Thomas A Aloia

University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States

Are you Thomas A Aloia?

Claim your profile

Publications (146)698.23 Total impact

  • Ryan W. Day, Thomas A. Aloia
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients with resectable cancers present unique challenges to surgical and anesthetic teams. These patients frequently require invasive and lengthy procedures that incur higher levels of disability. At the same time, the pressure to return cancer surgery patients to adjuvant cancer therapies places an additional responsibility on care teams. To meet this need, many cancer centers are utilizing enhanced recovery pathways of care. Although many of the practices contained within these pathways have been vetted in non-oncologic and minimally invasive oncologic procedures, major oncologic surgery poses unique challenges to their implementation. The purpose of this review is to highlight the challenges and opportunities that enhanced recovery protocols bring to oncologic surgery. Additionally, special considerations for the measurement of recovery in cancer patients are discussed.
    09/2015; 5(3). DOI:10.1007/s40140-015-0115-8
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An American Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (AHPBA)-sponsored consensus meeting of expert panellists met on 15 January 2014 to review current evidence on the management of hilar cholangiocarcinoma in order to establish practice guidelines and to agree consensus statements. It was established that the treatment of patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma requires a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach to optimize the chances for both durable survival and effective palliation. An adequate diagnostic and staging work-up includes high-quality cross-sectional imaging; however, pathologic confirmation is not required prior to resection or initiation of a liver transplant trimodal treatment protocol. The ideal treatment for suitable patients with resectable hilar malignancy is resection of the intra- and extrahepatic bile ducts, as well as resection of the involved ipsilateral liver. Preoperative biliary drainage is best achieved with percutaneous transhepatic approaches and may be indicated for patients with cholangitis, malnutrition or hepatic insufficiency. Portal vein embolization is a safe and effective strategy for increasing the future liver remnant (FLR) and is particularly useful for patients with an FLR of <30%. Selected patients with unresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma should be evaluated for a standard trimodal protocol incorporating external beam and endoluminal radiation therapy, systemic chemotherapy and liver transplantation. Post-resection chemoradiation should be offered to patients who show high-risk features on surgical pathology. Chemoradiation is also recommended for patients with locally advanced, unresectable hilar cancers. For patients with locally recurrent or metastatic hilar cholangiocarcinoma, first-line chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin is recommended based on multiple Phase II trials and a large randomized controlled trial including a heterogeneous population of patients with biliary cancers. © 2015 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association.
    HPB 08/2015; 17(8):691-9. DOI:10.1111/hpb.12450
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An American Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (AHPBA)-sponsored consensus meeting of expert panellists was convened on 15 January 2014 to review current evidence on the management of gallbladder carcinoma in order to establish practice guidelines. In summary, within high incidence areas, the assessment of routine gallbladder specimens should include the microscopic evaluation of a minimum of three sections and the cystic duct margin; specimens with dysplasia or proven cancer should be extensively sampled. Provided the patient is medically fit for surgery, data support the resection of all gallbladder polyps of >1.0 cm in diameter and those with imaging evidence of vascular stalks. The minimum staging evaluation of patients with suspected or proven gallbladder cancer includes contrasted cross-sectional imaging and diagnostic laparoscopy. Adequate lymphadenectomy includes assessment of any suspicious regional nodes, evaluation of the aortocaval nodal basin, and a goal recovery of at least six nodes. Patients with confirmed metastases to N2 nodal stations do not benefit from radical resection and should receive systemic and/or palliative treatments. Primary resection of patients with early T-stage (T1b-2) disease should include en bloc resection of adjacent liver parenchyma. Patients with T1b, T2 or T3 disease that is incidentally identified in a cholecystectomy specimen should undergo re-resection unless this is contraindicated by advanced disease or poor performance status. Re-resection should include complete portal lymphadenectomy and bile duct resection only when needed to achieve a negative margin (R0) resection. Patients with preoperatively staged T3 or T4 N1 disease should be considered for clinical trials of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Following R0 resection of T2-4 disease in N1 gallbladder cancer, patients should be considered for adjuvant systemic chemotherapy and/or chemoradiotherapy. © 2015 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association.
    HPB 08/2015; 17(8):681-90. DOI:10.1111/hpb.12444
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In patients with advanced colorectal cancer, KRAS mutation status predicts response to treatment with monoclonal antibody targeting the epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR). Recent reports have provided evidence that KRAS mutation status has prognostic value in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases (CLM) irrespective of treatment with chemotherapy or anti-EGFR therapy. A meta-analysis was undertaken to clarify the impact of KRAS mutation on outcomes in patients with resectable CLM. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched systematically to identify full-text articles reporting KRAS-stratified overall (OS) or recurrence-free (RFS) survival after resection of CLM. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 per cent c.i. from multivariable analyses were pooled in meta-analyses, and a random-effects model was used to calculate weight and overall results. The search returned 355 articles, of which 14, including 1809 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Eight studies reported OS after resection of CLM in 1181 patients. The mutation rate was 27·6 per cent, and KRAS mutation was negatively associated with OS (HR 2·24, 95 per cent c.i. 1·76 to 2·85). Seven studies reported RFS after resection of CLM in 906 patients. The mutation rate was 28·0 per cent, and KRAS mutation was negatively associated with RFS (HR 1·89, 1·54 to 2·32). KRAS mutation status is a prognostic factor in patients undergoing resection of colorectal liver metastases and should be considered in the evaluation of patients having liver resection. © 2015 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
    British Journal of Surgery 07/2015; DOI:10.1002/bjs.9870
  • Gynecologic Oncology 06/2015; 137(3):595. DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.03.029
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We investigated outcomes by primary tumor type in patients who underwent resection of liver metastases from gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), leiomyosarcomas, and other sarcomas. Our institutional liver database was used to identify patients who underwent resection from 1998 through 2013. Histopathological, clinical, and survival data were analyzed. One hundred forty-six patients underwent resection of liver metastases from GIST (n = 49), leiomyosarcomas (n = 47), or other sarcomas (n = 50). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates in patients with GIST, leiomyosarcomas, and other sarcomas were 55.3, 48.4, and 44.9 %, respectively, and the 10-year OS rates were 52.5, 9.2, and 23.0 %, respectively. The 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate was better for GIST (35.7 %; p = 0.003) than for leiomyosarcomas (3.4 %) and other sarcomas (21.4 %). Lung recurrence was more common for leiomyosarcomas (36 % of patients; p < 0.0001) than for other sarcomas (12 %) and GIST (2 %). For GIST, the findings support a benefit of imatinib regarding the 5-year RFS rate compared to resection alone (47.1 vs. 9.5 %; p = 0.013). For leiomyosarcoma, primary tumor location did not affect the 5-year RFS rate (intraabdominal 14.5 %; other location 0 %; p = 0.182). Liver metastases from GIST, leiomyosarcomas, and other sarcomas should be assessed separately as their survival and recurrence patterns are different. This is especially important for GIST, for which imatinib is now available.
    Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 05/2015; DOI:10.1007/s11605-015-2845-9
  • Gastroenterology 04/2015; 148(4):S-1106-S-1107. DOI:10.1016/S0016-5085(15)33769-0
  • Gastroenterology 04/2015; 148(4):S-1104. DOI:10.1016/S0016-5085(15)33761-6
  • Gastroenterology 04/2015; 148(4):S-1132. DOI:10.1016/S0016-5085(15)33861-0
  • Gastroenterology 04/2015; 148(4):S-1161. DOI:10.1016/S0016-5085(15)33964-0
  • Gastroenterology 04/2015; 148(4):S-1117. DOI:10.1016/S0016-5085(15)33810-5
  • Gastroenterology 04/2015; 148(4):S-1132. DOI:10.1016/S0016-5085(15)33858-0
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate prognostic impact of parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy (PSH) for solitary small colorectal liver metastasis (CLM). It is unclear whether PSH confers an oncologic benefit through increased salvageability or is a detriment through increasing recurrence rate. Database of 300 CLM patients with a solitary tumor (≤30 mm in size) was reviewed from 1993 to 2013. A total of 156 patients underwent PSH and 144 patients underwent right hepatectomy, left hepatectomy, or left lateral sectionectomy (non-PSH group). The rate of PSH increased over the study period (P < 0.01). PSH did not impact negatively on overall (OS), recurrence-free, and liver-only recurrence-free survival, compared with non-PSH (P = 0.53, P = 0.97, and P = 0.69, respectively). Liver-only recurrence was observed in 22 patients (14%) in the PSH and 25 (17%) in the non-PSH group (P = 0.44). Repeat hepatectomy was more frequently performed in the PSH group (68% vs 24%, P < 0.01). Subanalysis of patients with liver-only recurrence revealed better 5-year overall survival from initial hepatectomy and from liver recurrence in the PSH than in the non-PSH group [72.4% vs 47.2% (P = 0.047) and 73.6% vs 30.1% (P = 0.018), respectively]. Multivariate analysis revealed that non-PSH was a risk of noncandidacy for repeat hepatectomy (hazard ratio: 8.18, confidence interval: 1.89-45.7, P < 0.01). PSH did not increase recurrence in the liver remnant but more importantly improved 5-year survival in case of recurrence (salvageability). PSH should be the standard approach to CLM to allow for salvage surgery in case of liver recurrence.
    Annals of Surgery 03/2015; DOI:10.1097/SLA.0000000000001194
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Readmission rates of 9.7% to 15.5% after hepatectomy have been reported. These rates are difficult to interpret due to variability in the time interval used to monitor readmission. The aim of this study was to refine the definition of readmission after hepatectomy. A prospectively maintained database of 3,041 patients who underwent hepatectomy from 1998 through 2013 was merged with the hospital registry to identify readmissions. Area under the curve (AUC) analysis was used to determine the time interval that best captured unplanned readmission. Readmission rates at 30 days, 90 days, and 1 year after discharge were 10.7% (n = 326), 17.3% (n = 526), and 31.9% (n = 971) respectively. The time interval that best accounted for unplanned readmissions was 45 days after discharge (AUC, 0.956; p < 0.001), during which 389 patients (12.8%) were readmitted (unplanned: n = 312 [10.3%]; planned: n = 77 [2.5%]). In comparison, the 30 days after surgery interval (used in the ACS-NSQIP database) omitted 65 (26.3%) unplanned readmissions. Multivariate analysis revealed the following risk factors for unplanned readmission: diabetes (odds ratio [OR] 1.6; p = 0.024), right hepatectomy (OR 2.1; p = 0.034), bile duct resection (OR 1.9; p = 0.034), abdominal complication (OR 1.8; p = 0.010), and a major postoperative complication (OR 2.4; p < 0.001). Neither index hospitalization > 7 days nor postoperative hepatobiliary complications were independently associated with readmission. To accurately assess readmission after hepatectomy, patients should be monitored 45 days after discharge. Copyright © 2015 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of the American College of Surgeons 02/2015; 221(1). DOI:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.01.063
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The rate of adverse events after pancreatectomy is widely reported as a measure of surgical quality. However, morbidity data are routinely acquired retrospectively and often are reported at 30 days. The authors hypothesized that morbidity after pancreatectomy is therefore underreported. They sought to compare rates of adverse events calculated at multiple time points after pancreatectomy. The authors instituted an active surveillance system to detect, categorize, and grade the severity of all adverse events after pancreatectomy, using the modified Accordion system and International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery definitions. All patients and clinical events were monitored directly for at least 90 days after surgery. Of 315 consecutively monitored patients, 239 (76 %) experienced 500 unique adverse events. The absolute number of unique adverse events increased by 32 % between index discharge and 90 days and by 10 % between 30 and 90 days. The number of severe adverse events increased by 96 % between discharge and 90 days and by 29 % between 30 and 90 days. In this study, 16 % of the patients experienced at least one severe adverse event within the index hospitalization, 24 % within 30 postoperative days, and 29 % within 90 days. Among the 80 readmissions that occurred within 90 days, 28 (35 %) occurred later than 30 days after pancreatectomy. Approximately one-third of severe adverse events and readmissions are reported more than 30 days after surgery. All adverse events that occur within 90 days of surgery must be identified and reported for accurate characterization of the morbidity associated with pancreatectomy.
    Annals of Surgical Oncology 02/2015; DOI:10.1245/s10434-015-4437-z
  • T.A. Aloia
    European Journal of Surgical Oncology 02/2015; 41(5). DOI:10.1016/j.ejso.2015.02.001
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the patterns of (18)F-FDG uptake at the surgical margin after hepatectomy to identify features that may differentiate benign and malignant uptake. Patients who had undergone a PET/CT after hepatectomy were identified. Delay between resection and PET/CT, presence of uptake at the surgical margin, pattern of uptake, and maximal standardized value were recorded. The PET/CT findings were correlated with contrast-enhanced CT or MRI. There were 26 patients with increased 18F-FDG uptake; uptake was diffuse in seven and focal in 19. Diffuse uptake was due to inflammation in all cases. Focal uptake was due to recurrence in 12 and inflammation in seven cases. Defining a focal pattern only as a positive for malignancy yielded 100 % sensitivity, 87 % specificity, 37 % false positive rate. As expected, SUVmax was significantly higher for recurrence than inflammation, but did overlap. Contrast-enhanced CT allowed differentiation between malignant and benign uptake in all cases. F-FDG uptake after hepatectomy does not equate to recurrence and yields a high false positive rate. Diffuse uptake did not require additional evaluation in our sample. Focal uptake, however, may be due to recurrence; differentiating benign and malignant nodular uptake relies on optimal contrast-enhanced CT or MRI. • Marginal uptake exposes patients to the risk of false positive diagnosis of recurrence. • Benign and malignant patterns of marginal uptake overlap. • Diffuse marginal uptake in our experience, has a high chance to be inflammatory. • Focal marginal uptake can be due to recurrent tumour or inflammation. • Contrast-enhanced CT or MR allows the differentiation between benign and malignant uptake.
    European Radiology 02/2015; DOI:10.1007/s00330-015-3631-5
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate the legitimacy of 90-day mortality as a measure of hepatopancreatobiliary quality. The 90-day mortality rate has been increasingly but not universally reported after hepatopancreatobiliary surgery. The legitimacy of this definition as a measure of surgical quality has not been evaluated. We retrospectively reviewed the causes of all deaths that occurred within 365 postoperative days in patients undergoing hepatectomy (n = 2811) and/or pancreatectomy (n = 1092) from January 1997 to December 2012. The rates of surgery-related, disease-related, and overall mortality within 30 days, within 30 days or during the index hospitalization, within 90 days, and within 180 days after surgery were calculated. Seventy-nine (3%) surgery-related deaths and 92 (3%) disease-related deaths occurred within 365 days after hepatectomy. Twenty (2%) surgery-related deaths and 112 (10%) disease-related deaths occurred within 365 days after pancreatectomy. The overall mortality rates at 99 and 118 days optimally reflected surgery-related mortality after hepatobiliary and pancreatic operations, respectively. The 90-day overall mortality rate was a less sensitive but equivalently specific measure of surgery-related death. The 99- and 118-day definitions of postoperative mortality optimally reflected surgery-related mortality after hepatobiliary and pancreatic operations, respectively. However, among commonly reported metrics, the 90-day overall mortality rate represents a legitimate measure of surgical quality.
    Annals of Surgery 01/2015; DOI:10.1097/SLA.0000000000001048
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Little is known about changes in body composition that may occur during neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer. This study was designed to characterize these changes and their potential relationships with therapeutic outcomes. Methods The study population consisted of patients with potentially resectable pancreatic cancer treated on a phase II trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiation. Skeletal muscle and adipose tissue compartments were measured before and after administration of neoadjuvant therapy using SliceOMatic software (TomoVision, 2012) and protocol-mandated CT scans. Sarcopenia was defined using gender-adjusted norms. Results Among 89 eligible patients, 46 (52 %) patients met anthropometric criteria for sarcopenia prior to the initiation of neoadjuvant therapy. Further depletion of skeletal muscle, visceral adipose tissue, and subcutaneous adipose tissue occurred during neoadjuvant therapy, but these losses did not preclude the performance of potentially curative surgery. Degree of skeletal muscle loss correlated with disease-free survival while visceral adipose loss was associated with overall and progression-free survival. However, completion of all therapy, including pancreatectomy, was the only independently significant predictor of outcome in a multivariate analysis of overall survival. Discussion These data suggest that body composition analysis of standard CT images may provide clinically relevant information for patients with potentially resectable pancreatic cancer who receive neoadjuvant therapy. Anthropometric changes must be considered in the design of preoperative therapy regimens, and further efforts should focus on maintenance of muscle and visceral adipose tissue in the preoperative setting.
    Annals of Surgical Oncology 12/2014; 22(7). DOI:10.1245/s10434-014-4285-2
  • Journal of the American College of Surgeons 11/2014; 219(6). DOI:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.09.007

Publication Stats

2k Citations
698.23 Total Impact Points

Institutions

  • 2014
    • University of Houston
      Houston, Texas, United States
  • 2005–2014
    • University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
      • • Department of Surgical Oncology
      • • Department of Surgery
      Houston, Texas, United States
  • 2012
    • Fox Chase Cancer Center
      Filadelfia, Pennsylvania, United States
  • 2009–2010
    • Weill Cornell Medical College
      • Department of Surgery
      New York, New York, United States
    • Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital
      New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States
  • 2008–2010
    • Houston Methodist Hospital
      Houston, Texas, United States
    • University Medical Center Utrecht
      Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
    • Methodist Hospitals
      Gary, Indiana, United States
  • 2007–2009
    • Baylor College of Medicine
      • • Department of Surgery
      • • Department of Medicine
      Houston, TX, United States
    • Université Paris-Sud 11
      • Faculty of Medicine
      Orsay, Île-de-France, France