Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumors located in the alimentary tract. Its usual manifestation is gastrointestinal bleeding. However, small asymptomatic lesions are frequently detected as incidental finding. Characteristically, most GISTs (> 95%) are positive for the KIT protein (CD117) by IHC staining and approximately 80%-90% of GISTs carry a mutation in the c-KIT or PDGFRA genes. Mutational analysis should be performed when planning adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy, due to its possible resistance to conventional treatment. The arise of tyrosine kinase inhibitor has supposed a revolution in GISTs treatment being useful as adjuvant, neoadjuvant or recurrence disease treatment. That is why a multidisciplinary approach to this disease is required. The correct characterization of the tumor at diagnosis (the diagnosis of recurrences and the evaluation of the response to treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors) is fundamental for facing these tumors and requires specialized Endoscopist, Radiologists and Nuclear Medicine Physician. Surgery is the only potentially curative treatment for suspected resectable GIST. In the case of high risk GISTs, surgery plus adjuvant Imatinib-Mesylate for 3 years is the standard treatment. Neoadjuvant imatinib-mesylate should be considered to shrink the tumor in case of locally advanced primary or recurrence disease, unresectable or potentially resectable metastasic tumors, and potentially resectable disease in complex anatomic locations to decrease the related morbidity. In the case of Metastatic GIST under Neoadjuvant treatment, when there are complete response, stable disease or limited disease progression, complete cytoreductive surgery could be a therapeutic option if feasible.

Background The Brisbane 2000 Terminology for Liver Anatomy and Resections, based on Couinaud’s segments, did not address how to identify segmental borders and anatomic territories of less than one segment. Smaller anatomic resections including segmentectomies and subsegmentectomies, have not been well defined. The advent of minimally invasive liver resection has enhanced the possibilities of more precise resection due to a magnified view and reduced bleeding, and minimally invasive anatomic liver resection (MIALR) is becoming popular gradually. Therefore, there is a need for updating the Brisbane 2000 system, including anatomic segmentectomy or less. An online "Expert Consensus Meeting: Precision Anatomy for Minimally Invasive HBP Surgery (PAM‐HBP Surgery Consensus)" was hosted on February 23, 2021. Methods The Steering Committee invited 34 international experts from around the world. The Expert Committee (EC) selected 12 questions and two future research topics in the terminology session. The EC created seven tentative definitions and five recommendations based on the experts’ opinions and the literature review performed by the Research Committee. Two Delphi Rounds finalized those definitions and recommendations. Results This paper presents seven definitions and five recommendations regarding anatomic segmentectomy or less. In addition, two future research topics are discussed. Conclusions The PAM‐HBP Surgery Consensus has presented the Tokyo 2020 Terminology for Liver Anatomy and Resections. The terminology has added definitions of liver anatomy and resections that were not defined in the Brisbane 2000 system.

Background The concept of minimally invasive anatomic liver resection (MIALR) is gaining popularity. However, specific technical skills need to be acquired to safely perform MIALR. The “Expert Consensus Meeting: Precision Anatomy for Minimally Invasive HBP Surgery (PAM‐HBP Surgery Consensus)” was developed as a special program during the 32nd meeting of the Japanese Society of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Surgery (JSHBPS). Methods Thirty‐four international experts gathered online for the consensus. A Research Committee performed a comprehensive literature review, classifying studies according to the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network method. Based on the literature review and experts’ opinions, tentative recommendations were drafted and circulated among experts using online Delphi Rounds. Finally, formulated recommendations were presented online in the Expert Consensus Meeting of the JSHBPS on February 23rd, 2021. The final recommendations were validated and finalized by the 2nd Delphi Round in May 2021. Results Seven clinical questions were selected, and 22 recommendations were formulated. All recommendations reached more than 85% consensus among experts at the final Delphi Round. Conclusions The Expert Consensus Meeting for safely performing MIALR has presented a set of clinical guidelines based on available literature and experts’ opinions. We expect these guidelines to have a favorable effect on the safe implementation and development of MIALR.