Patients with large hepatic cysts (\> 5cm) may develop symptoms. These can be captured with the polycystic liver disease questionnaire (PLD-Q). Treatment of large hepatic cysts consists of aspiration sclerotherapy or laparoscopic fenestration. The safety and efficacy of both procedures has been explored in two recent systematic reviews yet no evident conclusion regarding superiority of either procedure could be drawn. The main objective of the ATLAS trial is to compare laparoscopic fenestration and aspiration sclerotherapy in patients with large symptomatic hepatic cysts on patient-reported outcomes.
Rationale: Patients with large hepatic cysts(\>5cm) may develop symptoms due to distention of Glisson's capsule and/or compression on other abdominal organs. Frequently reported symptoms include abdominal pain, early satiety, nausea, and dyspnea. These symptoms can be captured in the disease-specific Polycystic Liver Disease Questionnaire (PLD-Q), a validated instrument. The treatment of symptomatic liver cysts is aimed to improve symptoms and quality of life by reducing cyst volume. There are two procedures available to treat symptomatic liver cysts: percutaneous aspiration sclerotherapy and laparoscopic fenestration. In aspiration sclerotherapy, fluid is evacuated from the liver cyst and subsequently the cyst lining is exposed to a sclerosing agent for a limited period of time. Sclerotherapy causes temporary recurrence of cyst fluid after drainage, but subsequently results in a steady decrease of cyst volume in the majority of patients. In laparoscopic fenestration the liver is exposed through laparoscopic surgery. In this procedure the cyst is punctured and drained followed by resection of extra-hepatic cyst wall. The safety and efficacy of aspiration sclerotherapy and laparoscopic fenestration have been explored in two recent systematic reviews. No evident conclusion could be drawn because of the retrospective study design in the vast majority of the studies and the heterogeneity among these. A randomized controlled trial is warranted to identify the possible differences in safety and efficacy in aspiration sclerotherapy and laparoscopic fenestration. Hypothesis: The investigators expect patients treated with laparoscopic fenestration to have better clinical outcome; i.e. a lower PLD-Q score, compared to aspiration sclerotherapy, when measured 4 weeks after the procedure. The investigators expect this difference to become smaller over time (after 6 and 12 months), with loss of statistical significance. Objective: The main objective is to compare laparoscopic fenestration and aspiration sclerotherapy in patients with large symptomatic hepatic cysts on patient-reported outcomes. This information can be used to assess cost-effectiveness in both treatments. Study design: A prospective, randomized clinical superiority trial in which patients will be randomized 1:1 to one of the treatment arms. Patients will be followed for 1 year. Study population: All patients ≥18 years who are diagnosed with a dominant, simple hepatic cyst (\>5 cm in diameter), that are symptomatic (PLD-Q score ≥20) and have an indication for treatment (both aspiration sclerotherapy and laparoscopic fenestration) are suitable for inclusion in this study. Only patients that are eligible for both treatments can be included in this study. In particular, patients with multiple cysts (\>20 cysts of \>1.5 cm) will be excluded as surgery leads to more complications in these patients. Intervention: Patients will be randomly allocated to either aspiration sclerotherapy or laparoscopic fenestration. Both procedures are performed according to the standard Radboudumc protocols. Aspiration sclerotherapy consists of ultrasound-guided, percutaneous drainage of the cyst with subsequent sclerosation with ethanol. Laparoscopic fenestration consists of standard abdominal laparoscopy in which the large cyst(s) are drained and deroofed. Main study parameters: The main study parameter is the PLD-Q score at 4 weeks after treatment. Secondary parameters are among others: PLD-Q score at baseline, 6 months and 12 months; liver volume (CT) at baseline and 4 weeks; cyst volume (ultrasound) at baseline, 4 weeks, 6 months and 12 months; complications according to Clavien-Dindo; admission duration, recurrence and re-intervention rates.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
70
See arm description
Radboudumc University Medical Center
Nijmegen, Gelderland, Netherlands
RECRUITINGPLD-Q 4 weeks
Comparison of PLD-Q scores 4 weeks after the procedure, adjusted for baseline PLD-Q score.
Time frame: 4 weeks after the procedure
PLD-Q score 1, 6 and 12 months after intervention
PLD-Q score at 1, 6 and 12 months after intervention, adjusted for baseline
Time frame: up to 12 months
PLD-Q invididual symptoms
PLD-Q individual symptom scores at 1, 6 and 12 months after intervention, compared to baseline
Time frame: up to 12 months
SF-36 MCS
SF-36 Mental Component Score at 1, 6 and 12 months after intervention, adjusted to baseline
Time frame: up to 12 months
SF 36 PCS
SF-36 Physical Component Score at 1, 6 and 12 months after intervention, adjusted to baseline
Time frame: up to 12 months
EQ-5D-5L
EQ-5D-5L score at 1, 6 and 12 months after intervention, adjusted to baseline
Time frame: up to 12 months
Liver and cyst volume
Liver and cyst volume with CT before and 12 months after the intervention
Time frame: up to 12 months
Liver and cyst volume at recurrence
Liver and cyst volume in cases of recurrence of symptoms
Time frame: up to 12 months
Cyst volume with US
Cyst volume with ultrasound, at baseline and 1, 6 and 12 months after intervention.
Time frame: up to 12 months
Adverse events
Adverse events (according to Clavien-Dindo)
Time frame: up to 12 months
Technical success
Technical success
Time frame: periprocedural
Hospital stay
Hospital stay in days
Time frame: periprocedural
Re-intervention rates
Re-intervention rates during 12 months follow-up.
Time frame: up to 12 months
Cost-effectiveness iPCQ
Cost-effectiveness of both procedures iPCQ 1, 6 and 12 months after intervention, adjusted for baseline
Time frame: up to 12 months
Cost-effectiveness iMCQ
Cost-effectiveness of both procedures iMCQ 1, 6 and 12 months after intervention, adjusted for baseline
Time frame: up to 12 months
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.