Does anatomic resection improve the postoperative outcomes of solitary hepatocellular carcinomas located on the liver surface?

Surgical Strategies Affect the Long-Term Prognosis of Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Adjacent to the Left Branch of the Portal Vein

Purpose

When hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is closely associated with the left branch of the portal vein, there is still controversy regarding the surgical approach.

Methods

This study enrolled 330 HCC patients with tumors adjacent to the left branch of the portal vein. Among them, 85 patients underwent left hemihepatectomy (LH), while the remaining 235 underwent liver lobectomy (LL), which included left medial segmentectomy or left lateral sectionectomy. Perioperative complications, time to recurrence and overall survival (OS) were compared using propensity score matching.

Results

LH resulted in a lower 5-year recurrence rate and higher 5-year OS rate than LL (56.5% vs 74.0%, p=0.002; 67.4% vs 53.5%, p=0.029). The LL group showed a higher tendency for early recurrence (ER) and intrahepatic recurrence (IR). The cumulative IR rates at 1- 3-, and 5-years for the LH group and the LL group were 17.0%, 36.7%, 45.1% and 33.8%, 57.1%, 63.7%, respectively, with a p-value of 0.007. There was no statistically significant difference in the cumulative ER rates between the two groups at 1-, 3-, and 5- years. Furthermore, the LH group and the LL group had similar perioperative complications, and no cases of liver failure occurred.

Conclusion

LH, compared to LL, reduced the IR rate and ER rate in HCC patients with tumor adjacent to the left branch of the portal vein. It improved the OS outcome of the patients, and there was no significant difference in perioperative complications between the two groups.

Effect of anatomical liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite retrospective studies comparing anatomical liver resection (AR) and non-anatomical liver resection (NAR), the efficacy and benefits of AR for hepatocellular carcinoma remain unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors systemically reviewed MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library for propensity score matched cohort studies that compared AR and NAR for hepatocellular carcinoma. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes were recurrence patterns and perioperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, 22 propensity score matched studies (AR, n =2,496; NAR, n =2590) were included. AR including systemic segmentectomy was superior to NAR regarding the 3-year and 5-year OS. AR showed significantly better 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year RFS than NAR, with low local and multiple intrahepatic recurrence rates. In the subgroup analyses of tumour diameter less than or equal to 5 cm and tumours with microscopic spread, the RFS in the AR group was significantly better than that in the NAR group. Patients with cirrhotic liver in the AR group showed comparable 3-year and 5-year RFS with the NAR group. Postoperative overall complications were comparable between AR and NAR.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrated that AR showed better OS and RFS with a low local and multiple intra-hepatic recurrence rate than NAR, especially in patients with tumour diameter less than or equal to 5 cm and non-cirrhotic liver.

Impact of anatomic resection on long-term survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma with T1-T2 disease or microscopic vascular invasion

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to clarify potential candidates for anatomic resection (AR) among patients with pathological T1-T2 (pT1-T2) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to determine whether AR is effective for HCC with microscopic vascular invasion (MVI).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 288 patients with pT1a (n = 50), pT1b (n = 134) or pT2 (n = 104) HCC who underwent curative-intent resection between 1990 and 2010. Surgical outcomes were compared between patients who underwent AR (n = 189) and those who underwent nonanatomic resection (NAR; n = 99) according to pT category and MVI status.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent AR were more likely to have good hepatic functional reserve and an aggressive primary tumor than those who underwent NAR. When patients were stratified according to pT category, AR had a more favorable impact on survival than NAR only in patients with pT2 HCC in univariate (5-year survival, 51.5% vs. 34.6%; p = 0.010) and multivariate analysis (hazard ratio 0.505; p = 0.014). However, AR had no impact on survival in patients with pT1a or pT1b HCC. In patients with MVI (n = 57), AR achieved better survival than NAR (5-year survival, 52.0% vs. 16.7%; p = 0.019) and was an independent prognostic factor (hazard ratio 0.335; p = 0.020). In patients without MVI (n = 231), there was no significant difference in survival between the two groups (p = 0.221).

CONCLUSION

AR was identified as an independent factor in improved survival in patients with pT2 HCC or HCC with MVI.

Detailed analysis of recurrent sites after wedge resection for primary hepatocellular carcinoma considering the potential usefulness of anatomic resection: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

We investigated the detailed recurrent sites after wedge liver resection for primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 278 patients with primary HCC who underwent curative liver resection between 2000 and 2016. Recurrent sites were divided into four groups: around the initial HCC (segmental recurrence), within the same section as the primary HCC (sectional recurrence), within the same lobe as the primary HCC (lobar recurrence), and contralateral or extrahepatic recurrence (extra recurrence).

RESULTS

Recurrence was observed in 101 of 147 patients who underwent wedge resection. At first recurrence, segmental recurrence was observed in 18 patients (17.8%), while 28 patients (27.7%) were with sectional recurrence and 48 patients (47.5%) were with lobar recurrence. However, the cumulative recurrent sites of each patient showed extra recurrence in 53 patients (52.5%) at initial recurrence, 79 patients (78.2%) until the second recurrence, 89 patients (88.1%) until the third recurrence, 94 patients (93.0%) until the fourth, and 96 patients (95.0%) until the fifth recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Some intrahepatic recurrence after wedge resection might have been avoided if anatomic resection had been performed instead. However, the number of contralateral or extrahepatic recurrences increased with the number of recurrences.

Comparison of Anatomic and Non-Anatomic Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background and Objectives: The survival benefit of anatomical liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma has not been elucidated yet. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effects of anatomic and non-anatomic liver resection on surgical outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing anatomic or non-anatomic resections due to hepatocellular carcinoma between March 2006 and October 2019 was conducted. Demographics, preoperative laboratory assessments, treatment strategies, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Results: The total cohort consisted of 94 patients, with a mean age of 63.1 ± 8.9 years, and 74.5% were male. A total of 41 patients underwent anatomic liver resection, and 53 patients underwent non-anatomic resection. The overall survival rates were found to be similar (5-year overall survival was 49.3% for anatomic resection and 44.5% for non-anatomic resection). Estimated median overall survival times were 58.5 months and 57.3 months, respectively (p = 0.777). Recurrence-free 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were found to be 73.6%, 39.1%, and 32.8% in the non-anatomic resection group and 48.8%, 22.7%, and 22.7% in the anatomic resection group, respectively. Grade three or higher complication rates were found to be similar among the groups. Conclusions: This study did not find a difference between two surgical methods, in terms of survival. A tailored selection of the resection method should be made, with the aim of complete removal of tumoral lesions and leaving a suitable functional liver reserve, according to the parenchymal quality and volume of the liver remnant.

Oncological outcomes of anatomic versus non-anatomic resections for small hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies

Background

Primary liver cancer is the second-most commonly occurring cancer and has resulted in numerous deaths worldwide. Hepatic resection is of two main types, i.e., anatomic resection (AR) and non-anatomic resection (NAR). The oncological outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients after AR and NAR are still considered controversial. Therefore, we aimed to compare the impact of AR and NAR on the oncological outcomes of HCC patients with tumor diameters ≤ 5 cm using the propensity score matching method and research-based evidence.

Method

A systematic literature search was conducted. The main outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), intrahepatic recurrence rate, and extrahepatic metastasis rate. Relative risk (RR) was calculated from forest plots and outcomes using random-effects model (REM).

Result

AR significantly improved DFS at 1, 3. and 5 years after surgery, compared to NAR (RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 1.04–1.15, P = 0.0003; RR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.07–1.27, P = 0.0005; RR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.07–1.55, P = 0.008). However, both of the difference in DFS at 7 years and OS at 1 and 3 years after AR versus that after NAR were not statistically significant. Nevertheless, the long-term OS associated with AR (5, 7, and 10 years) was superior to that associated with NAR (RR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.03–1.21, P = 0.01; RR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.04–1.36, P = 0.01; RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.05–1.34, P = 0.008). The difference in the intrahepatic recurrence rate after AR versus that after NAR was not statistically significant, but the extrahepatic metastasis rate after AR was significantly lower than that observed after NAR (RR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.40–0.94, P = 0.03).

Conclusion

Therefore, AR should be the preferred surgical approach for HCC patients with tumor diameters ≤ 5 cm.

Trial registration

PROSPERO registration number CRD42022330596.

Trans-arterial positive ICG staining-guided laparoscopic liver watershed resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

Introduction

Anatomical liver resection is the optimal treatment for patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Laparoscopic Couinaud liver segment resection could be performed easily as liver segments could be stained by ultrasound-guided indocyanine green (ICG) injection into the corresponding segment portal vein. Several smaller liver anatomical units (liver watersheds) have been identified (such as S8v, S8d, S4a, and S4b). However, since portal veins of liver watersheds are too thin to be identified under ultrasound, the boundaries of these liver watersheds could not be stained intraoperatively, making laparoscopic resection of these liver watersheds demanding. Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) could identify arteries of liver watersheds with a diameter of less than 2 mm. Yet, its usage for liver watershed staining has not been explored so far.

Purpose

The aim of this study is to explore the possibility of positive liver watershed staining via trans-arterial ICG injection under DSA examination for navigating laparoscopic watershed-oriented hepatic resection.

Methods

We describe, in a step-by-step approach, the application of trans-arterial ICG injection to stain aimed liver watershed during laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy. The efficiency and safety of the technique are illustrated and discussed in comparison with the laparoscopic anatomical liver resection via ultrasound-guided liver segment staining.

Results

Eight of 10 HCC patients received successful trans-arterial liver watershed staining. The success rate of the trans-artery staining approach was 80%, higher than that of the ultrasound-guided portal vein staining approach (60%). Longer surgical duration was found in patients who underwent the trans-artery staining approach (305.3 ± 23.2 min vs. 268.4 ± 34.7 min in patients who underwent the ultrasound-guided portal vein staining approach, p = 0.004). No significant difference was found in major morbidity, reoperation rate, hospital stay duration, and 30-day and 90-day mortality between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

Trans-arterial ICG staining is safe and feasible for staining the aimed liver watershed, navigating watershed-oriented hepatic resection under fluorescence laparoscopy for surgeons.

Anatomical vs nonanatomical liver resection for solitary hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The long-term survival of patients with solitary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) following anatomical resection (AR) vs non-anatomical resection (NAR) is still controversial. It is necessary to investigate which approach is better for patients with solitary HCC.

AIM

To compare perioperative and long-term survival outcomes of AR and NAR for solitary HCC.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and Cochrane Library. Participants of any age and sex, who underwent liver resection, were considered following the following criteria: (1) Studies reporting AR vs NAR liver resection; (2) Studies focused on primary HCC with a solitary tumor; (3) Studies reporting the long-term survival outcomes (> 5 years); and (4) Studies including patients without history of preoperative treatment. The main results were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Perioperative outcomes were also compared.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies, published between 2001 and 2020, were included in our meta-analysis, including 9444 patients who were mainly from China, Japan, and Korea. AR was performed on 4260 (44.8%) patients. The synthetic results showed that the 5-year OS [odds ratio (OR): 1.19; P < 0.001] and DFS (OR: 1.26; P < 0.001) were significantly better in the AR group than in the NAR group. AR was associated with longer operating time [mean difference (MD): 47.08; P < 0.001], more blood loss (MD: 169.29; P = 0.001), and wider surgical margin (MD = 1.35; P = 0.04) compared to NAR. There was no obvious difference in blood transfusion ratio (OR: 1.16; P = 0.65) or postoperative complications (OR: 1.24, P = 0.18).

CONCLUSION

AR is superior to NAR in terms of long-term outcomes. Thus, AR can be recommended as a reasonable surgical option in patients with solitary HCC.

What is the optimal surgical treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the debate between anatomical versus non-anatomical resection?

The optimal type of hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)-anatomical or non-anatomical resection-remains controversial despite numerous comparative studies. There are common fundamental issues in published studies comparing anatomical resection with non-anatomical resection: (1) confounding by indication, (2) setting primary outcomes, and (3) a lack of a clear definition of non-anatomical resection. This degrades the quality of the comparison of the two types of surgery. To measure the therapeutic effect of hepatectomy, it is essential to understand the accumulated knowledge underlying these issues, such as the mechanism of hepatocellular carcinoma spread, tumor blood flow drainage theory, and the three patterns of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence: (1) local intrahepatic metastasis, (2) systemic metastasis, and (3) multicentric carcinogenesis recurrence. Based on evidence that the incidence of local intrahepatic metastasis was so low it was almost negligible, the therapeutic effect of anatomical resection on the oncological survival was determined to be similar to that of non-anatomical resection. Recent research progress demonstrating the clinical impact of subclinical dissemination of HCC after surgery may stimulate new debate on the optimal surgical treatment for HCC beyond the comparison of anatomical and non-anatomical resection.

Anatomic versus non-anatomic resection of hepatocellular carcinoma with microvascular invasion: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The efficacy of anatomical resection (AR) and non-anatomical resection (NR) in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with microvascular invasion (MVI) remains unknown. This study compared the safety and outcomes of these surgical procedures. A systematic literature search was conducted. The main outcomes were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS). Overall hazard ratio (HR) was calculated from Kaplan-Meier plots and outcomes using random-effects models. There was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the AR and NR groups (risk ratio [RR]: 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72-1.17, p = 0.496). OS was higher with AR at 1 year (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45-0.98, p = 0.037), 3 years (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.50-0.82, p = 0.000), and 5 years (RR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.65-0.89, p = 0.001). AR was associated with a higher OS rate (HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.47-0.82, p = 0.001). AR was associated with improved DFS at 1 year (RR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.82, p = 0.000), 3 years (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.86, p = 0.000), and 5 years (95% CI: 0.75 to 0.94, p = 0.002). Compared with NR, AR had significant advantages on overall HR of DFS (HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.91, p = 0.012). In conclusion, AR was associated with higher rates of OS and DFS in HCC patients with MVI. Thus, for well-presented liver function HCC patients which are predicted to have positive MVI, AR is recommended.

Central Hepatectomy Versus Major Hepatectomy for Centrally Located Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Study

BACKGROUND

In terms of anatomical liver sectionectomy approaches, both a central hepatectomy (CH) and major hepatectomy (MH) are feasible options for a centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the surgical outcomes of central HCC patients who underwent CH or MH. MH includes hemihepatectomy or trisectionectomy, whereas CH involves a left medial sectionectomy, right anterior sectionectomy, or central bisectionectomy. The surgical outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 233 patients were enrolled, including 132 in the CH group and 101 in the MH group. The MH group cases were pathologically more advanced and had poorer overall survival rates than the CH group. After PSM, 68 patients were selected into each group, both of which showed similar overall and recurrence-free survival outcomes. The CH group showed a tendency for a longer operation time; however, other perioperative outcomes were similar between the two groups. Multivariate analyses of our matched HCC patients revealed that the type of surgery (CH or MH) was not an independent prognostic factor. More patients in the matched CH group experienced a repeat hepatectomy for recurrence and no patients in this group underwent a preoperative portal vein embolization.

CONCLUSIONS

The short- and long-term surgical outcomes of CH and MH for a centrally located HCC are similar under a matched clinicopathological background. CH has the advantage of not requiring a preoperative portal vein embolization and increased chances of conducting a repeat hepatectomy for recurrence.

Laparoscopic middle-hepatic-vein-guided anatomical hemihepatectomy in the treatment of hepatolithiasis: a 10-year case study

BACKGROUND

This retrospective 10-year case study evaluated the perioperative results and long-term efficacy of laparoscopic middle-hepatic-vein-guided hemihepatectomy (L-MHV-H) and traditional anatomical hemihepatectomy (TAH) in the treatment of hepatolithiasis (HL).

METHODS

From January 2010 to December 2019, 99 patients with regional HL underwent laparoscopic anatomical hemihepatectomy (LAH) at our centre, including 43 patients in the L-MHV-H group and 56 patients in the TAH group.

RESULTS

All patients in both groups were Child-Pugh grade A before operation. No significant between-group differences in general information, stone distribution, comorbidities, history of previous abdominal surgery or co-occurrence of gallstones and common bile duct stones were observed. The L-MHV-H group exhibited a higher intraoperative stone clearance rate (95.3% vs. 75.0%, p = 0.014) and a lower postoperative complication rate (10.1% vs. 48.2%, p = 0.005) compared with the TAH group. In the median follow-up time of 60 months (range 6-125 months), the L-MHV-H group had lower stone recurrence (2.3% vs. 19.6%, p = 0.013) and cholangitis recurrence (2.3% vs. 17.9%, p = 0.034) rates. No significant between-group differences in the other results were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

L-MHV-H is safe and feasible for HL with certain advantages over TAH in improving the intraoperative stone clearance rate, reducing postoperative complication incidence and reducing stone and cholangitis recurrence rates.

Anatomic versus non-anatomic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma, do we have an answer? A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Anatomic resection (AR) is widely performed for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but it is generally not considered superior to non-anatomic resection (NAR) in terms of prognosis. So we compared the prognosis of AR with that of NAR for HCC.

METHODS

We searched for articles about AR versus NAR for HCC published between January 1998 and December 2018 in PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Wanfang database. Meta-analysis was performed on patient characteristics, tumor characteristics, operative characteristics, perioperative outcomes and long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 38 studies involving 9122 patients were included: 5062 were in the AR group and 4060 in the NAR group. Only one study included in our meta-analysis was randomized controlled trial, and others were comparative cohort studies. The AR group had an advantage over NAR group in the aspect of age, liver cirrhosis level and liver reserve function; but had a disadvantage in the aspect of tumor size, AFP level, operation time, blood loss, microvascular invasion, pathological differentiation and postoperative complication. The AR group gained 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) benefits versus NAR group, but there was significant heterogeneity between groups in terms of patient and tumor characteristics.

CONCLUSION

AR is superior to NAR regarding the long-term outcomes considering the relatively acceptable heterogeneity. More prospective randomized controlled trials are required to further confirm the actual effect of AR or NAR on survival for HCC with less heterogeneity.

"Logic-Based Medicine" Is More Feasible than "Evidence-Based Medicine" in the Local Treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

The optimal type of surgery (e.g., anatomic or non-anatomic resection) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is still under debate despite numerous comparative studies based on overall survival. This debate continues not only because these endpoints are influenced by non-surgical factors, such as liver function, but because the definition of non-anatomic resection for HCC has remained unclear. The optimal surgery could be logically determined based on the mechanism of local intrahepatic metastasis, that is, the drainage of tumour blood flow (TBF), because HCC spreads locally through tumour blood flowing to the peri-tumourous liver parenchyma. Since TBF is clearly demonstrated by CT scan under hepatic arteriography, the surgical margin can be determined individually based on the drainage of TBF without deteriorating local curability. Controversy regarding RFA and surgery does not result from the curability of treatment itself but from the lack of scientific evidence on safety margins. Based on proper concepts and self-evident truths, an algorithm of loco-regional treatment for HCC is proposed.