Mesohepatectomy versus extended hemihepatectomy for centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma

Risk Factors of Complications from Central Bisectionectomy (H458) for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multi-Institutional Single-Arm Analysis

Background: This study aims to clarify the perioperative risk factors and short-term prognosis of central bisectionectomy (CB) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: Surgical data from 142 selected patients out of 171 HCC patients who underwent anatomical CB (H458) between 2005 and 2020 were collected from 17 expert institutions in a single-arm retrospective study. Results: Morbidities recorded by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS) from grade BC post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) and bile leakage (PHBL), or complications requiring intervention were observed in 37% of patients. A multivariate analysis showed that increased blood loss (iBL) > 1500 mL from PHLF (risk ratio [RR]: 2.79), albumin level < 4 g/dL for PHBL (RR, 2.99), involvement of segment 1, a large size > 6 cm, or compression of the hepatic venous confluence or cava by HCC for all severe complications (RR: 5.67, 3.75, 6.51, and 8.95, respectively) (p < 0.05) were significant parameters. Four patients (3%) died from PHLF. HCC recurred in 50% of 138 surviving patients. The three-year recurrence-free and overall survival rates were 48% and 81%, respectively. Conclusions: Large tumor size and surrounding tumor involvement, or compression of major vasculatures and the related iBL > 1500 mL were independent risk factors for severe morbidities in patients with HCC undergoing CB.

Perioperative and Disease-Free Survival Outcomes after Hepatectomy for Centrally Located Hepatocellular Carcinoma Guided by Augmented Reality and Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Imaging: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy for centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma is challenging to perform. Augmented reality navigation (ARN) and fluorescence imaging are currently safe and reproducible techniques for hepatectomy, but the efficacy results for centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma have not been reported. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of an ARN system combined with fluorescence imaging (ARN-FI) in laparoscopic hepatectomy for centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a post hoc analysis of an original nonrandomized clinical trial that was designed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of ARN-FI for laparoscopic liver resection. A total of 76 patients were consecutively enrolled from June 2018 to June 2021, of which 42 underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy using ARN-FI (ARN-FI group), and the other 34 who did not use ARN-FI guidance (non-ARN-FI group). Perioperative outcomes and disease-free survival were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Compared with the non-ARN-FI group, the ARN-FI group had less intraoperative blood loss (median 275 vs 300 mL, p = 0.013), lower intraoperative transfusion rate (14.3% vs 64.7%, p < 0.01), shorter postoperative hospital stay (median 8 vs 9 days, p = 0.005), and lower postoperative complication rate (35.7% vs 61.8%, p = 0.024). There was no death in the perioperative period and follow-up period. There was no significant difference in overall disease-free survival between the 2 groups (p = 0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

The ARN system and fluorescence imaging may be of value in improving the success rate of surgery, reducing postoperative complications, accelerating postoperative recovery, and shortening postoperative hospital stay.

Central hepatectomy versus major hepatectomy for patients with centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

For those with a centrally located HCC, the two types of liver sectionectomy that can be performed are extended hepatectomy (EH) and central hepatectomy (CH). This meta-analysis aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between patients treated with CH and patients treated with EH for those with centrally located HCC.

METHOD

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library for eligible studies from inception to 1 April 2022 and a systematic review and meta-analysis were done to compare the outcomes between the two groups.

RESULTS

we included 9 studies with a total of 1674 patients in this study. The pooled results in this meta-analysis showed equal long-term overall survival, Disease-free survival, recurrence and mortality between the two groups (5-year OS, RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.96-1.35, P = 0.12; I2 = 56%), (5-year DFS, RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.61-1.08, P = 0.15; I2 = 60%), (Recurrence, RR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.94-1.15, P = 0.45; I2 = 27%), and (Mortality, RR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.26-1.15, P = 0.11; I2 = 0%). In addition to that, no significant difference could be detected in the overall incidence of complications between the two groups (Complications, RR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.76-1.16, P = 0.57; I2 = 0%). However, CH is associated with a remarkable increase in the rate of biliary fistula (Biliary fistula, RR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.07-3.40, P = 0.03; I2 = 0%). And Liver cell failure was higher in the case of EH (LCF, RR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.30-0.76, P = 0.002; I2 = 0%). Regarding the operative details, CH is associated with longer operative time (Time of the operation, Mean difference = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.36, 1.27, P = 0.0004; I2 = 57%).

CONCLUSION

No significant difference in the short and long-term survival and recurrence between CH and MH for CL-HCC. However, CH is associated with greater future remnant liver volume that decreases the incidence of LCF and provides more opportunities for a repeat hepatectomy after tumour recurrence.

Phase 2 Evaluation of Neoadjuvant Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy in Centrally Located Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial

Importance

Centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a special type of HCC whose outcome is unsatisfactory when treated with surgery alone. No standard adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment for this disease has been established that improves clinical outcomes.

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of adding neoadjuvant intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) before surgery in patients with centrally located HCC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This phase 2, single-center, single-group prospective nonrandomized controlled trial was conducted between December 16, 2014, and January 29, 2019, at the Cancer Institute and Hospital of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences in Beijing, China. The last follow-up was on July 30, 2021. Patients with centrally located HCC who underwent neoadjuvant IMRT and surgery were included in the analysis.

Interventions

Neoadjuvant IMRT followed by hepatectomy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was 5-year overall survival (OS). The secondary end points were tumor response to IMRT, 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), and treatment-related adverse events.

Results

Thirty-eight patients (mean [SD] age, 55.6 [9.3] years; 35 male [92.1%] individuals) completed the prescribed neoadjuvant IMRT without interruption. Radiographic tumor response to IMRT before surgery included partial response (16 [42.1%]) and stable disease (22 [57.9%]). Thirteen patients (34.2%) achieved major pathological response, of which 5 (13.2%) achieved pathologic complete response. With a median follow-up of 45.8 months, the median OS was not reached, and the OS rates were 94.6% at 1 year, 75.4% at 3 years, and 69.1% at 5 years. The median DFS was 45.8 months, and DFS rates were 70.3% at 1 year, 54.1% at 3 years, and 41.0% at 5 years. Radiotherapy-related grade 3 adverse events were observed in 3 patients (7.9%). Nineteen operative complications developed in 13 patients (34.2%), including grade I to II complications in 12 patients (31.6%) and grade IIIa complication in 1 patient (2.6%). No grade IIIb or higher operative complications were observed.

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this trial suggest that neoadjuvant IMRT plus surgery is effective and well-tolerated in patients with centrally located HCC. These data may inform a future randomized clinical trial of this new treatment strategy.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02580929.

Parenchyma-Sparing Liver Resection or Regenerative Liver Surgery: Which Way to Go?

Liver resection for malignant tumors should respect oncological margins while ensuring safety and improving the quality of life, therefore tumor staging, underlying liver disease and performance status should all be attentively assessed in the decision process. The concept of parenchyma-sparing liver surgery is nowadays used as an alternative to major hepatectomies to address deeply located lesions with intricate topography by means of complex multiplanar parenchyma-sparing liver resections, preferably under the guidance of intraoperative ultrasound. Regenerative liver surgery evolved as a liver growth induction method to increase resectability by stimulating the hypertrophy of the parenchyma intended to remain after resection (referred to as future liver remnant), achievable by portal vein embolization and liver venous deprivation as interventional approaches, and portal vein ligation and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy as surgical techniques. Interestingly, although both strategies have the same conceptual origin, they eventually became caught in the never-ending parenchyma-sparing liver surgery vs. regenerative liver surgery debate. However, these strategies are both valid and must both be mastered and used to increase resectability. In our opinion, we consider parenchyma-sparing liver surgery along with techniques of complex liver resection and intraoperative ultrasound guidance the preferred strategy to treat liver tumors. In addition, liver volume-manipulating regenerative surgery should be employed when resectability needs to be extended beyond the possibilities of parenchyma-sparing liver surgery.

Long-Term Outcomes of Mesohepatectomy for Centrally Located Liver Tumors: Two-Decade Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Mesohepatectomy is a viable treatment option for patients diagnosed with centrally located liver tumors (CLLTs). There are several reports from Eastern centers, but few data are available on this topic from Western centers.

STUDY DESIGN

Data of 128 consecutive patients who underwent mesohepatectomy between September 2000 and September 2020 in our center were analyzed from a prospectively collected database. Patient demographic data, liver tumor characteristics, and intraoperative data were collected. In addition, posthepatectomy bile leakage (PHBL), posthepatectomy hemorrhage (PHH), posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF), and 90-day mortality after mesohepatectomy were assessed. Long-term outcomes were also reported, and factors that may influence disease-free survival were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 128 patients, 113 patients (88.3%) had malignant hepatic tumors (primary and metastatic tumors in 41 [32%] and 72 [56.3%] patients, respectively), and 15 patients suffered from benign lesions (11.7%). Among the relevant surgical complications (grade B or C), PHBL was the most common complication after mesohepatectomy and occurred in 11.7% of patients, followed by PHLF in 3.1% of patients and PHH in 2.3% of patients. Only four patients (3.1%) died within 90 days after mesohepatectomy. The 5-year overall survival and overall recurrence (for malignant lesion) rates were 76.5% and 45.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Mesohepatectomy is a safe and feasible surgical treatment with low morbidity and mortality for patients with CLLT. Long-term outcomes can be improved by increased surgical expertise.

Parenchyma-Sparing Central Hepatectomy Versus Extended Resections for Liver Tumors: a Value-Based Comparative Analysis

BACKGROUND

Parenchyma-sparing (PS) liver resection is recommended for liver tumors. The value of PS-approaches as compared to more extended resections is unknown. We sought to examine value-based differences (quality/cost) of central hepatectomy (CH) versus more extended resections.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients having CH or right/extended hepatectomies (R/EH) at a high-volume cancer center was performed (2015-2019). The primary outcome was the value ratio, calculated as quality/cost. Quality was defined as the proportion of patients achieving a textbook outcome. Perioperative actual direct costs ($USD) for each patient were abstracted from institutional financial records spanning throughout the perioperative period. Value ratios were calculated and compared for each approach; sensitivity analysis was performed by modelling TO and cost thresholds.

RESULTS

Among 651 hepatobiliary operations (426 liver resections), 90 patients met inclusion criteria: 19 CH and 71 R/EH. TO occurred in 68% and 69% of CH and R/EH, respectively (P = 0.96). Mean direct costs were $21,826 for CH and $28,599 for R/EH (P = 0.008). CH provided a greater value (value ratio CH = 0.33 vs. R/EH = 0.26; P = 0.004) with a shift favoring R/EH only when the TO threshold for CH was below 51% (CH = 0.23 vs. R/EH = 0.24) or that of R/EH was over 90% (CH = 0.31 vs. R/EH = 0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support a PS approach for central liver tumors (central hepatectomy) as it offers higher value than more extended resections. In the context of high-volume centers with outcomes within established national benchmarks, patients with central tumors should be considered for CH over more extended non-PS approaches.

Minimally invasive mesohepatectomy for centrally located liver lesions-a case series

BACKGROUND

Resection of centrally located liver lesions remains a technically demanding procedure. To date, there are limited data on the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive mesohepatectomy for benign and malignant lesions. It was therefore the objective of this study to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive mesohepatectomy for liver tumors at a tertiary care hospital.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent a minimally invasive anatomic mesohepatectomy using a Glissonean pedicle approach from April 2018 to November 2021 were identified from a prospective database. Demographics, operative details, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed using descriptive statistics for continuous and categorical variables.

RESULTS

A total of ten patients were included, of whom five patients had hepatocellular carcinoma, one patient had cholangiocarcinoma, three patients had colorectal liver metastases, and one patient had a hydatid cyst. Two and eight patients underwent robotic-assisted and laparoscopic resections, respectively. The median operative time was 393 min (interquartile range (IQR) 298-573 min). Conversion to laparotomy was required in one case. The median lesion size was 60 mm and all cases had negative resection margins on final histopathological analysis. The median total blood loss was 550 ml (IQR 413-850 ml). One patient had a grade III complication. The median length of stay was 7 days (IQR 5-12 days). Time-to-functional recovery was achieved after a median of 2 days (IQR 1-4 days). There were no readmissions within 90 days after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive mesohepatectomy is a feasible and safe approach in selected patients with benign and malignant liver lesions.

Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of right anterior sectionectomy for liver disease: A single-center experience with 415 patients

BACKGROUND

Right anterior sectionectomy (RAS) is technically difficult and performed infrequently, so there are few published reports about experiences with this surgery. We describe 10 years' worth of clinicopathologic and oncologic outcomes associated with RAS.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 415 patients treated with RAS for hepatic tumors located at segment five and/or eight between January 2008 and December 2017.

RESULTS

All patients underwent RAS with the alternative Glissonean pedicle clamp and Kelly clamp-crushing methods for transection. The mean operative time was 165 min, and the mean transection time was 28 min. Major morbidity (≥grade III) occurred in 28 cases (6.7%). Bile leakage occurred in 63 patients (15.1%), but no patients required reoperation. Grade A, B, and C post-hepatectomy liver failure occurred in 39 (9.4%), 7 (1.7%), and 0 patients, respectively. There were no in-hospital deaths caused by postoperative complications. The mean hospital stay was 13.3 days. The mean tumor size was 3.8 cm. Among hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients (n = 361, 87.0%), the 5- and 10-year overall survival rates were 78.3%, 64.4%, and the 5- and 10-year disease-free survival rates were 57.2%, 37.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

RAS was associated with acceptable procedure-related morbidity and mortality as well as appropriate oncologic outcomes for HCC patients.

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.

Transarterial Yttrium-90 Radioembolization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Perfused by the Cystic Artery: Multi-institutional Feasibility Study

PURPOSE

To assess the safety and efficacy of transarterial yttrium-90 radioembolization via the cystic artery for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) adjacent to the gallbladder with cystic artery supply.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 17 patients treated at 4 institutions. Patients with HCC perfused by the cystic artery who received ablative-dose radioembolization were included. Median tumor size was 3.8 cm (range, 2.0-8.8 cm). Fourteen patients (82%) had Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis and 3 (18%) had class B cirrhosis. Adverse events, tumor response, and time to progression were analyzed.

RESULTS

Median dose to the tissue perfused by the cystic artery was 340 Gy (range, 200-720 Gy). There were no occurrences of acute cholecystitis warranting invasive intervention. Four patients (24%) experienced transient right upper quadrant pain, with symptom resolution within 3 mo. Six patients (35%) exhibited gallbladder wall edema on follow-up imaging. Two (12%) and 0 grade 3/4 increases in alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin were observed, respectively. Follow-up imaging demonstrated complete response in 13 target tumors (76%) and partial response in 4 (24%). There were no cases of target tumor progression during a median follow-up of 9 mo (range, 3-72 mo).

CONCLUSIONS

Direct infusion of 90Y microspheres via the cystic artery appears to have an acceptable safety profile, without resulting in acute cholecystitis warranting invasive intervention. In selected patients with HCC in whom other treatments may be contraindicated and the tumor is supplied via the cystic artery, treatment with selective ablative radioembolization can be considered.

A novel genomic-clinicopathologic nomogram to improve prognosis prediction of hepatocellular carcinoma

There is a lack of precise and clinical accessible model to predict the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in clinic practice currently. Here, an inclusive nomogram was developed by integrating genomic markers and clinicopathologic factors for predicting the outcome of patients with HCC. A total of 365 samples of HCC were obtained from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. The LASSO analysis was carried out to identify HCC-related mRNAs, and the multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to construct a genomic-clinicopathologic nomogram. As results, 9 mRNAs were finally identified as prognostic indicators, including RGCC, CDH15, XRN2, RAB3IL1, THEM4, PIF1, MANBA, FKTN and GABARAPL1, and used to establish a 9-mRNA classifier. Additionally, an inclusive nomogram was built up by combining the 9-mRNA classifier (P < 0.001) and clinicopathologic factors including age (P = 0.006) and metastasis (P < 0.001) to predict the mortality of HCC patients. Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic, index of concordance and calibration analyses indicated favorable accuracy of the model. Decision curve analysis suggested that appropriate intervention according to the established nomogram will bring net benefit when threshold probability was above 25%. The genomic-clinicopathologic model could be a reliable tool for predicting the mortality, helping determining the individualized treatment and probably improving HCC survival.

Early versus late recurrence of centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma after mesohepatectomy: A cohort study based on the STROBE guidelines

The aim of this study was to investigate the features, treatment, and prognosis of early versus late recurrence of centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma (CL-HCC) after mesohepatectomy (MH).Three hundred forty eight patients with CL-HCC undergoing MH were included. Data on clinicopathological characteristics, initial surgical details, timing and sites of tumor recurrence, management after recurrence, and long-term outcomes were analyzed.The optimal cutoff value to differentiate early (71 patients, 64.5%) versus late (39, 35.5%) recurrence was defined as 12 months. Patients with early recurrence (ER) had higher alpha fetoprotein (AFP) level (P < .001), more advanced tumor stage (P = .024), and higher incidence of microvascular invasion (MVI, P = .001). Patients with ER had higher incidence of local tumor recurrence (P = .027) and higher average number of recurrent nodules (P = .016) than patients with LR. Patients after ER showed a better overall survival (from date of diagnosis of recurrence) than after late recurrence (LR). Patients with ER had less chances of curative treatment (14.1% vs 41.0%, P = .004) after tumor recurrence than patients with LR. Multivariable analyses revealed that liver cirrhosis (P < .001) and tumor differentiation (P < .001) were associated with an increased likelihood of LR, while multiple tumor number (P = .005), type IV classification (P = .012), and MVI (P < .001) were independent risk factors related to ER.ER and LR after MH for CL-HCC were associated with different risk predictors and prognosis. Data on the timing of recurrence may inform decisions about postoperative adjuvant treatment, as well as help to predict long-term survival for these patients.

Laparoscopic versus open mesohepatectomy for patients with centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic mesohepatectomy (LM) has been performed for patients with centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma (CL-HCC), its short- and long-term benefits compared with traditional open surgery remain unclear. The aim of the present study was to explore the independent role of LM in the prognosis of patients with CL-HCC.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was undertaken of 348 patients who underwent mesohepatectomy for CL-HCC between January 2012 and October 2017 in our hospital. The impact of the surgical methods on long-term prognosis was evaluated by multivariable regression analysis. In addition, patients in the LM group were matched in a 1:3 ratio with open mesohepatectomy (OM) group.

RESULTS

Some 307 patients underwent OM and 41 had LM. In both adjusted and non-adjusted models, patients in LM group had similar overall survival (OS, both P > 0.05) and disease-free survival (DFS, both P > 0.05) compared to OM patients. The mean (s.d.) OS in LM and OM groups was 41.6 (7.2) and 46.4 (1.4) months, respectively. The mean (s.d.) DFS in LM and OM groups was 37.7 (5.9) and 33.4 (1.5) months, respectively. After propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis, 96 patients remained in OM group and 32 patients in LM group. In the PSM subset, patients in LM group still had comparable OS (P = 0.120) and DFS (P = 0.757) compared to patients in the OM group. After PSM, patients receiving LM had longer vascular exclusion time (P = 0.006) and shorter hospital stay (P = 0.004). In addition, LM was associated with reduced postoperative morbidity after PSM adjustment (P = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

LM is associated with fewer complications and does not compromise survival compared with OM. LM can be recommended as a safe and reasonable surgical option in selected patients with CL-HCC.

A model prediction of long-term prognosis in patients with centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing hepatectomy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The prognostic prediction for centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma (CL-HCC) after hepatectomy has not been well established. We aimed to develop prognostic nomograms for patients undergoing hepatectomy for CL-HCC.

METHODS

A cohort of 380 patients who underwent curative hepatectomy for CL-HCC at our hospital between 2009 and 2015 were retrospectively studied. We randomly divided the subjects into training (n = 210) and validation (n = 170) groups. Univariate and multivariate survival analysis were used to identify prognostic factors. Visually orientated nomograms were constructed using Cox proportional hazards models. The performance of the nomogram was evaluated by the area under the ROC curve (AUC), calibration curve and compared with the conventional staging systems.

RESULTS

The statistical nomogram for OS built on the basis of ALBI grade, tumor number, tumor size, classification, hepatectomy methods, capsule formation and microvascular invasion (MVI) had good calibration and discriminatory abilities, with AUC of 0.746 (65-month survival). The nomogram for DFS was based on tumor number, tumor size, classification, HBV-DNA load, capsule formation and MVI, with AUC of 0.733 (65-month survival). These nomograms showed satisfactory performance in the validation cohort (AUC, 0.733 for 65-month OS; and 0.702 for 65-month DFS). The AUC of our nomograms were greater than those of conventional staging systems in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSION

The established nomograms might be useful for estimating survival for patients with CL-HCC after liver resection.

Anatomic mesohepatectomy versus extended hepatectomy for patients with centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Both mesohepatectomy (MH) and extended hepatectomy (EH) can be performed for centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this study, the long-term prognosis of these surgical approaches was assessed in patients with HCC.

METHODS

A retrospective review was undertaken of 171 HCC patients who underwent anatomic hepatectomy for centrally located HCC between January 2005 and January 2016 in West China Hospital, Sichuan University. The impact of the surgical methods on prognosis was assessed for these patients by multivariable regression analysis. In addition, the patients in the MH group were matched in a 1:2 ratio with EH controls.

RESULTS

In non-adjusted models, patients in the MH group had similar overall survival (OS, p = 0.066) and disease free survival (DFS, p = 0.654) compared to EH patients. After adjusting for all identified confounders, MH patients showed better OS in comparison with patients in the EH group (p = 0.001), while the DFS was similar. In the propensity score-matched (PSM) subset, patients in MH group had better OS (p = 0.033) but similar DFS (p = 0.328) compared to patients in the EH group.

CONCLUSION

Anatomic MH can be recommended as a reasonable surgical option in selected patients with centrally located HCC.

The outcomes of central hepatectomy versus extended hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Central hepatectomy (CH) is a relatively uncommon liver resection technique. It is generally perceived as a more complex operation than extended hepatectomies (EH), with potentially higher associated morbidity. The outcomes of CH compared with EH is not well defined and there is a need to reassess.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science according to PRISMA guidelines for studies on the treatment of liver tumours with CH published from 1972 until February 2017. Outcomes of patients undergoing CH were assessed and compared to those undergoing EH.

RESULTS

18 publications including 1380 CH were included for analysis. Mortality rates after CH ranged from 0 to 9%. There were 20 (1.4%) deaths after CH and the most common cause of death was post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). Morbidity rates varied between 12 and 61% and 316 (23%) post-operative events were reported. Analysis of five comparative studies showed similar mortality between CH and EH groups (OR: 0.64, 95% CI = 0.24-1.70, p = 0.37). There were significantly fewer overall post-operative complications in the CH group (OR: 0.38, 95% CI = 0.28-0.51, p < 0.001) and reduced PHLF was found in the CH group compared to EH (OR: 0.53, 95% CI = 0.29-0.98, p = 0.04). The rates of post-hepatectomy biliary complications were similar between groups (OR: 0.98, 95% CI = 0.51-1.88, p = 0.96). Mean length of stay (days) was shorter in the CH group (MD: -2.67, 95% CI = -4.93 to -0.41, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

CH appears to have similar post-operative mortality rates compared to EH but is associated with fewer post-operative complications, including PHLF and shorter overall length of stay.

Central hepatectomy versus major hepatectomy for patients with centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Both central hepatectomy (CH) and major hepatectomy (MH) are suggested surgical treatments for patients with centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma (CL-HCC). However, no consensus has been reached regarding which method is superior for managing these patients. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of CH and MH in patients with CL-HCC.

METHODS

An electronic search for studies published in all years up to July 2017 in PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science was performed. The short-term outcome was the incidence of postoperative complications, and the long-term outcomes included 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival (OS) and corresponding disease-free survival (DFS), mortality and morbidity. The results were presented as Risk Ratios (RRs) or weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Four retrospective studies containing 465 patients with CL-HCC were included (248 in the CH group and 217 in the MH group). The results suggested no significant differences in the 1-, 3- and 5-year DFS, 1, 3 and 5-year OS, total morbidity or mortality between these groups. Nevertheless, the patients in the CH group presented a lower prevalence of vascular invasion (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.93, P = 0.020) than did the MH group. In addition, CH led to a higher incidence of biliary fistula, while MH showed a higher incidence of postoperative liver failure.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that the long-term outcomes of the patients with CL-HCC in these two groups were not significantly different. For short-term outcomes, CH resulted in a lower rate of postoperative liver failure, while MH resulted in a lower incidence of biliary fistula. Nonetheless, compared with MH, CH provided CL-HCC patients with greater future remnant liver volume without an increased risk of early intra-hepatic recurrence. More multi-centre, randomized controlled trials comparing the therapeutic efficacy of CH and MH are urgently warranted.

Liver Resection and Surgical Strategies for Management of Primary Liver Cancer

Primary liver cancer-including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC)-incidence is increasing and is an important source of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Management of these cancers, even when localized, is challenging due to the association with underlying liver disease and the complex anatomy of the liver. Although for ICC, surgical resection provides the only potential cure, for HCC, the risks and benefits of the multiple curative intent options must be considered to individualize treatment based upon tumor factors, baseline liver function, and the functional status of the patient. The principles of surgical resection for both HCC and ICC include margin-negative resections with preservation of adequate function of the residual liver. As the safety of surgical resection has improved in recent years, the role of liver resection for HCC has expanded to include selected patients with preserved liver function and small tumors (ablation as an alternative), tumors within Milan criteria (transplant as an alternative), and patients with large (>5 cm) and giant (>10 cm) HCC or with poor prognostic features (for whom surgery is infrequently offered) due to a survival benefit with resection for selected patients. An important surgical consideration specifically for ICC includes the high risk of nodal metastasis, for which portal lymphadenectomy is recommended at the time of hepatectomy for staging. For both diseases, onco-surgical strategies including portal vein embolization and parenchymal-sparing resections have increased the number of patients eligible for curative liver resection by improving patient outcomes. Multidisciplinary evaluation is critical in the management of patients with primary liver cancer to provide and coordinate the best treatments possible for these patients.

Central Hepatectomy versus Extended Hepatectomy for Malignant Tumors: A Propensity Score Analysis of Postoperative Complications

BACKGROUND

The specific definition of central hepatectomy (CH) (i.e., resection of segments 4-5-8 ± 1) is not uniformly used, resulting in conflicting comparisons with the more commonly performed extended hepatectomy (EH). The study aimed to compare, using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, the incidence of postoperative complications between CH and EH for centrally located liver tumors (CLLT).

METHODS

All consecutive CH and EH procedures for CLLT performed from 1980 to 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. Independent predictors of postoperative complications were identified. CH was compared to EH after PSM.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 373 patients, 44 (11.8 %) of whom underwent CH and 329 (88.2 %) of whom underwent EH. Before PSM, the overall 90-day mortality was 7.2 % (27 patients) without a group difference (2 (4.5 %) for CH vs. 25 (7.6 %) for EH, p = 0.756). The CH and EH groups had similar postoperative morbidity rates (43.2 vs. 55.3 %; p = 0.108). Blood transfusion was the only independent predictor of postoperative complications (Hazard Ratio: 1.73; 95 % confidence interval: 1.11-2.68; p = 0.014). After PSM, 43 CH patients were matched with 43 EH patients. No group difference was observed for the postoperative mortality, morbidity, or duration of hospital stay. A higher number of EH patients (30.2 vs. 9.3 %, p = 0.028) presented with more than one postoperative complication.

CONCLUSIONS

CH and EH yield similar mortality and morbidity. For CLLT, CH may be an attractive procedure with the advantage of sparing the liver parenchyma compared with EH.

Mesohepatectomy Versus Extended Hemihepatectomies for Centrally Located Liver Tumors: A Meta-Analysis

The comparison of Mesohepatectomy (MH) with conventional extended hemihepatectomies (EH) for patients with centrally located liver tumors (CLLTs) were inconsistent. Our aims were to systemically compare MH with EH and to determine whether MH can achieve a similar clinical outcome as EH through this meta-analysis. PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge and Cochrane Library were searched updated to June 11, 2016. Blood loss and operation time favored MH in elder patients (mean difference [MD] for blood loss: -692.82 ml, 95% CI: -976.72 to -408.92 ml, P < 0.001; MD for operation time: -78.75 min, 95% CI: -107.66 to -49.81, P < 0.001). Morbidity rate (29.2%, 95% CI: 24.1 to 34.8%), mortality rate (2.0%, 95% CI: 1.2 to 3.3%) and overall survival (median OS 38.2 m, 95% CI: 34.0 to 42.8 m) of MH were comparable with those of EH. The low liver failure rate favored MH (odds ratio [OR]: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.88, P = 0.03). For MH, bile leakage was the most common surgical complication (MH vs. EH: 13.5% vs. 6.7%, P = 0.016), while for EH, it was wound infection (MH vs. EH: 6.9% vs. 15.7%, P < 0.001). Thus MH might be in general safe and feasible for treating CLLTs with a similar clinical outcome as EH.

Intra-aortic balloon pump-assisted major hepatectomy in a case with coronary disease

Clinically, we often encounter cancer patients who also have cardiovascular disease such as coronary artery disease. We experienced a case of severe coronary artery disease and a large hepatocellular carcinoma in a 69-year-old man. To reduce the risk of a perioperative cardiovascular event during mesohepatectomy, an elective intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) was used. After an uneventful recovery, the patient was discharged on day 15. While IABP is frequently introduced in cardiac surgery, there have been few reports of its use during liver surgery. Here, we present IABP-assisted major hepatectomy as an option in a patient with both cancer and coronary artery disease.

Long-term results after in-situ split (ISS) liver resection

PURPOSE

In-situ split (ISS) liver resection is a novel method to induce rapid hypertrophy of the contralateral liver lobe in patients at risk for postoperative liver failure due to insufficient liver remnant. So far, no data about oncological long-term survival after ISS liver resection is available.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed our patients treated with ISS liver resection at the Department of Surgery of the University of Regensburg, the first center worldwide to perform ISS.

RESULTS

Between 2007 and 2014, ISS liver resection was performed in 16 patients. Two patients (12.5 %) were lost in early postoperative phase (90 days) and one was lost to follow-up. Thirteen patients with a follow-up period of more than 3 months were included into oncologically focused analyses. Median follow-up was 26.4 months (range 3.2-54.6). Seven patients had suffered from colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) and six from various other liver malignancies (non-CRLM). The ISS procedure had led to a median increase of 86.3 % of the left lateral liver lobe after a median of 9 days (range 4-28 days). Median disease-free survival (DFS) was 14.6 months and median overall survival (OS) was 41.7 months (26.4 months when including 90-days mortality). Three-year survival was calculated with 56.4 and 48.9 % when including perioperative mortality, respectively (CRLM 64.3 % vs. non-CRLM 50 %).

CONCLUSION

ISS liver resection can provide long-term survival of selected patients with advanced liver malignancies that otherwise are not eligible for liver resection due to insufficient liver remnant.