that they that they used to do chemo radiation. And because again, I want to try to maintain the higher doses in the pump and keeps it being tends to interfere with that more. So.

Betsy Post 1:00:36
I think I got to almost every question, one of my questions that I have, if I can just sneak one in I know it’s 802. But with all the centers opening up, I feel like we’re seeing some oncologists are using the Urso dial and some are not. And I don’t know if you feel comfortable speaking to that, and how you use it in your practice and how the decisions made to use that or not?

Dr. Connell 1:00:59
Yeah, it’s a very good question. I mean, I think what I would say to you as well is there’s even differences in the practice here at Memorial as well. I, I use it quite early on in patients, because I think, you know, the two ways we manage the liver inflammation are the steroids through the pump at the time of the flush as well as versatile. And, and in the long term for patients being on steroids continuously. You know, there’s this kind of late side effects with that there’s the weight gain that comes from steroids, there’s a few patients where versatile can be a little bit tricky. So sometimes patients can notice the very loose stool. So if I have a patient who’s struggling with, you know, diarrhea issues or anything like that, from arena Tekin, or even five floor yourself, I kind of hold off on the earth a dial, but I tell them why I’m not doing it, you know, but I do tend to use it early on. And I also tend to keep it on board longer, even after I’ve weaned down the steroids in the pump, and I have someone off treatment, because I think it helps with the liver inflammation, I typically start off on twice a day in some patients, you may have to go up to three times a day. But again, if you even select 10 oncologists here at Memorial, everyone would do something a little bit different. But I give the options to patients. And I also explain, as I said, when I don’t use it and what my concerns are for that particular person.

Betsy Post 1:02:31
Well, it’s 8:04. And I think we have gotten to most of the questions. There is one here that I’m not sure we may have to get back to because it’s you know, the top centers for ATI. And with so many new centers that have opened up since 2019. I think by volume, we’d have to kind of look into that to see who they are. I know Duke is one of them. I know they’re very, they’re a high volume center now. But with the opening of the consortium, I know we have a lot more centers throughout the US. So I can take that offline. And definitely I can talk to the folks at inteiro on that as well. Just about the volume at the other centers. But yeah, so I just wanted to say again, thank you so much for your time, I learned a lot. And it was so good to hear just from a medical oncologist. So in addition to Dr. Kemeny and hear how you’re using it, your practice, and I learned a lot of just about the trial and other things. And your take on that. And I really appreciate it. I know you were so generous with your time and answering all of these questions for the patients. And we really all appreciate it. So thank you so much. And I know we’ll be in touch if we have additional questions. So thanks for everybody that attended tonight and thanks for all your participation. We really appreciate it. So have a great evening. Thanks again. And we’ll see you soon.

Dr. Connell 1:03:46
Thank you everybody. Bye

DocTalk
2023
Dr. Kemeny
Liver
Stage IV
HAI

In this DocTalk, Dr. Nancy Kemeny from Memorial Sloan Kettering discusses HAI pumps for treating liver metastases in colorectal cancer. Recorded in September, 2023.

More Videos

Liver transplants — Examining the evidence
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2024
ERASur trial: Local treatment options for limited stage IV CRC
Dr. Hitchcock
2023
Advanced surgical treatments for CRC liver mets
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2021
Transplant patients are in the house!
2021
Hepatic Artery Infusion (HAI) chemotherapy for CRC liver mets
Hepatic Artery Infusion (HAI) chemotherapy for CRC liver mets
Dr. Gholami
2021
Modern-day management of liver metastases
Dr. Soares
2022
Why liver transplant for mCRC is taking off
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2022
Paths to long-term survival with CRC liver mets
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2023
Categories
DocTalks Hide from search

Histotripsy for mCRC liver mets

Histotripsy for mCRC liver mets

DocTalk
2023
Dr. Hernandez
Liver
Stage IV
Histotripsy

On December 20, 2023, Dr. Hernandez discussed the newly FDA-approved treatment of Histotripsy in the treatment of mCRC liver metasteses within a week of performing the first time use of this novel therapy after FDA-Approval in the US. He describes the history of the therapy, what it entails, why and for what conditions it is applicable and future research ideas.

Warning: Graphic surgical images at 13:00 minute mark.

 

Betsy Post 00:01
Welcome, everyone. Thank you so much for joining us this evening for our latest DocTalk. I’m so pleased tonight to be with us here for our COLONTOWN DocTalk. Dr. Louise Connell from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Dr. Connell, I think is very well known in COLONTOWN. So if you’ve been around for a while, you definitely know her name. If you are familiar with liver Mets, and especially if you’re interested in the hepatic pump, I know that you definitely have seen her name. And our groups such as Liver Lovers Lane and HAI Pump People, I’m sure that we have some of her patients here tonight to support her as well. So we are so thankful for your time, Dr. Connell, especially for doing this after hours so that we could get maximum participation from our patients and our caregivers. So thank you, again, for agreeing to do this, we’re really excited to hear from you on how you treat patients specifically with the pump. I know that you have some things about the future about the pump, which is really exciting. I’m very excited to hear that. And then we did have patients and caregivers submit questions in advance. So we will get to those questions at the end of Dr. Connell’s presentation. So at the end of her talk, she will, we’re going to do some Q&A based on some questions that we received in advance. As she is presenting, we would ask that you please stay muted so that we can make sure we’re being respectful of her presentation her time, but do put your questions in the chat. So please do use the chat feature to submit your questions. And we will get to those live questions at the end of the presentation and the pre-submitted Q&A. So with that again, Dr. Connell, thank you so much for being here. The floor is yours.

Dr. Connell 01:55
Okay, thank you, Betsy. And first of all, I just want to say thank you very much for the invitation to speak here tonight to you all. COLONTOWN is is a resource that I hear so much about from my patients, and a platform that I think provides so many of you with information that you bring to the clinic, to advocate for yourselves and to, you know, advance your care. And I think, you know, it’s been such an important resource that, you know, if there’s any way that I can help provide additional information, particularly about the liver pump. This is an honor to be asked to do this. So tonight, my slides section is small on purpose, because I really wanted to give you all an opportunity to ask questions. And I would encourage you to submit any questions that you have for me. I did just want to provide some background on you know where we are today, today in terms of metastatic colorectal cancer treatments, and in particular, the role for HAI therapy. I think many of you already know much of this information. But in particular, for patients and caregivers who perhaps are new to this or maybe considering a pump, I did want to provide just some background slides on the pump treatment.

Dr. Connell 03:15
I’m going to just advance my slides here. So first of all, I just wanted to put up this disclaimer to acknowledge some of my consulting work. But truly the presentation today is purely for informational and educational purposes. And it’s really based on my clinical experience with patients and my knowledge in terms of pump management.

Dr. Connell 04:16
And at diagnosis, we see approximately 20% up to a third of patients will have liver Mets at diagnosis whereas the majority of patients will go on to develop liver metastatic disease during their follow-up. The question is what are our treatment options nowadays for metastatic colorectal cancer and, I’ll just briefly run through this on this slide on the next slide. But essentially we have or our cornerstone standard of care chemotherapy treatments, and we combine these drugs with biologics. I think increasingly we’re hearing about biomarker-driven approaches and I’ve highlighted here are the four key targets that we look for in patients who are newly diagnosed being microsatellite status. Their RAS status, BRAF status and HER2 status. 

Dr. Connell 05:00
And, of course, you know what I think I’ve always in patients because of the work that I do is the role for local regional approaches and particularly in patients who have liver only disease or liver dominant disease and looking to intermix this and combine it with my chemotherapy drugs and with biomarker-driven approaches to get the best outcomes for patients. So in terms of patients with liver dominant or liver only disease, you know, I consider resection, ablation, of course, hai therapy and also y 90 as well as I should mention radiation treatments to the liver. And also, I think local regional approaches have a role to play in patients who have lung metastases or illegal metastatic disease which is out where you may have an isolated tumor or a small tumor. And you know, maybe you can be more localized with your treatment approach and for the lung that would include ablation resection and also stereotactic radiation. D=So the progress that has been made in the last you know, 50 years is phenomenal. Unfortunately, a long time ago, when patients were diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer, and there were no drug options, the recommendation was for best supportive care and, then over time, really, it was single agent 5FU. And this slide shows where we are today in terms of drug treatments. On the left hand column, you really see our cornerstone drugs, which is the Fluorouracil, Capecetibine have been being the oral version Irinotecan and oxaliplatin, and this is what we all know, as, you know, fall Folfox, Folfirir, the combinations of these drugs, looking at VEGF inhibitors such as Bevacizumab, EGFR inhibitor, centuximab, or, or panitumumab in patients who are RAS Wildtype and then on the right column, we see the newer drugs that are out there, right. 

Dr. Connell 07:01
So with patients who have BRAF mutated colorectal cancer, the combination of NRAS and Centuximab, HER2 is now you know, very to the fore in terms of drug therapy, which a centuximab and trust panitunamab. And then there’s been a lot of focus recently in terms of MSI, high disease and Immunotherapy options. And what I always say to my patients in clinic is that this is very important to determine for patients, but it’s such a small group of patients that we see.

Dr. Connell 07:21
And then the third line drugs you know what I would say briefly about these drugs Regorafenib Taz 102, which I typically combined with Bevacizumab, or for Fruzaqla is that these are drugs that, you know, have limited clinical benefit, and they have a high side effect profile. And I’m very selective in terms of which patients I decide to use these drugs for. More commonly, I would personally use TAZ102 with Bevacizumab and but that differs from patient to patient. And what I’ve highlighted on the far right is what I consider the star of the show which is liver directed treatment. And I think it’s so important to think about it in our patients and the core drug that we have is fluoxetine, and then we use Mitomycin you know, further and, you know, down the line for patients or if they’ve, you know, beginning to develop progression on fluoxetine, and I can talk about that a little bit more in the question and answer section.

Dr. Connell 08:52
So what is a Hepatic artery infusion treatment so traditional chemotherapy is delivered through through a vein. You know, in colorectal cancer, we typically have a meta port in place because of the fight through fluorouracil being given in an infusional form. The drug travels through the body’s bloodstream to reach the liver, and only a small portion of the drug will ultimately reach tumors in the liver. And as many of us who are patients and on treatment know, and it comes with side effects and typically, you know, issues such as diarrhea, mouth sores, you know, low blood counts such as neutropenia has. The benefit of hepatic artery infusion therapy is that it’s delivered through a pump first of all, which is implanted just below the skin in the abdomen. The drug is administered through the hepatic artery, directly to tumors in the liver, and it delivers up to 400 times a higher drug concentration to tumors in the liver. So we’re really getting to directly to the problem. And this is just a graphic showing. You know how that works with the pump.

Dr. Connell 10:13
Basically that the liver is a unique organ in that it has a dual blood supply. And we manipulate this information through the use of hepatic artery and fusion treatment. So there’s essentially two vessels which supply the liver, the hepatic artery and the portal vein. And liver metastases are perfused by the Patek artery, whereas what we call normal parenchyma, or normal liver tissue is perfused, primarily by the portal vein. So with hai therapy, we’re delivering the fluorouracil, which is a prodrug of 5FU or so into the hepatic artery, and we get very high concentration of the drug to the liver. And as I mentioned in the previous slide, it’s almost 400 times higher than those achieved by intravenous administration. And, and the important thing here is that essentially, the drug is entirely soaked up by the liver around 97% of the drug, it has a very short half life. So there’s minimal systemic exposure for patients and toxicity from the drug.

Dr. Connell 11:42
So I have two very brief slides just looking at some of the clinical evidence. And on this slide, we see the clinical evidence for HAI therapy in patients who have unresectable colorectal liver metastases. So the first study highlighted here was published in 2017. And basically, this was a case control study, which looked at the use of HAI with modern systemic chemotherapy combinations compared to systemic chemotherapy alone. And you can see even from the bar charts, there’s a there’s a difference there that’s quite visible between the purple bar, which is essentially the combination treatment and the orange colored, which is systemic treatment alone. And what was seen in this case control study is that median overall survival was doubled in patients, when they received combination treatment at around 32.8 months compared to our modern systemic chemotherapy options, which was 15.3 months. And this was even when conversion to resection was not achieved in patients. And this was statistically significant.

Dr. Connell 12:43
On the on the right side, then we see another paper and this was published in 2018. And this looked at like long term results from a prospective trial, and which again, looked at the response to hai therapy, and with systemic treatment, and basically, the overall tumor response rate to the combination of HAI with systemic chemotherapy was 73%. And there was a very high response rates in patients who were chemo naive. So when it was given in the first line, it was 86%, whereas in patients who were previously treated, it’s still very high, it’s 67%. And what we saw here is that 52% of patients were converted to resection with the combination treatment, despite the fact that the majority of these patients had what we would consider a high disease burden within the liver, and many of them had had previous chemotherapy.

Dr. Connell 15:19
I just briefly put up here, and this is really to January questions, you know, what’s the future for HAI therapy? Or how can we further advance what we know? And I think there’s two very important points to bring up here. And I know, these are questions that come up for me in the clinic is, you know, can we combine hai therapy with other systemic treatment options? One that’s very topical, you know, is kind of get it with Immunotherapy. And another would be, you know, some of these other newer drugs that are out there, you know, in particular for a patient to perhaps is her2 positive, BRAF mutated patients. So, you know, can we give them and right now, the honest answer is we don’t have the safety data to combine these drugs together. But it’s something that we do need to consider going forward in terms of trials. And, and also, I would like to highlight the HAI Consortium, and I think that’s a very important group. And it’s essentially a group of centers within the United States and also outside the United States, where we’ve come together, and we’re trying to generate trials. And there is a trial, which has been activated, which I know has been previously discussed here. And I think this is going to be a group that’s going to help propel forward future trials on hai therapy and and help all of you as well as patients in the future going forward. And it’s a very important collaboration to be able to replicate. I think what we’ve seen achieved at Memorial Sloan Kettering in particular with HAI treatment, and can we, you know, replicate that throughout the United States and more globally for patients.

Dr. Connell 17:01
So, what does it mean for a patient then to live with the palms, so just to get to some practicalities, so it does require a surgery to place the pump. And that’s important to say to patients and the majority of patients it’s placed at the time of an open surgery. In some patients where, for example, the colon primary, or the rectal primary has already been removed, and there is going to be no liver resection. There are some newer techniques such as robotic, placement and minimally invasive which are done by some of our surgeons. In terms of recovery. The honest answer is you can you can travel. And you can also continue to do most of the activities that you’ve enjoyed doing before. And during active treatment, the pump has refills every two weeks, you do not get drug every time it alternates between fluoxetine with heparin saline. And it is important to be mindful of the travel schedule. And I do say that to my own patients, because there is a residual within the pump, but you do not want the pump to run dry. So it’s very important to you know, mention any travel to your your treating physician and to try to accommodate that for patients as well. And otherwise, what I also want to highlight, and I mentioned this a little bit with the consortium, but there’s been a huge increase in terms of the number of centers since 2019, that are able to put in a level upon number one, and also for local refill centers. And this is something that is continuing to gain momentum. I think this is something that I learned, I’ll be honest with you during the COVID pandemic was so important for patients because there was huge difficulty in in people being able to commit to coming here every two weeks to New York at for pump refills and, and there’s a lot more physicians out there, and who who can now help assist with local refills. And that can be huge for patients, even if they’re not able to get the flux your dean locally, for example. But coming to coming to New York once a month is much better than having to commit to traveling every two weeks for example. And, and you know, it is important to also to mention that and we are trying to help train local oncologists also who maybe don’t have experience with the pump, but to be able to help some of some of you and some new patients who really want to commit to this to have refills locally. And then just to briefly mention, you know, some of the safety elements with fluoxetine. So, the anterior pump is indicated for the use of fluoxetine and it is contraindicated to the use of this and patients who have extensive extrahepatic disease or if you have limited liver function. And then always important to mention, you know some of the adverse events that can occur with the pump which are rare but serious and we can discuss them a little bit further in the q&a section.

Dr. Connell 19:59
So with that, I’m going to hand it over to Betsy, and we’ll go through the questions. So I’ll stop sharing here.

Betsy Post 20:08
Great, thank you so much. And then please, as we go along, if you do have questions, actually, I have one, two for the end, please do put those in the chat and we will get to those shortly. So the first question we have Dr. Connell is Why is HAI therapy generally done at the same time as systemic chemotherapy?

Dr. Connell 20:31
Yeah, so, you know, this question comes up a lot. And I think the important thing here is the there is a synergy between fluoxetine through the pump and giving it with systemic treatment in particular arena Tekin, and our EGFR inhibitors, but also importantly, we have to protect against the risk of extra hepatic disease, right. So if I have a patient and they’re on track to try to get to a liver resection, what is absolutely devastating for a patient is to get to a surgery. And the procedure is aborted because extra hepatic diseases detected and or for something to develop on a scan prior to surgery. So it’s really to help protect outside the liver, to allow us to focus on the treatment of the liver metastases with the flexibility and treatment.

Betsy Post 21:23
Thank you. How do you determine which systemic regimen that you’re going to use with the metastatic colorectal cancer liver met patients? And how does having a pump alter that?

Dr. Connell 21:35
Yeah, and so the first thing to say is that, while we typically and in the majority of patients give systemic chemotherapy with the HAI therapy, the dosing is automatically lower than it would be if a patient was receiving systemic chemotherapy alone. Because we have to balance the toxicities from using the two in combination. And so there is a different standard dosing of this systemic FOLFOX, for example, as opposed to somebody who’s on FOLFOX own in terms of what to use for patients. So there’s a few things to look at. I think the first thing is, in a patient who is previously untreated, the standard would be to use Folfox.

Dr. Connell 22:19
With the liver pump, and in somebody who possibly comes and they’ve had both treatments, what I take into consideration is I look and see, you know, what response, did the patient get to each individual systemic treatments previously, right? Did their cancer previously progress on Folfox? Do they maybe have stable disease on full theory, but they didn’t get enough of a response, and also the side effects that patients have had from previous treatment. So if somebody comes into me in clinic, and they have very severe neuropathy from previous oxaliplatin, I’m not going to jump to using that drug. So I think what’s important to consider is how the patient’s cancer has responded to previous drugs before the time interval that they’ve had from a particular regimen to perhaps another recurrence or something else developing and also the side effects for the patients from previous treatment.

Betsy Post 23:13
Thank you. The next question is, are there any situations where the HAI therapy might be done without systemic chemotherapy at the same time,

Dr. Connell 23:27
Um, very, very rarely, I have one patient since I began practicing here that I’ve done it in so I very, very select patients. In general, the preference is to give with systemic chemotherapy. Again, you know, in, in the scenario where I decided not to do it, it was a very detailed discussion with the patient about why we were not doing it and the risks of of not doing it together. But in general, it’s given. It’s given with some form of systemic chemo. And, you know, what I prefer for my patients is at least we give a single agent even if a doublet such as you know, 5FU with oxaliplatin or 5FU with Ironotecan is too much. And but as I said, it’s very rare that I do it. I’ve only done it once since I’ve been practicing here and had very real reasons for not doing systemic side effects may be possible in the liver area during HAI therapy.

Dr. Connell 24:28
Yeah, so the side effect profile is very different to systemic chemo. The two main things that I say to patients is we learned early on and many of the studies that were done with the liver pump the the risk of ulceration in the gut in the GI tract, so all patients are put on a medication to help prevent reflux. So pantoprazole protonix, and in patients who say to me that they’re having increasing reflux symptoms, for example, or they’re having some pain or discomfort, you know, just under the chest, and I’d have a very low threat To get an endoscopy to look for an ulcer, so that’s the first thing. But it’s much less common nowadays because we’re routinely giving protonix with it. I think what the big thing is, you’ve got to watch the delivery of blood work very closely. And in the majority of patients, you don’t come to clinic with any symptoms, right? You feel fine, you feel well, in general, patients feel better than they felt on previous systemic chemotherapy because okay, I’m still giving it but I’m giving a little bit less than you would have had previously. And what I always say to people, actually, when they come to me is it can be a little bit frustrating, right? If you fly to me from San Francisco, or you come from Canada, and you feel great, and then I see the liver enzymes, and I say, sorry, I can’t give the drug today or you know, we’ve had to give a few weeks holding off on the drugs. So the honest answer is we’ve learned from experience that we do have to be very mindful of the liver bloodwork, and then the majority of patients picked up on the bloodwork and the patient doesn’t have any symptoms themselves. However, in some patients, if you begin to develop any symptoms, such as jaundice, you know, anything like that, then a very low threshold to get your liver enzymes checked. And even if you’re local, to check them to see because that’s the biggest thing that we have to watch for is liver toxicity.

Betsy Post 26:16
How long does active treatment last? And what is the average number of treatments? And does this change? Does this change if the HAI therapy is being done before or after liver resection?

Dr. Connell 26:30
Yeah, yes. So the answer to the final question is yes. So if somebody has had a liver resection, and we’re using this as an adjuvant treatment, it’s six months of treatment. And then we stop. And in the majority of patients, we’ll get four doses in of the fluoxetine of the liver drug in the six month period, when we look at, you know, liver enzyme alterations, but we stop automatically at six months, and however many doses the patient has managed to successfully get that’s it. And in a in a person who is not resected, or I’m trying to convert to resections, when unresectable disease or in the conversion setting, there really isn’t a limit in terms of the number of doses that a patient can get. And the it really depends on how their liver is tolerating the drug, you know, what kind of response that we’re getting, you will have to make a change to the to the drug dosing. And what I’ve seen in practice is that typically, that happens around two to three months into treatment. It’s not uncommon, that it could happen even after the first dose, but there will be some dose modification. And patients can still respond on low doses. And that’s also important to say, because again, I also acknowledge that, you know, really, you’re committing to come in here for these treatments or to hai center. And it’s very disappointing, if you hear you’re getting a quite a significant dose reduction. And but you still respond to this. And it’s different to what we know about the dose reductions that are done with systemic chemo.

Betsy Post 28:04
Thank you. Is it possible to do treatment again, with the pump later on, if needed? 

Dr. Connell 28:14
Yes, exactly. Yes, you can. And this is why, you know, our, our preference is for patients to keep the pump, right, because particularly, what I would say to patients is, if you are using it as adjuvant therapy after liver resection, or you’ve been converted to resection from the pump, at the time of surgery, the recommendation, so your NED at that point, right is at least two years. Ideally, we prefer patients to keep the pump in longer. But the highest risk period for recurrence is the first two years and the rationale behind that is because the pump is not something that can be put back in right a little bit like a metal porch, right? So we want to keep that option open. Particularly if, if it’s helped you get to your surgery, number one, and you know, so that we can use it again. So absolutely, yes, you can use the drug again.

Betsy Post 29:11
Thank you already answered the next one, which was does the pump stay in when active treatment is done? And for how long?

Dr. Connell 29:18
Yes. Yeah. Yeah. And so yeah, and this question comes up and the honest answer is as well what I would say is i i Never tell someone to take a pump out I wait for them to tell me that they’re ready for it to come out because I think it’s a very personal decision. I think it’s something that for many patients has been you know, revolutionary, I guess and and I think, you know, we can educate and guys and that but it has to feel right to you as a patient to know when is the right time to remove it. If somebody really wants it out within six months. I’m like, please keep it for two years but beyond that, I really leave it up to the patient’s decide

Betsy Post 29:59
Are there other drugs ever used in the pump like oxaliplatin?

Dr. Connell 30:05
Yeah, so, oxaliplatin has a very low extraction rate into the liver. It is used in Europe because they have a slightly different device there. We don’t routinely use it here. But we do use Mitomycin and that’s something I referred to briefly during my talk. And I have seen patients who perhaps are beginning to develop some resistance to Flox your deen or maybe are beginning to run into more issues with their liver enzymes. And I’ve used Mitomycin in those patients and seen you know, some very good responses with the middle myosin what I would just say about that is you can give it in combination with fluoxetine. So you can give both drugs at the same time if your liver enzymes are good. So if the liver bloodwork is good, if the liver enzymes are high, tickling the outsource or perhaps the bilirubin, and that it’s safer to give Mitomycin on its own, but that’s typically our second drug that we use. We don’t give oxaliplatin.

Betsy Post 31:09
What are the causes for the mitomycin following HAI therapy with the traditional treatment?

Dr. Connell 31:19
Why would we give it right?

Betsy Post 31:21
I think you already spoke to that. 

Dr. Connell 31:24
So yeah, yeah. So I think if you’re getting a slowing down in response, possibly to flux, your routine, maybe you are getting some response, but you’re beginning to run into some of these liver toxicity issues. And so they would really be the main reasons that we do it. And really, I would use it in a situation where it’s liver only progression, of course, like I wouldn’t use it if there was signs of anything happening

Betsy Post 31:47
Um, and then since I’m not an oncologist, I might mess up these names. But what are the views on the use of Bev, which I know is Avastin. So we’ll take that one first. The new third line or a drug that was just FDA approved for colorectal cancer, liver Mets, or the EGFR inhibitors. So what are the views on those three and maybe address them separately? Because I know it could be different after the HAI therapy when the pump is running glycerin.

Dr. Connell 32:18
Okay, so I’ll start with EGFR inhibitors first, because that’s probably the easiest ones you can give EGFR inhibitor is at the same time that you give fluorouracil safe to do works very well with the liver pump.

Dr. Connell 32:32
And you can also give it after liver treatments. So there’s no limitation at all with EGFR inhibitors and actually works very well with with FUDR, or Avastin is something that we’d urge early on, that should not be used the same time that we’re giving fluoxetine. So it’s it’s a combination, so it should not they should not be used together. And but a patient can have Avastin or Bevacizumab later on, if you’re simply just getting glycerol through your pump. And so, if for example, I have somebody who the liver is still no evidence of disease, there’s, you know, issues arising outside the liver in the lung, perhaps or lymphnodes. Have I given Avastin? Absolutely I have, I generally prefer to try to delay the use of Avastin further out from using the liver drug because I have seen in some patients some delayed issues with billary complications if I’ve tried to use the Bevacizumab a little bit too quickly after stopping the liver pump treatment. And but yes, you can use them separately but not together and then forget never the honest answer is we don’t know yet. Because it’s such a new drug definitely would not use them together. And I think you know, you would think along the same lines as you know, what we do with Stivarga, etc. You know, they can be given but not together. And the honest answer is and I kind of led to this during my sliders, I really reserved the use of any of these drugs too much, much later on for patients. I think if you can do something like long ablations or radiate, I think you’re helping the patient more than jumping to any of these newer, third fourth line drugs that are approved.

Betsy Post 34:17
Thank you. And these are questions that we see in Colin town all the time, and these were the most frequent questions that I received for you. So these have to do with Y90 So if a patient has had Y90 How does this affect their ability to receive HAI therapy after?

Dr. Connell 34:38
Yeah, okay. So this comes up quite a lot. The honest answer is if I see a patient before a Y90 Maybe they come with a second opinion we usually prefer to give the pump before Y90 that’s the honest answer. So usually what I say to patients is, you know, pump first and any of these proceed procedures like Y90 or radiation I would reserve for later on. And have I had patients who’ve had y90 And I’ve given pump treatment to absolutely, I think we have to look at those cases individually. And it’s something that we would show at our tumor board. And we would really look at the extent of the Y90, for example, how the blood vessels in the liver look after the Y90.

Dr. Connell 35:24
Often you need to dose reduce the flux your routine a little bit faster in those patients so I can get the drug in for the patient, but I can’t get as much drug in. And but I’ve had people respond after y 90 I think our preference is to do pump first.

Betsy Post 35:45
If a patient has HAI therapy, and then does Y90? Would the patient be able to use the HAI pump again, if it is still functional?

Dr. Connell 35:56
Yeah, and so this is an interesting one. I haven’t personally ever done that myself. I think from a technical point of view, it would come back to what I said previously, is that you’d have to really look structurally at the liver and see, you know, there’s there’s newer Y-90 techniques out there. And I know whether our interventional radiologists here they do more selective Y90 So if perhaps, you know, there was a regional Y90 And then you’re trying to treat the rest of the liver. Technically, you could. I think just with with my own practice, and the way that I view it, because I keep Y90 for Later on, it just hasn’t worked out that way with the patients that I’ve seen. But again, I think this is something that you would have to have the right imaging, it would have to be viewed as a multidisciplinary team, whether that’s the right thing for the patient, you know, including an interventional radiologist, including a radiation oncologist right, is radiation safer than Y90 A surgeon and a medical oncologist to decide what’s the right thing for that particular person.

Betsy Post 36:56
Some additional questions have to do with transplants. This is something that we’re hearing more and more about, especially for unresectable disease, obviously, and we have patients a lot of times that are making a decision, sometimes between the pump or transplant, but something that we’re hearing now is the question first, could the pump be used as a bridge to liver transplant?

Dr. Connell 37:18
Yeah, so this is very typical? I think without intentionally setting out that way. And I’ve had some patients who’ve done very well with transplantation after pump treatment, I think the tricky thing about the transplant process is that it’s a long process for patients. Right. So my own experience with my patients has been is that sometimes they’re waiting like 12 to 18 months. And I’m trying to control everything with the pump at the same time. So I have used it but not intentionally. I’m on discussions with transplant centers. And speaking with surgeons here, this is something that I think we’re going to need to study. And we’re going to need to collaborate on to see if we can help more patients by combining the two techniques.

Betsy Post 38:37
Another question, how do you consider the option for liver transplant as part of your overall treatment plan or approach for patients?

Dr. Connell 38:47
Yeah, so. So when I see patients, you know, this can often come up. And I think with transplant, what I say to people is we got a real sense of how the pump is helping a patient in unresectable disease, like, you know, about six months in, you know, look, and you’re talking back and forth with the surgeons, you know, do we think that we’re going to be able to convert to resection here? Do we have any of these options like why nine tear or radiation? And I think it’s always appropriate to get an opinion from a transplant center, and particularly if it’s something that the patient themselves is questioning, right, because you want to hear directly. And there’s a little bit of bias right between different different specialties and obviously I’m very Hai and but I’ve certainly collaborated with transplant centers, and then you know, when somebody is listed for transplant in practice, what I do is I follow what they want me to do, so I don’t change any treatment, you know, they tell me what they want to do. The important things about transplant is a few things. So you cannot have any extra hepatic disease obviously so there can be no evidence of extra hepatic disease. And the second thing is that the primary tumor has to be removed.

Dr. Connell 40:03
So, you know, they would be the two things. But if you have liver only disease and and resection is not feasible, and you’ve heard that from the liver surgeon and you’ve heard that from your medical oncologist then then I do think transplant is something that needs to be considered. And they removed the pump at the time of transplant as well. 

Betsy Post 40:26
So is there data available to show how successful ATI therapy is? And I know that we did talk? You talked about that earlier, but I didn’t know if you wanted to elaborate on that a little bit more.

Dr. Connell 40:39
Yeah, so we do have data. And I’ve shown some of the data here, I think what’s important is that we need more randomized to data. And I think, you know, that’s what the consortium is going to help with and why we’re trying to collaborate with other institutions. And I think trying to address this question of, is the pump so successful? Because it’s given here in New York or you know, Kansas, can I get the same level of care? Or in Chicago, or, you know, Atlanta? And I think the honest answer is there’s so much more knowledge out there about the pump. And we do need to do more trials. And also, I also mentioned this as well, there’s so many newer drugs out there, right. And patients want to know can kind of get them together, is it safe to get them together? And this has to be done in a trial setting.

Betsy Post 41:27
So another question we get quite a bit. So now that Dr. Kemeny has retired, how was care being distributed for patients that are being seen at Memorial Sloan Kettering?

Dr. Connell 41:39
Yeah. And so what I would say about that is, honestly, all of us can can can do pump treatment, I think a huge part of Dr. Kennedy’s legacy. What’s visible to patients and caregivers is is what she did for you, right? Understandably, a huge part of her legacy for us at Memorial is the teaching and training that she gave to us. And, you know, she was a phenomenal mentor to me. And to many of my colleagues.

Dr. Connell 42:10
All of our practices differ a little bit. So some of us do more pump than others. But honestly, all of us can do pump in terms of her practice. And it’s been divided between Athol I think for for active patients, understandably, because I was mentored under her I have many of her patients. I think, what’s also important to say, though, is that, for any of you who have, you know, some complex decision making, there’s something to be to be, you know, figured out, you know, is it now the right time to think about y 90, you know, have I achieved what I can with the pump, that’s never a decision that’s made in isolation by an individual, whether that’s a medical oncologist, it’s our tumor board is a huge resource for people and, and that’s often what I what I see myself as like, You’re not coming here to memorial for me, you’re coming for the expertise from the whole group. And never think that a decision a very important decision like that, look, will I say to this patient that you should go and get a transplant opinion, you’re not going to hear that just for me, I’m going to speak with my surgeons I’m going to speak with with them, and we’re going to show your case at the tumor board. And I think that’s very important to know, is that there’s huge collaboration amongst us as medical oncologists, and also multidisciplinary team involvement in any major decisions for patients.

Betsy Post 43:31
I know that you spoke about the Consortium, and that all the pomp programs, especially since my team that have opened up, but How can patients across the country get good access to HAI therapy?

Dr. Connell 43:44
Yeah, so I think there are more centers, who are implanting the pumps, number one, and also so many more centers where, you know, they’re able to assist with with local fields, I think the consortium is really helping with that. I would also say that there’s a huge collaboration between us, you know, I definitely speak with medical oncologists at other institutions. You know, I relied on mentoring, when I started off with this, and I try to share what I’ve learned in the nuances, you know, with oncologist with other centers, I think, when you start off, you know, what I always say to people is, you have to be comfortable with the person that’s treating you, right. And whether that’s having a pump or not having a pump, I think, number one, you have to be comfortable. So, you know, and you also have to think from a practical point of view, you know, look, if financially and with my family or my work commitments, is it feasible for me to fly up and down to New York every two weeks? And for many patients, it is for others. It’s not. Do I have a local doctor who can do this? Did I did We did our personality match? You know, and but I think there is so much more knowledge out there nowadays and there’s also huge camaraderie between us and sharing of knowledge. And, I think the consortium and the trials and everything that’s going to come out of that is going to further reinforce that for patients.

Betsy Post 45:11
One more question, and then we’re going to take the live questions, we have quite a few. How does the start of that new pump trial impact the ability of new patients to receive HAI therapy?

Dr. Connell 45:23
Yeah, so it’s a very relevant question. And you know, what I would say about the pump trial, it’s a very, very select group of patients, right? It’s a very important study, right to help answer this question, in a randomized setting of, you know, conversion to resection for patients with HAI versus modern systemic chemotherapy. So it’s for patients who’ve had more than three months, but less than six months of systemic chemotherapy in the first line. So it’s a very small group of patients. And the honest answer is the reason that we’re doing that is because we don’t know the question, right, we are the answer, we wouldn’t be doing it if we already knew that one was better than the other. And that’s important to say about any trial. If you’re a patient who is untreated, you had no chemotherapy, you can have a pump off trial, if you’ve had more chemotherapy, like you’ve had a year of chemotherapy, you don’t, you don’t qualify for the trial. So it’s a very, very select group of patients. And that will be explained to you as well, in the in the in the clinic setting.

Betsy Post 46:30
So moving on to some of our live questions, we have one, is there a certain temperature that you have to keep your body under while you have a pump?

Dr. Connell 46:42
Yeah, so this question comes up quite a bit, you know, I think you have to be sensible, right? So he will speed up the rate of infusion of the drug. Hot tubs are a no, no, you can get in a swimming pool. And so body temperature can affect us, I don’t give anyone like a specific number. But I just say like, you have to be mindful of it. And I have a patient who said they have a hot tub with that, put it on regular temperature. So you know, swimming, and all of that is fine. But sitting in heat, you don’t want to put heat pads directly on the pump. If you have pain in your back for another reason, you can put heat out there, but you just want to do want to put it directly over the pump.

Betsy Post 47:25
Is it true that you can’t lift more than 10 pounds when the pump isn’t?

Dr. Connell 47:31
Yeah, so again, this comes up quite a bit. So usually I say around 15 pounds to patients. In the beginning, I think you have to be very mindful of that similar with any surgery to be honest with you. Over time, honestly, what happens is you have a very good sense of your pomp and also scar tissue forms. And so I tell patients that, you know, using a binder, you know, be sensible. But a lot of people say, Well, you know, my toddler is 30 pounds, you know, and I’m never gonna say to somebody, you can’t lift your child up, you know. So I think within reason, and I think if you’re, you know, the further out, you get the sense you have your palm, the binder, scar tissue, and, and, you know, for lifting children in the beginning, I usually say to people, you know, sit down and lift them up onto your knee, you know, things like that. So I try to be creative with how you do things. But I do think we have to be practical in that regard. And the concern about the weight lifting is the connection between the catheter and the pump, and also the risk of, you know, the pump flipping, and the more secure it is over time that the lower the risk of that

Betsy Post 48:39
Um, there’s a question about the drug and mutations. And I know specifically, we do have some BRAF patients here. So question, there’s a question about, is the HAI therapy equally effective for all mutations?

Dr. Connell 48:56
Yeah, so it’s a very good question. I think what I would say to you is, is that we do use the pump and in all patients, I certainly have myself patients who have BRAF mutations, and I’ve used the pump, and I’ve seen some very good results with it. So I wouldn’t discriminate based on that. And but I think it’s something that we’re going to need to study a little bit further to see how we best serve people going forward. But I definitely have patients who’ve done well. And you know, maybe later on I’ve used the combination I mentioned earlier, such as graphics to toxic map, and but if they have liver only disease, we still put pumps and we still get flux your routine and I’ve definitely seen good responses. I have a patient who was probably an outlier but from from early 2019, and still NED

Dr. Connell 49:47
and had, you know, resection, had liver pump to get your resection and as BRAF mutated, you know,

Betsy Post 49:55
right. I think you answered this, but I’ll ask it for those pursuing liver resection, is there a recommended number of fudr treatments from the pump before considering surgery?

Dr. Connell 50:10
And so the honest answer is there isn’t a set number per se, if somebody has unresectable disease. So what we do is we scan every two months because we want to keep a close eye on the response that we’re getting and how the liver is tolerating it, right? So you’re scanned every

Dr. Connell 50:29
which is a little bit different to the adjuvant in the adjuvant setting, you’re scanned every three. But what I usually say to people is that honestly, at two months, it’s it’s not very common that patients are ready for surgery, it’s typically around the four to six month mark, but there isn’t a set number is really depends on the location of tumors, the technicality if somebody has liver, you know, bi lobe disease, so both the right and the left side involves the surgeon will say to me, Look, we need to do these portal vein embolization, you know, certain procedures to help get to a second stage liver surgery. So the some of those factors to come in. But there’s no hard and fast rule with the number of doses that a patient has to have

Betsy Post 51:13
HAI pump decisions require very close coordination between the medical oncologists and surgical oncologist Are there any best practices from that cross specialty communication that you would highlight is beneficial to apply? Even beyond the HEI application?

Dr. Connell 51:31
Yeah, so, you know, what we’ve learned to serve patients best is that multidisciplinary involvement is so so important. Right? And, and I kind of, you know, said that earlier on, like, any major decision point you need to think about, you know, how am I helping the patient right now? And also, how is this going to affect what I want to do in the future for the patient? Right. So in my own practice, here, I do my clinics alongside the surgeons at for that reason. And you know, when I asked some of these questions, we also have very heavy input from our interventional radiologists. And I think that’s very important is to try to get the different options there. And sometimes there is there’s two options, right maybe let’s say for the liver, it could be resection or it could be ablation, and then we can see both and help make the decisions by getting the input from from both specialties for example.

Betsy Post 52:32
Are there restrictions on jogging and working out?

Dr. Connell 52:37
Okay, so what I would say about that is if you put 20 of us in a room, a mix of surgeons and medical oncologists, everybody would say something different and it’s very controversial. And I allow my patients to light jog and the the concern again is really the connection of the catheter to the pump. And again, what I say to people is exactly what I said weightlifting you know, if someone comes in to me and you know jogging is your is your your cam time, you know, your therapy so to speak. You know, it’s very hard to say to somebody, you know, don’t jog and but I say you know, try to be sensible about it, have a binder on Wait a while and I do allow patients to do like jogging. The surgeons do lap people jog and there’s other medical oncologists who say no, and we love stationary bike. We love the peloton. That’s, that’s probably the safest thing that you can do and the best thing and a good form of workout. But yes, I do say to patients, they can jog.

Betsy Post 53:41
So if there is a patient that has, for example, ovarian or peritoneal disease, but the patient was potentially able to have all of that removed. Could they still get pumped?

Dr. Connell 53:56
Um, so for over a yes. So if you have liver and ovary because we know that colorectal metastases to the ovary, are quite resistant to chemotherapy, so in general, the bias is to lean towards surgery in that situation anyway. So you would often do if you can do a liver and you would also remove the ovaries at the same time. So yes, with peritoneal disease, there’s a little bit of pause. I’ll be honest with you. The tricky thing about peritoneal disease is that you often can’t fully appreciate peritoneal disease on scans. And and it’s only at the time of surgery that you really have an understanding. And I’ve had some patients where perhaps there’s been like limited peritoneal disease, you know, a year ago it was removed and maybe they come looking for a pump. And and usually if there’s, you know, a period of time, typically a year, year and a half, not thing happening in the parish name again, then, you know in select cases we’ve put pumps in. And but I wouldn’t say to you upfront that I’ve put a pump in for a patient when they have active peritoneal disease at the same time.

Betsy Post 55:14
For every two to three months scans, do you do CT MRI, and I’m gonna throw in there you PET scan stew? Might as well add it in.

Dr. Connell 55:24
Yeah, and, okay. Um, so in that regard, what I would say to you is I started off using CT and patients. So I do routinely, CT chest, abdomen and pelvis. Over time. From looking at the CT scan, you understand with the individual patient, whether you’re seeing things clearly in the liver or not, if not, particularly in patients who maybe have, you know, a lot of chemotherapy prior to the pump being placed, because the chemotherapy changes the texture of the liver, what we call like fatty liver change, or sclerosis. So in those patients in MRI may give additional information. So the honest answer is, my starting off rule is CT only, I’ll involve an M or liver if I feel like I’m not seeing things clearly with a CT. And I really don’t routinely use a PET scan, unless I get to a point in a patient where a specific question has come up on a on a CT, for example, I do a patch, and I see that the patch is giving more information than the CT has. Similarly, if I do a patch on a patient, and I see that I’m not getting anything different from it, then I don’t routinely follow with Pat. And I think that would be the standard approach. For most patients. The tricky thing with PET scans is there can often be you know, false positive things on a PET scans and something lights up. And it’s it’s not anything related to the cancer and then it causes, you know, a lot of concern, understandably. Yeah, so that’s how I would view it. But I do have some patients where I know that only MRI shows that are only pet shows that and then once I learned that with the patient, then I continue to use that imaging modality. But I still always do my CT as well.

Betsy Post 57:12
We have one more question about I think exercise I see here. What about horseback riding? I’m a serious equestrian.

Dr. Connell 57:21
Yeah, so this came up for me recently. The issue with with horse riding is the bouncing activity. Right and the concern for the catheter? Again, I don’t think it’s a complete contraindication I think, and I know I’m repeating myself a lot but wearing the binder, a similar lead to what I’m seeing with light jogging. I mean, you can I don’t even know the word for isn’t trotting. for horse riding, you know, you have to be mindful of that. And but I wouldn’t, you know, I wouldn’t say you can’t do it again, if that’s something that a patient is passionate about, and it’s their form of relief, or escape from what’s going on, then I think that’s important to consider. So have a binder be mindful. That’s what I would say.

Betsy Post 58:07
We just have two or three more. So how would you know if there’s a problem with the connection from the pump? Perhaps from over lifting, etc?

Dr. Connell 58:19
Yeah, the honest answer with that is that most patients don’t know. And it’s picked up on scans. That’s the most common scenario. And that’s really where we see it. If somebody has, you knows, for example, they’ve had a trauma, you know, so So I had a patient a few years ago, and they were in there on a regular bicycle, and they flipped over the handlebars, and they were like, This doesn’t feel right, you know, so I scanned and you know, there you knew there was some incident proceeding, and you would check for it or they had pain afterwards. But the honest answer is in the majority of patients picked up on scans and you don’t feel any difference.

Betsy Post 59:03
Let’s see, I know I’m gonna mess this this word up.

Dr. Connell 59:08
So what are the thoughts around using the capecitabine with the pump while receiving radiation to treat the primary replacing traditional systemic treatment? Okay, yeah, so this comes up quite a bit. So when patients have a rectal tumor and you know, you can treat them with chemo radiation. So we do, you know, and you know, that’s in terms of a rectal tumor, the surgery is much more life altering. So if you can effectively get a complete clinical response or fully treat the rectal tumor than chemo radiation is recommended. What do I do in my patients? So the issue with Capacetibine Xeloda is that it causes more increase in liver enzymes, and it can affect the dosing of the fudr. So what I do for patients is if

Dr. Connell 1:00:00

We have a rectal primary and we’re doing chemo radiation. And we’ve just put a pump in for liver disease, you can give the fudr you can give the liver treatment during the chemo radiation. But instead of using the Xeloda and or capecitabine of being I use fluorouracil which is sort of the old way that they that they used to do chemo radiation. And because again, I want to try to maintain the higher doses in the pump and keeps it being tends to interfere with that more. So.

Betsy Post 1:00:36
I think I got to almost every question, one of my questions that I have, if I can just sneak one in I know it’s 802. But with all the centers opening up, I feel like we’re seeing some oncologists are using the Urso dial and some are not. And I don’t know if you feel comfortable speaking to that, and how you use it in your practice and how the decisions made to use that or not?

Dr. Connell 1:00:59
Yeah, it’s a very good question. I mean, I think what I would say to you as well is there’s even differences in the practice here at Memorial as well. I, I use it quite early on in patients, because I think, you know, the two ways we manage the liver inflammation are the steroids through the pump at the time of the flush as well as versatile. And, and in the long term for patients being on steroids continuously. You know, there’s this kind of late side effects with that there’s the weight gain that comes from steroids, there’s a few patients where versatile can be a little bit tricky. So sometimes patients can notice the very loose stool. So if I have a patient who’s struggling with, you know, diarrhea issues or anything like that, from arena Tekin, or even five floor yourself, I kind of hold off on the earth a dial, but I tell them why I’m not doing it, you know, but I do tend to use it early on. And I also tend to keep it on board longer, even after I’ve weaned down the steroids in the pump, and I have someone off treatment, because I think it helps with the liver inflammation, I typically start off on twice a day in some patients, you may have to go up to three times a day. But again, if you even select 10 oncologists here at Memorial, everyone would do something a little bit different. But I give the options to patients. And I also explain, as I said, when I don’t use it and what my concerns are for that particular person.

Betsy Post 1:02:31
Well, it’s 8:04. And I think we have gotten to most of the questions. There is one here that I’m not sure we may have to get back to because it’s you know, the top centers for ATI. And with so many new centers that have opened up since 2019. I think by volume, we’d have to kind of look into that to see who they are. I know Duke is one of them. I know they’re very, they’re a high volume center now. But with the opening of the consortium, I know we have a lot more centers throughout the US. So I can take that offline. And definitely I can talk to the folks at inteiro on that as well. Just about the volume at the other centers. But yeah, so I just wanted to say again, thank you so much for your time, I learned a lot. And it was so good to hear just from a medical oncologist. So in addition to Dr. Kemeny and hear how you’re using it, your practice, and I learned a lot of just about the trial and other things. And your take on that. And I really appreciate it. I know you were so generous with your time and answering all of these questions for the patients. And we really all appreciate it. So thank you so much. And I know we’ll be in touch if we have additional questions. So thanks for everybody that attended tonight and thanks for all your participation. We really appreciate it. So have a great evening. Thanks again. And we’ll see you soon.

Dr. Connell 1:03:46
Thank you everybody. Bye

DocTalk
2023
Dr. Hernandez
Liver
Stage IV
Histotripsy

On December 20, 2023, Dr. Hernandez discussed the newly FDA-approved treatment of Histotripsy in the treatment of mCRC liver metasteses within a week of performing the first time use of this novel therapy after FDA-Approval in the US. He describes the history of the therapy, what it entails, why and for what conditions it is applicable and future research ideas.

Warning: Graphic surgical images at 13:00 minute mark.

More Videos

Liver transplants — Examining the evidence
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2024
ERASur trial: Local treatment options for limited stage IV CRC
Dr. Hitchcock
2023
Advanced surgical treatments for CRC liver mets
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2021
Transplant patients are in the house!
2021
Hepatic Artery Infusion (HAI) chemotherapy for CRC liver mets
Hepatic Artery Infusion (HAI) chemotherapy for CRC liver mets
Dr. Gholami
2021
Modern-day management of liver metastases
Dr. Soares
2022
Why liver transplant for mCRC is taking off
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2022
Paths to long-term survival with CRC liver mets
Dr. Hernandez-Alejandro
2023