Second Hepatectomy Improves Survival in Patients With Microvascular Invasive Hepatocellular Carcinoma Meeting the Milan Criteria

Survival in Patients With Recurrent Intermediate-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Sorafenib Plus TACE vs TACE Alone Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is commonly used to treat patients with recurrent intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and positive microvascular invasion (MVI); however, TACE alone has demonstrated unsatisfactory survival benefits. A previous retrospective study suggested that TACE plus sorafenib (SOR-TACE) may be a better therapeutic option compared with TACE alone.

Objective

To investigate the clinical outcomes of SOR-TACE vs TACE alone for patients with recurrent intermediate-stage HCC after R0 hepatectomy with positive MVI.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this phase 3, open-label, multicenter randomized clinical trial, patients with recurrent intermediate-stage HCC and positive MVI were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio via a computerized minimization technique to either SOR-TACE treatment or TACE alone. This trial was conducted at 5 hospitals in China, and enrolled patients from October 2019 to December 2021, with a follow-up period of 24 months. Data were analyzed from June 2023 to September 2023.

Interventions

Randomization to on-demand TACE (conventional TACE: doxorubicin, 50 mg, mixed with lipiodol and gelatin sponge particles [diameter: 150-350 μm]; drug-eluting bead TACE: doxorubicin, 75 mg, mixed with drug-eluting particles [diameter: 100-300 μm or 300-500 μm]) (TACE group) or sorafenib, 400 mg, twice daily plus on-demand TACE (SOR-TACE group) (conventional TACE: doxorubicin, 50 mg, mixed with lipiodol and gelatin sponge particles [diameter, 150-350 μm]; drug-eluting bead TACE: doxorubicin, 75 mg, mixed with drug-eluting particles [diameter: 100-300 μm or 300-500 μm]).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was overall survival by intention-to-treat analysis. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least 1 dose of study treatment.

Results

A total of 162 patients (median [range] age, 55 [28-75] years; 151 males [93.2%]), were randomly assigned to be treated with either SOR-TACE (n = 81) or TACE alone (n = 81). The median overall survival was significantly longer in the SOR-TACE group than in the TACE group (22.2 months vs 15.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.55; P < .001). SOR-TACE also prolonged progression-free survival (16.2 months vs 11.8 months; HR, 0.54; P < .001), and improved the objective response rate when compared with TACE alone based on the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria (80.2% vs 58.0%; P = .002). Any grade adverse events were more common in the SOR-TACE group, but all adverse events responded well to treatment. No unexpected adverse events or treatment-related deaths occurred in this study.

Conclusions and Relevance

The results of this randomized clinical trial demonstrated that SOR-TACE achieved better clinical outcomes than TACE alone. These findings suggest that combined treatment should be used for patients with recurrent intermediate-stage HCC after R0 hepatectomy with positive MVI.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04103398.

MTM-HCC at Previous Liver Resection as a Predictor of Overall Survival in Salvage Liver Transplantation

OBJECTIVES

Salvage liver transplantation (sLT) is considered an effective method to treat hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence. This multicenter research aimed to identify the prognostic factors associated with recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) after sLT.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 114 patients who had undergone sLT for recurrent HCC between February 2012 and September 2020 was performed. The baseline and clinicopathological data of the patients were collected.

RESULTS

The 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS rates after sLT were 88.9%, 75.2%, and 69.2%, respectively, and the OS rates were 96.4%, 78.3%, and 70.8%. A time from liver resection (LR) to recurrence < 1 year, disease beyond the Milan criteria at sLT and macrotrabecular massive (MTM)-HCC were identified as risk factors for RFS and were further identified as independent risk factors. A time from LR to recurrence < 1 year, disease beyond the Milan criteria at sLT and MTM-HCC were also risk factors for OS and were further identified as independent risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with primary liver transplantation (pLT), more prognostic factors are available from patients who had undergone LR. We suggest that in cases of HCC recurrence within 1 year after LR, disease beyond the Milan criteria at sLT and MTM-HCC patients, sLT should be used with caution.

Postoperative adjuvant therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma with microvascular invasion

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most lethal tumors in the world. Liver resection (LR) and liver transplantation (LT) are widely considered as radical treatments for early HCC. However, the recurrence rates after curative treatment are still high and overall survival is unsatisfactory. Microvascular invasion (MVI) is considered to be one of the important prognostic factors affecting postoperative recurrence and long-term survival. Unfortunately, whether HCC patients with MVI should receive postoperative adjuvant therapy remains unknown. In this review, we summarize the therapeutic effects of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization, hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy, tyrosine protein kinase inhibitor-based targeted therapy, and immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with MVI after LR or LT, aiming to provide a reference for the best adjuvant treatment strategy for HCC patients with MVI after LT or LR.

The role of neoadjuvant conventional transarterial chemoembolization with radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after initial hepatectomy with microvascular invasion

OBJECTIVES

Recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with microvascular invasion (MVI)-positive primary tumor is at high risk of re-recurrence while treated with radiofrequency ablation (RFA). We aimed to investigate whether neoadjuvant conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) was effective in reducing re-recurrence after RFA for recurrent HCC patients with MVI-positive primary tumors.

METHODS

In this retrospective multicenter study, 468 patients with solitary small recurrent HCC (≤3.0cm) underwent RFA alone (n = 322) or with neoadjuvant cTACE (n = 146) between June 2007 and December 2017 were included. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared.

RESULTS

The 1-, 5-year OS rates were 74.8%, 42.5% for RFA with neoadjuvant cTACE group, and 53.5%, 28.7% for RFA group (P < 0.001). The corresponding RFS rates were 51.7%, 24.4% for RFA with neoadjuvant cTACE group, and 36.1%, 9.3% for RFA group (P < 0.001). In subgroup analyses, the OS and RFS for neoadjuvant cTACE group were longer than those for RFA group no matter tumor size > 2cm (HR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.36-0.77; HR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.36-0.67) or not (HR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.32-0.88; HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.42-0.98), or the time interval of recurrence from initial treatment ≤ 1 year (HR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.36-0.77; HR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.52-0.94) or not (HR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.95; HR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.25-0.62). Multivariable analyses showed that RFA alone (HR = 1.329, P = 0.031; HR = 1.764, P = 0.004) and interval of recurrence from initial treatment > 1 year(HR = 0.642, P = 0.001; HR = 0.298, P = 0.037) were independent prognostic factors of OS and RFS.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant cTACE could effectively reduce re-recurrence after RFA, and improve the long-term survivals for patients with solitary small recurrent HCC whose primary tumor was MVI-positive. Key pointsFor recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients whose primary tumor was positive for microvascular invasion, neoadjuvant conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) achieved better efficacy.Multivariable analyses showed that the interval of recurrence from initial treatment > 1 year and RFA alone were independent prognostic factors of overall survival and recurrence-free survival, respectively.

Integration of pre-surgical blood test results predict microvascular invasion risk in hepatocellular carcinoma

Microvascular invasion (MVI) is one of the most important factors leading to poor prognosis for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients, and detection of MVI prior to surgical operation could great benefit patient's prognosis and survival. Since it is still lacking effective non-invasive strategy for MVI detection before surgery, novel MVI determination approaches were in urgent need. In this study, complete blood count, blood test and AFP test results are utilized to perform preoperative prediction of MVI based on a novel interpretable deep learning method to quantify the risk of MVI. The proposed method termed as "Interpretation based Risk Prediction" can estimate the MVI risk precisely and achieve better performance compared with the state-of-art MVI risk estimation methods with concordance indexes of 0.9341 and 0.9052 on the training cohort and the independent validation cohort, respectively. Moreover, further analyses of the model outputs demonstrate that the quantified risk of MVI from our model could serve as an independent preoperative risk factor for both recurrence-free survival and overall survival of HCC patients. Thus, our model showed great potential in quantification of MVI risk and prediction of prognosis for HCC patients.

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients: a multicentric propensity score‑based analysis

BACKGROUND

Considering the increase in overall life expectancy and the rising incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), more elderly patients are considered for hepatic resection. Traditionally, major hepatectomy has not been proposed to the elderly due to severe comorbidities. Indeed, only a few case series are reported in the literature. The present study aimed to compare short-term and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) and open major hepatectomy (OMH) in elderly patients with HCC using propensity score matching (PSM).

METHODS

We performed a multicentric retrospective study including 184 consecutive cases of HCC major liver resection in patients aged ≥ 70 years in _8 European Hospital Centers. Patients were divided into LMH and OMH groups, and perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 122 patients were enrolled, 38 in the LMH group and 84 in the OMH group. Postoperative overall complications were lower in the LMH than in the OMH group (18 vs. 46%, p < 0.001). Hospital stay was shorter in the LMH group than in the OMH group (5 vs. 7 days, p = 0.01). Mortality at 90 days was comparable between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at 1, 3, and 5 years.

CONCLUSION

LMH for HCC is associated with appropriate short-term outcomes in patients aged ≥ 70 years as compared to OMH. LMH is safe and feasible in elderly patients with HCC.

Novel Prognostic Nomograms for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients with Microvascular Invasion: Experience from a Single Center

Background/Aims

Microvascular invasion (MVI) is an established risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, prediction models that specifically focus on the individual prognoses of HCC patients with MVI is lacking.

Methods

A total of 385 HCC patients with MVI were randomly assigned to training and validation cohorts in a 2:1 ratio. The outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Prognostic nomograms were established based on the results of multivariate analyses. The concordance index (C-index), calibration plots and Kaplan-Meier curves were employed to evaluate the accuracy, calibration and discriminatory ability of the models.

Results

The independent risk factors for both DFS and OS included age, tumor size, tumor number, the presence of gross vascular invasion, and the presence of Glisson’s capsule invasion. The platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio was another risk factor for OS. On the basis of these predictors, two nomograms for DFS and OS were constructed. The C-index values of the nomograms for DFS and OS were 0.712 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.679 to 0.745; p<0.001) and 0.698 (95% CI, 0.657 to 0.739; p<0.001), respectively, in the training cohort and 0.704 (95% CI, 0.650 to 0.708; p<0.001) and 0.673 (95% CI, 0.607 to 0.739; p<0.001), respectively, in the validation cohort. The calibration curves showed optimal agreement between the predicted and observed survival rates. The Kaplan-Meier curves suggested that these two nomograms had satisfactory discriminatory abilities.

Conclusions

These novel predictive models have satisfactory accuracy and discriminatory abilities in predicting the prognosis of HCC patients with MVI after hepatectomy.

The presence of microvascular invasion guides treatment strategy in recurrent HBV-related HCC

OBJECTIVES

We used the status of microvascular invasion (MVI) at primary resection to help treatment selection for hepatitis B virus-positive (HBV+) recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) patients in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B-C.

METHODS

From 2009 to 2017, we enrolled 221 consecutive HBV+ rHCC patients at BCLC stage B-C who underwent re-resection (RR), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), or transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Post recurrence survival (PRS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between RR/RFA and TACE according to MVI status. A one-to-one propensity score matching analysis was performed.

RESULTS

For MVI(-) patients, the median PRS was 62.3 months for the RR/RFA group and 21.1 months for the TACE group (p = 0.039). The corresponding OS was 71.4 months and 26.6 months, respectively (p = 0.010). For MVI(+) patients, the median PRS in the RR/RFA group and TACE group was 14.7 months and 10.1 months (p = 0.115). The corresponding OS was 23.4 months and 16.4 months, respectively (p = 0.067). After matching, the dominance of RR/RFA over TACE remained in MVI(-) patients for both PRS (62.3 months vs 15.3 months, p = 0.019) and OS (98.1 months vs 33.4 months, p = 0.046). No significant difference was found in MVI(+) patients for either PRS (14.7 months vs 11.8 months, p = 0.593) or OS (23.4 months vs 28.1 months, p = 0.662).

CONCLUSIONS

MVI status definitely helps select treatment options in HBV+ rHCC patients. For MVI(-) patients, RR/RFA provided better survival than TACE while for MVI(+) patients, TACE shared similar survival outcomes.

KEY POINTS

• This study aimed at the determination of the optimal treatment options (ablation /resection vs TACE) in case of recurrent HBV-related HCC. • It showed that MVI status, established at primary resection of HCC, was a powerful marker for selecting the best treatment option in these patients. • In MVI(-) patients, RR/RFA achieved a better survival than TACE. In MVI(+) patients, TACE shared similar survival.

Microvascular Invasion as a Predictor of Response to Treatment with Sorafenib and Transarterial Chemoembolization for Recurrent Intermediate-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background The evidence of combining sorafenib with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for intermediate-stage recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is limited. Patient responses to this treatment varied because of the heterogeneous nature of intermediate-stage recurrent HCC, making it important to identify patients who are most likely to benefit from this combination therapy. Purpose To compare sorafenib administered in combination with TACE versus TACE alone in the treatment of recurrent intermediate-stage HCC after initial hepatectomy and to determine the relationship of microvascular invasion (MVI) to survival. Materials and Methods In this retrospective multicenter study, 3652 consecutive patients were found to have intrahepatic recurrences after initial hepatectomy of primary HCC from January 2010 to December 2016. Of these, 260 patients with intermediate-stage recurrent HCC underwent combination treatment with sorafenib and TACE or TACE alone. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between these two treatments according to MVI status by using log-rank tests. Results A total of 128 patients were administered combination therapy (mean age, 55 years ± 7.6 [standard deviation]; 107 men) and 132 patients were administered TACE alone (mean age, 56 years ± 8.3; 110 men). The 5-year OS and PFS were higher in the combination group than in the TACE group (OS: 38.9% vs 20.5%, respectively, P = .01; PFS, 37.5% vs 18.7%, respectively, P = .003). For patients with MVI-positive lesions, the median OS and PFS after combination treatment (n = 55) were longer than those after TACE alone (n = 72; OS: 17.2 months vs 12.1 months, respectively, P = .02; PFS: 17.0 months vs 11.0 months, respectively, P = .02). Multivariable analysis showed that tumor number, MVI status, and treatment allocation were significant predictors of OS and PFS, whereas tumor size was a prognostic factor for PFS. Conclusion Patients with recurrent intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma and lesions positive for microvascular invasion (MVI) had longer survival times by using a combined treatment of sorafenib with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) compared with TACE alone; patients with MVI-negative lesions did not show survival benefit from combined therapy. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Malloy in this issue.

Treatment selection of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma with microvascular invasion at the initial hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) patients with microvascular invasive (MVI) positive at first resection usually had poorly differentiated tumors and worse survivals. The optimal treatment for this population remains to be elucidated.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 319 rHCC patients with MVI-positive at first resection from June, 2009 to June, 2017. Survival and costs between curative treatments [re-resection (RR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA)] and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) were compared. Subgroup comparisons were made in patients in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage 0-A and BCLC stage B-C, respectively. A one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was used to diminish bias.

RESULTS

In BCLC stage 0-A, 98 received RR/RFA, and 49 received TACE. The median overall survival (OS) of RR/RFA group was not reached, while the OS of TACE group was 26.3 months (P=0.001). After matching, the OS of the RR/RFA group was longer than that of the TACE group (39.5 vs. 26.3 months, P=0.045). In BCLC stage B-C, 137 patients received TACE, 11 received RR and 24 received RFA. The median OS was 29.8 months, 17.9 months and 11.1 months for RR, RFA and TACE group, respectively. No significant difference was found between RR and TACE (P=0.237) or RFA and TACE (P=0.484) after matching. Costs of the TACE group was significantly lower than that of the RR group but similar to that of the RFA group.

CONCLUSION

RR/RFA provided better survival outcomes for rHCC patients with MVI-positive at first resection in selected BCLC stage 0-A. In selected BCLC stage B-C, TACE shared a similar efficacy with RR and RFA but a lower cost than RR.

Prognostic value of a novel risk classification of microvascular invasion in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after resection

Objectives

The present research aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of a novel risk classification of microvascular invasion (MVI) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after resection.

Methods

A total of 295 consecutive HCC patients underwent hepatectomy were included in our study. We evaluated the degree of MVI according to the following three features: the number of invaded microvessels (≤5 vs >5), the number of invading carcinoma cells (≤ 50 vs >50), the distance of invasion from tumor edge (≤1 cm vs >1 cm).

Results

All patients were divided into three groups according to the three risk factors of MVI: non-MVI group (n=180), low-MVI group (n=60) and high-MVI group (n=55). The overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates of high-MVI group were significantly poorer than those of low-MVI and non-MVI groups (P<0.001 and P=0.001; P<0.001 and P=0.003). Multivariate analysis showed high-MVI, type of resection, ICG-R15 and tumor size were risk factors for OS after hepatectomy. High-MVI, type of resection and tumor size were risk factors for RFS. In subgroup analyses, the OS and RFS rates of low-MVI and non-MVI groups were better than high-MVI group regardless of tumor size. In high-MVI group, anatomical liver resection (n=28) showed better OS and RFS rates compared with non-anatomical liver resection (n=29) (P=0.012 and P=0.002).

Conclusions

The novel risk classification of MVI based on histopathological features is valuable for predicting prognosis of HCC patients after hepatectomy.

Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis remains controversial due to limited reports in the literature. This study analyzed the perioperative and oncological outcomes of LMH for HCC with cirrhosis compared with open major hepatectomy (OMH).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with cirrhosis who underwent major hepatectomy for HCC between January 2015 and January 2017 was performed. Patients were divided into the LMH group and the OMH group. Short-term and oncological outcomes were compared before and after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 103 HCC patients who received major liver resection were enrolled. There were 36 (35.0%) patients in the LMH group and 67 (65.0%) patients in the OMH group. After 1:1 PSM, well-matched 32 patients in each group were evaluated. Significant differences were observed in operative time (median, 255 vs. 200 min, p < 0.001) and Pringle time (median, 50 vs. 30 min, p < 0.001) between two groups. The blood loss and transfusion requirement were comparable in two groups. The rate of overall postoperative complications did not differ between two groups, while the incidence of ascites in the LMH group was significantly less than OMH group (9.4 vs. 31.3%, p = 0.030). The oncological outcomes between the two groups were comparable with regard to 2-year overall survival (85.7 vs. 86.7%, p = 0.694) and disease-free survival (72.9 vs. 81.5%, p = 0.990), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LMH for HCC patients with liver cirrhosis showed comparable results in terms of postoperative morbidity and oncological outcomes compared with traditional open procedure. LMH may serve as a safe and feasible alternative for selected HCC patients with cirrhosis.

Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis remains controversial due to limited reports in the literature. This study analyzed the perioperative and oncological outcomes of LMH for HCC with cirrhosis compared with open major hepatectomy (OMH).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with cirrhosis who underwent major hepatectomy for HCC between January 2015 and January 2017 was performed. Patients were divided into the LMH group and the OMH group. Short-term and oncological outcomes were compared before and after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 103 HCC patients who received major liver resection were enrolled. There were 36 (35.0%) patients in the LMH group and 67 (65.0%) patients in the OMH group. After 1:1 PSM, well-matched 32 patients in each group were evaluated. Significant differences were observed in operative time (median, 255 vs. 200 min, p < 0.001) and Pringle time (median, 50 vs. 30 min, p < 0.001) between two groups. The blood loss and transfusion requirement were comparable in two groups. The rate of overall postoperative complications did not differ between two groups, while the incidence of ascites in the LMH group was significantly less than OMH group (9.4 vs. 31.3%, p = 0.030). The oncological outcomes between the two groups were comparable with regard to 2-year overall survival (85.7 vs. 86.7%, p = 0.694) and disease-free survival (72.9 vs. 81.5%, p = 0.990), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LMH for HCC patients with liver cirrhosis showed comparable results in terms of postoperative morbidity and oncological outcomes compared with traditional open procedure. LMH may serve as a safe and feasible alternative for selected HCC patients with cirrhosis.

Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis remains controversial due to limited reports in the literature. This study analyzed the perioperative and oncological outcomes of LMH for HCC with cirrhosis compared with open major hepatectomy (OMH).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with cirrhosis who underwent major hepatectomy for HCC between January 2015 and January 2017 was performed. Patients were divided into the LMH group and the OMH group. Short-term and oncological outcomes were compared before and after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 103 HCC patients who received major liver resection were enrolled. There were 36 (35.0%) patients in the LMH group and 67 (65.0%) patients in the OMH group. After 1:1 PSM, well-matched 32 patients in each group were evaluated. Significant differences were observed in operative time (median, 255 vs. 200 min, p < 0.001) and Pringle time (median, 50 vs. 30 min, p < 0.001) between two groups. The blood loss and transfusion requirement were comparable in two groups. The rate of overall postoperative complications did not differ between two groups, while the incidence of ascites in the LMH group was significantly less than OMH group (9.4 vs. 31.3%, p = 0.030). The oncological outcomes between the two groups were comparable with regard to 2-year overall survival (85.7 vs. 86.7%, p = 0.694) and disease-free survival (72.9 vs. 81.5%, p = 0.990), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LMH for HCC patients with liver cirrhosis showed comparable results in terms of postoperative morbidity and oncological outcomes compared with traditional open procedure. LMH may serve as a safe and feasible alternative for selected HCC patients with cirrhosis.

Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis remains controversial due to limited reports in the literature. This study analyzed the perioperative and oncological outcomes of LMH for HCC with cirrhosis compared with open major hepatectomy (OMH).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with cirrhosis who underwent major hepatectomy for HCC between January 2015 and January 2017 was performed. Patients were divided into the LMH group and the OMH group. Short-term and oncological outcomes were compared before and after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 103 HCC patients who received major liver resection were enrolled. There were 36 (35.0%) patients in the LMH group and 67 (65.0%) patients in the OMH group. After 1:1 PSM, well-matched 32 patients in each group were evaluated. Significant differences were observed in operative time (median, 255 vs. 200 min, p < 0.001) and Pringle time (median, 50 vs. 30 min, p < 0.001) between two groups. The blood loss and transfusion requirement were comparable in two groups. The rate of overall postoperative complications did not differ between two groups, while the incidence of ascites in the LMH group was significantly less than OMH group (9.4 vs. 31.3%, p = 0.030). The oncological outcomes between the two groups were comparable with regard to 2-year overall survival (85.7 vs. 86.7%, p = 0.694) and disease-free survival (72.9 vs. 81.5%, p = 0.990), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LMH for HCC patients with liver cirrhosis showed comparable results in terms of postoperative morbidity and oncological outcomes compared with traditional open procedure. LMH may serve as a safe and feasible alternative for selected HCC patients with cirrhosis.

Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis remains controversial due to limited reports in the literature. This study analyzed the perioperative and oncological outcomes of LMH for HCC with cirrhosis compared with open major hepatectomy (OMH).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with cirrhosis who underwent major hepatectomy for HCC between January 2015 and January 2017 was performed. Patients were divided into the LMH group and the OMH group. Short-term and oncological outcomes were compared before and after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 103 HCC patients who received major liver resection were enrolled. There were 36 (35.0%) patients in the LMH group and 67 (65.0%) patients in the OMH group. After 1:1 PSM, well-matched 32 patients in each group were evaluated. Significant differences were observed in operative time (median, 255 vs. 200 min, p < 0.001) and Pringle time (median, 50 vs. 30 min, p < 0.001) between two groups. The blood loss and transfusion requirement were comparable in two groups. The rate of overall postoperative complications did not differ between two groups, while the incidence of ascites in the LMH group was significantly less than OMH group (9.4 vs. 31.3%, p = 0.030). The oncological outcomes between the two groups were comparable with regard to 2-year overall survival (85.7 vs. 86.7%, p = 0.694) and disease-free survival (72.9 vs. 81.5%, p = 0.990), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LMH for HCC patients with liver cirrhosis showed comparable results in terms of postoperative morbidity and oncological outcomes compared with traditional open procedure. LMH may serve as a safe and feasible alternative for selected HCC patients with cirrhosis.

Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis remains controversial due to limited reports in the literature. This study analyzed the perioperative and oncological outcomes of LMH for HCC with cirrhosis compared with open major hepatectomy (OMH).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with cirrhosis who underwent major hepatectomy for HCC between January 2015 and January 2017 was performed. Patients were divided into the LMH group and the OMH group. Short-term and oncological outcomes were compared before and after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 103 HCC patients who received major liver resection were enrolled. There were 36 (35.0%) patients in the LMH group and 67 (65.0%) patients in the OMH group. After 1:1 PSM, well-matched 32 patients in each group were evaluated. Significant differences were observed in operative time (median, 255 vs. 200 min, p < 0.001) and Pringle time (median, 50 vs. 30 min, p < 0.001) between two groups. The blood loss and transfusion requirement were comparable in two groups. The rate of overall postoperative complications did not differ between two groups, while the incidence of ascites in the LMH group was significantly less than OMH group (9.4 vs. 31.3%, p = 0.030). The oncological outcomes between the two groups were comparable with regard to 2-year overall survival (85.7 vs. 86.7%, p = 0.694) and disease-free survival (72.9 vs. 81.5%, p = 0.990), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LMH for HCC patients with liver cirrhosis showed comparable results in terms of postoperative morbidity and oncological outcomes compared with traditional open procedure. LMH may serve as a safe and feasible alternative for selected HCC patients with cirrhosis.

Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis remains controversial due to limited reports in the literature. This study analyzed the perioperative and oncological outcomes of LMH for HCC with cirrhosis compared with open major hepatectomy (OMH).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with cirrhosis who underwent major hepatectomy for HCC between January 2015 and January 2017 was performed. Patients were divided into the LMH group and the OMH group. Short-term and oncological outcomes were compared before and after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 103 HCC patients who received major liver resection were enrolled. There were 36 (35.0%) patients in the LMH group and 67 (65.0%) patients in the OMH group. After 1:1 PSM, well-matched 32 patients in each group were evaluated. Significant differences were observed in operative time (median, 255 vs. 200 min, p < 0.001) and Pringle time (median, 50 vs. 30 min, p < 0.001) between two groups. The blood loss and transfusion requirement were comparable in two groups. The rate of overall postoperative complications did not differ between two groups, while the incidence of ascites in the LMH group was significantly less than OMH group (9.4 vs. 31.3%, p = 0.030). The oncological outcomes between the two groups were comparable with regard to 2-year overall survival (85.7 vs. 86.7%, p = 0.694) and disease-free survival (72.9 vs. 81.5%, p = 0.990), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LMH for HCC patients with liver cirrhosis showed comparable results in terms of postoperative morbidity and oncological outcomes compared with traditional open procedure. LMH may serve as a safe and feasible alternative for selected HCC patients with cirrhosis.

Salvage liver transplantation or repeat hepatectomy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: An intent-to-treat analysis

The salvage liver transplantation (LT) strategy was conceived for initially resectable and transplantable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) to obviate upfront transplantation, with salvage LT in the case of recurrence. The longterm outcomes of a second resection for recurrent HCC have improved. The aim of this study was to perform an intention-to-treat analysis of overall survival (OS) comparing these 2 strategies for initially resectable and transplantable recurrent HCC. From 1994 to 2011, 391 patients with HCC who underwent salvage LT (n = 77) or a second resection (n = 314) were analyzed. Of 77 patients in the salvage LT group, 21 presented with resectable and transplantable recurrent HCC and 18 underwent transplantation. Of 314 patients in the second resection group, 81 presented with resectable and transplantable recurrent HCC and 81 underwent a second resection. The 5-year intention-to-treat OS rates, calculated from the time of primary hepatectomy, were comparable between the 2 strategies (72% for salvage transplantation versus 77% for second resection; P = 0.57). In patients who completed the salvage LT or second resection procedure, the 5-year OS rates, calculated from the time of the second surgery, were comparable between the 2 strategies (71% versus 71%; P = 0.99). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 72% following transplantation and 18% following the second resection (P < 0.001). Similar results were observed after propensity score matching. In conclusion, although the 5-year OS rates were similar in the salvage LT and second resection groups, the salvage LT strategy still achieves better DFS. Second resection for recurrent HCC might be considered to be the best alternative option to LT in the current organ shortage. Liver Transplantation 23 1553-1563 2017 AASLD.

Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis remains controversial due to limited reports in the literature. This study analyzed the perioperative and oncological outcomes of LMH for HCC with cirrhosis compared with open major hepatectomy (OMH).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with cirrhosis who underwent major hepatectomy for HCC between January 2015 and January 2017 was performed. Patients were divided into the LMH group and the OMH group. Short-term and oncological outcomes were compared before and after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 103 HCC patients who received major liver resection were enrolled. There were 36 (35.0%) patients in the LMH group and 67 (65.0%) patients in the OMH group. After 1:1 PSM, well-matched 32 patients in each group were evaluated. Significant differences were observed in operative time (median, 255 vs. 200 min, p < 0.001) and Pringle time (median, 50 vs. 30 min, p < 0.001) between two groups. The blood loss and transfusion requirement were comparable in two groups. The rate of overall postoperative complications did not differ between two groups, while the incidence of ascites in the LMH group was significantly less than OMH group (9.4 vs. 31.3%, p = 0.030). The oncological outcomes between the two groups were comparable with regard to 2-year overall survival (85.7 vs. 86.7%, p = 0.694) and disease-free survival (72.9 vs. 81.5%, p = 0.990), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LMH for HCC patients with liver cirrhosis showed comparable results in terms of postoperative morbidity and oncological outcomes compared with traditional open procedure. LMH may serve as a safe and feasible alternative for selected HCC patients with cirrhosis.

Treatment and outcomes of recurrent hepatocellular carcinomas

PURPOSE

Surgery is one of the best options for curative treatment of hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC). Recurrences are nevertheless common (45-75%). This study aimed to compare overall survival (OS) of patients with recurrent HCC after primary resection to OS of patients without recurrence.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all HCC patients operated between 1993 and 2015 was performed. Median and 5-year OS were calculated.

RESULTS

This study included 147 HCC patients. Sixty-seven patients presented a recurrence (46%). Patients with recurrence had a worse prognosis than those without recurrence (median OS 63 vs. 82 months, 5-year OS 47 vs. 54%, p = 0.036). First-line performed treatments were radiofrequency ablation (18, RFA), chemo-embolization (16, TACE), repeat hepatectomy (10), systemic chemotherapy (4), radio-embolization (1), and alcoholization (1). Palliative care was performed in 17 patients. Median OS of patients treated by RFA, TACE, or repeat hepatectomy were similar (77, 71, and 84 months, p = 0.735). Patients treated with chemotherapy/palliative care had lower median OS compared to interventional treatments (20 vs. 77 months, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrence after surgical HCC resection is frequent and negatively impacts OS. Interventional treatments of recurrences offered improved outcomes compared to medical care. In selected patients, RFA, TACE, and repeat hepatectomy allowed similar OS as non-recurrent cases.

Limitations of predicting microvascular invasion in patients with hepatocellular cancer prior to liver transplantation

Microvascular invasion (MVI) is well known to negatively influence outcomes following surgical treatment of hepatocellular cancer (HCC) patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the rationale for prediction of MVI before liver transplantation (LT). Data of 200 HCC patients after LT were subject to retrospective analysis. MVI was present in 57 patients (28.5%). Tumor number (p = 0.001) and size (p = 0.009), and alpha-fetoprotein (p = 0.049) were independent predictors of MVI used to create a prediction model, defined as: 0.293x(tumor number) + 0.283x(tumor size in cm) + 0.164xlog_e(alpha-fetoprotein in ng/ml) (c statistic  =  0.743). The established cut-off (≥2.24) was associated with sensitivity and specificity of 72%. MVI was not an independent risk factor for recurrence (p = 0.307), in contrast to tumor number (p = 0.047) and size (p < 0.001), alpha-fetoprotein (p < 0.001) and poor differentiation (p = 0.039). Recurrence-free survival at 5 years for patients without MVI was 85.9% as compared to 83.3% (p = 0.546) and 55.3% (p = 0.001) for patients with false negative and true positive prediction of MVI, respectively. The use of both morphological and biological tumor features enables effective pre-transplant prediction of high-risk MVI. Provided that these parameters are combined in selection of HCC patients for LT, pre-transplant identification of all patients with MVI does not appear necessary.

Development and validation of a novel predictive scoring model for microvascular invasion in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

PURPOSE

Microvascular invasion (MVI) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cannot be accurately predicted preoperatively. This study aimed to establish a predictive scoring model of MVI in solitary HCC patients without macroscopic vascular invasion.

METHODS

A total of 309 consecutive HCC patients who underwent curative hepatectomy were divided into the derivation (n=206) and validation cohort (n=103). A predictive scoring model of MVI was established according to the valuable predictors in the derivation cohort based on multivariate logistic regression analysis. The performance of the predictive model was evaluated in the derivation and validation cohorts.

RESULTS

Preoperative imaging features on CECT, such as intratumoral arteries, non-nodular type of HCC and absence of radiological tumor capsule were independent predictors for MVI. The predictive scoring model was established according to the β coefficients of the 3 predictors. Area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) of the predictive scoring model was 0.872 (95% CI, 0.817-0.928) and 0.856 (95% CI, 0.771-0.940) in the derivation and validation cohorts. The positive and negative predictive values were 76.5% and 88.0% in the derivation cohort and 74.4% and 88.3% in the validation cohort. The performance of the model was similar between the patients with tumor size ≤5cm and >5cm in AUROC (P=0.910).

CONCLUSIONS

The predictive scoring model based on intratumoral arteries, non-nodular type of HCC, and absence of the radiological tumor capsule on preoperative CECT is of great value in the prediction of MVI regardless of tumor size.