Correlation between Resection Margin and Disease Recurrence with a Restricted Cubic Spline Model in Patients with Resected Hepatocellular Carcinoma

A meta-analysis: laparoscopic versus open liver resection for large hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The indication of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for treating large hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is controversial. In this study, we compared the short-term and long-term outcomes of LLR and open liver resection (OLR) for large HCC.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched eligible articles about LLR versus OLR for large HCC in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE and performed a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eight publications involving 1,338 patients were included. Among them, 495 underwent LLR and 843 underwent OLR. The operation time was longer in the LLR group (MD: 22.23, 95% CI: 4.14-40.33, p = 0.02). but the postoperative hospital stay time was significantly shorter (MD : -4.88, CI: -5.55 to -4.23, p < 0.00001), and the incidence of total postoperative complications and major complications were significantly fewer (OR: 0.49, 95% CI:0.37-0.66, p < 0.00001; OR: 0.54, 95% CI:0.36 - 0.82, p = 0.003, respectively). Patients in the laparoscopic group had no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative transfusion rate, resection margin size, R0 resection rate, three-year overall survival (OS) and three-year disease-free survival (DFS).

CONCLUSION

LLR for large HCC is safe and feasible. This surgical strategy will not affect the long-term outcomes of patients.

Laparoscopic anatomic vs. nonanatomic liver resection for large hepatocellular carcinoma (≥5 cm) in the right lobe

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impacts and outcomes of laparoscopic anatomic liver resection (LAR) and laparoscopic nonanatomic resection (LNAR) in patients with large hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the right lobe of the liver.

BACKGROUND

There are few comparative studies of LAR and LNAR for large HCC.

METHOD

Three hundred thirty-seven patients underwent liver resection for large HCC (≥5 cm) at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul, Korea, between January 2004 and December 2022. After the exclusion of patients treated with open hepatic resection and those who had left-lobe or bilobar tumors, 94 patients were ultimately included. Patients were divided into LAR group (61 patients) and LNAR group (33 patients). After propensity score matching (PSM) with 1:1 matching, 31 patients were included in each group. The outcomes in the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

LAR group had longer operative time than LNAR group (333.7 ± 113.7 vs 210 ± 117.6 min, respectively, P < 0.001), wider safety margin (1.4 ± 1.5 vs 0.7 ± 0.7 cm, respectively, P = 0.015), and lower incidence of recurrence (25.8% vs. 54.8%, respectively, P = 0.021).

CONCLUSION

LAR required longer operative time, achieved wider safety margin, and had lower incidence of recurrence than LNAR.

Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for large hepatocellular carcinoma: a single center propensity-score-matching comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes and long-term survival

BACKGROUND

Although the benefits of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in most circumstances are evident, the benefits for large HCC are contentious. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes and survival after LH versus open hepatectomy (OH) in large HCC patients.

METHODS

An analysis of prospectively maintained database included 215 hepatectomies for large HCC (diameter ≥ 5 cm). The operative and survival outcomes were compared between the LH group (n = 109) and the OH group (n = 106). Propensity score matching (PSM) 1:1 included 70 patients in each group. The entire cohort multivariable analyses were performed to identify the factors associated with surgical complications and suboptimal recurrence-free survival (RFS).

RESULTS

After PSM, baseline characteristics and the extent of liver resection were similar in both groups. The LH group had a shorter hospital stay than the OH group (7 vs 9.5 days, p = 0.001). The R0 resection rate, complication rate, overall survival, and RFS were similar between the groups. The multivariate analyses revealed two independent factors predicting surgical complication (major resection; p < 0.001 and large volume blood loss; p = 0.042), and 3 independent factors predicting suboptimal RFS including R1 resection (p = 0.011), multifocal HCC (p = 0.005), and microvascular invasion (p = 0.001). LH was not associated with surgical complication and suboptimal RFS.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights the benefits of LH by improving the perioperative outcomes, without long-term survival inferiority in selected large HCC patients compared with conventional OH. LH can be an attractive option for large HCC treatment.

Combined analysis of imaging tumor capsule with imaging tumor size guides the width of resection margin for solitary hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The optimal width of resection margin (RM) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the value of imaging tumor capsule (ITC) and imaging tumor size (ITS) in guiding RM width for patients with HCC.

METHODS

Patients who underwent hepatectomy for HCC in our center were retrospectively reviewed. ITC (complete/incomplete) and ITS (≤ 3 cm/> 3 cm) were assessed by preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Using subgroup analyses based on ITC and ITS, the impact of RM width [narrow RM (< 5 mm)/wide RM (≥ 5 mm)] on recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and RM recurrence was analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 247 patients with solitary HCC were included. ITC and ITS were independent predictors for RFS and OS in the entire cohort. In patients with ITS ≤ 3 cm, neither ITC nor RM width showed a significant impact on prognosis, and the incidence of RM recurrence was comparable between the narrow RM and wide RM groups (15.6% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.337). In patients with ITS > 3 cm and complete ITC, the narrow RM group exhibited comparable RFS, OS, and incidence of RM recurrence with the wide RM group (P = 0.606, 0.916, and 0.649, respectively). However, in patients with ITS > 3 cm and incomplete ITC, the wide RM group showed better RFS and OS and a lower incidence of RM recurrence compared with the narrow RM group (P = 0.037, 0.018, and 0.046, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

As MRI-based preoperative markers, conjoint analysis of ITC with ITS aids in determining RM width for solitary HCC patients. Narrow RM is applicable in patients with ITS ≤ 3 cm regardless of ITC status and in those with ITS > 3 cm and complete ITC. Wide RM is preferred in those with ITS > 3 cm and incomplete ITC.

Prognostic Impact of Surgical Margin in Hepatectomy on Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

Objective

This study aims to comprehensively evaluate the prognostic impact of the surgical margin in hepatectomy on patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Methods

A comprehensive and systematic search for eligible articles published in English before July 2021 was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase electronic databases. The overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were the primary endpoints.

Results

In total, 37 observational studies with 12,295 cases were included in this meta-analysis. The results revealed that a wide surgical margin (≥1 cm) was associated with better OS (hazard ration (HR), 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.63–0.77) and DFS (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.61–0.71) compared to a narrow surgical margin (<1 cm). Subgroup analyses were conducted based on median follow-up time, gender, country, hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) status, tumor number, and liver cirrhosis. The prognostic benefit of a wide surgical margin was consistent in most subgroups, however, analysis of studies from Western countries showed that margin width was not associated with prognosis.

Conclusion

In summary, a surgical margin wider than 1 cm prolongs the long-term prognosis of HCC patients compared to a surgical margin narrower than 1 cm.

State-of-the-art surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most commonly diagnosed primary liver tumor with an increasing incidence worldwide. Management of patients with HCC is largely dictated by the presence of cirrhosis, disease stage, underlying liver function, and patient performance status.

PURPOSE

We provide an update on key aspects of surgical treatment options for patients with HCC. RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS: Liver resection and transplantation remain cornerstone treatment options for patients with early-stage disease and constitute the only potentially curative options for HCC. Selection of patients for surgical treatment should include a thorough evaluation of tumor characteristics and biology, as well as evidence-based use of various available treatment options to achieve optimal long-term outcomes for patients with HCC.

Impact on Oncological Outcomes and Intent-to-Treat Survival of Resection Margin for Transplantable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in All-Comers and in Patients with Cirrhosis: A Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of liver resection (LR) with a narrow margin in patients with transplantable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have not been studied. The aim was to assess whether narrow margin following up-front LR impacts the incidence, timing, pattern, and transplantability of tumor recurrence in patients with initially transplantable HCC.

METHODS

All initially transplantable HCC patients undergoing hepatectomy with either narrow (<10 mm) or wide (≥10 mm) margins from 2007 to 2016 at four Western university centers were compared in terms of recurrence, transplantability of recurrence, recurrence-free survival (RFS), and intention-to-treat overall survival (ITT-OS). Independent predictors of non-transplantability of recurrence were assessed.

RESULTS

This study included 187 patients (narrow group, n = 107 vs. wide group, n = 80). Recurrence was significantly more frequent in the narrow margin group (44% vs. 26%; p = 0.01) with a shorter RFS (p = 0.03). The transplantability of recurrence and ITT-OS were, however, not different between the two groups. The presence of satellite nodules on the resected specimens emerged as the sole independent predictor of non-transplantability of tumor recurrence. The stratification of the analysis according to the presence of cirrhosis achieved essentially the same results as in the whole study population.

CONCLUSIONS

Narrow margin was associated with a higher tumor recurrence rate and a shorter RFS for patients with initially transplantable HCC. However, transplantability of recurrence and long-term ITT-OS were not impaired.

Dose-Response Between Serum Prealbumin and All-Cause Mortality After Hepatectomy in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background

The relationship between serum prealbumin and the risk of all-cause mortality after hepatectomy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) needs to be evaluated.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to adjust for potential confounders. Prealbumin level was transformed by Z-scores and categorized into quartiles (Q1: <147 mg/L, Q2: 147–194 mg/L, Q3: 194–239 mg/L, Q4: >239 mg/L). We assessed the dose-response relationship between serum prealbumin and the risk of all-cause mortality using a restricted cubic spline model.

Results

Data were included from 2,022 HCC patients who underwent hepatectomy at Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital in China between January 2006 and January 2016. The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for increasing quartiles of serum prealbumin were 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64–0.95] for Q2, 0.66 (0.53–0.81) for Q3, and 0.51 (0.41–0.64) for Q4 in the Cox model (all P < 0.001). Serum prealbumin showed an L-shaped, non-linear dose-response relationship with the risk of all-cause mortality (P < 0.001). Among patients whose serum prealbumin was below 250 mg/L, risk of all-cause mortality decreased by 27% (95% CI: 18–36%) per increase of one standard deviation (69.8 mg/L) in serum prealbumin.

Conclusions

Levels of serum prealbumin under 250 mg/L may be considered dangerous with respect to all-cause mortality after hepatectomy in HCC patients. Serum prealbumin may be useful as a prognostic marker in HCC patients undergoing hepatectomy.

Impact of Surgical Margin on the Prognosis of Early Hepatocellular Carcinoma (≤5 cm): A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Aim: The influence of surgical margin on the prognosis of patients with early solitary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (≤5 cm) is undetermined.

Methods: The data of 904 patients with early solitary HCC who underwent liver resection were collected for recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance the potential bias.

Results: Log-rank tests showed that 2 mm was the best cutoff value to discriminate the prognosis of early HCC. Liver resection with a >2 mm surgical margin distance (wide-margin group) led to better 5-year RFS and OS rate compared with liver resection with a ≤2 mm surgical margin distance (narrow-margin group) among patients both before (RFS: 59.1% vs. 39.6%, P < 0.001; OS: 85.3% vs. 73.7%, P < 0.001) and after PSM (RFS: 56.3% vs. 41.0%, P < 0.001; OS: 83.0% vs. 75.0%, P = 0.010). Subgroup analysis showed that a wide-margin resection significantly improved the prognosis of patients with microvascular invasion (RFS: P < 0.001; OS: P = 0.001) and patients without liver cirrhosis (RFS: P < 0.001; OS: P = 0.001) after PSM. Multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed that narrow-margin resection is associated with poorer RFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.781, P < 0.001), OS (HR = 1.935, P < 0.001], and early recurrence (HR = 1.925, P < 0.001).

Conclusions: A wide-margin resection resulted in better clinical outcomes than a narrow-margin resection among patients with early solitary HCC, especially for those with microvascular invasion and without cirrhosis. An individual strategy of surgical margin should be formulated preoperation according to both tumor factors and background liver factors.

Application of photodynamic therapy for liver malignancies

Liver malignancies include primary and metastatic tumors. Limited progress has been achieved in improving the survival rate of patients with advanced stage liver cancer and who are unsuitable for surgery. Apart from surgery, chemoradiotherapy, trans-arterial chemoembolization and radiofrequency ablation, a novel therapeutic modality is needed for the clinical treatment of liver cancer. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a novel strategy for treating patients with advanced cancers; it uses a light-triggered cytotoxic photosensitizer and a laser light. PDT provides patients with a potential treatment approach with minimal invasion and low toxicity, that is, the whole course of treatment is painless, harmless, and repeatable. Therefore, PDT has been considered an effective palliative treatment for advanced liver cancers. To date, PDT has been used to treat hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, hepatoblastoma and liver metastases. Clinical outcomes reveal that PDT can be considered a promising treatment modality for all liver cancers to improve the quality and quantity of life of patients. Despite the advances achieved with this approach, several challenges still impede the application of PDT to liver malignancies. In this review, we focus on the recent advancements and discuss the future prospects of PDT in treating liver malignancies.

Mitotic quiescence in hepatic cancer stem cells: An incognito mode

Hepatocellular carcinoma represents one of the most aggressive cancers with high recurrence rates. The high recurrence is a major problem in the management of this disease. Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are often regarded as the basis of cancer recurrence. The anti-proliferative therapy kills the proliferating cells but induces mitotic quiescence in CSCs which remain as residual dormant CSCs. Later on, withdrawal of treatment reactivates the residual CSCs from dormancy to produce new cancer cells. The proliferation of these newly formed cancer cells initiates new tumor formation in the liver leading to tumor recurrence. HCC cells evade the immune surveillance via modulating the key immune cells by alpha feto-protein (AFP) secreted from CSCs or hepatic progenitor cells. This AFP mediated immune evasion assists in establishing new tumors by cancer cells in the liver. In this review, we will summarise the CSC mechanisms of recurrence, mitotic quiescence, dormancy and reactivation of CSCs, metastasis and immune evasion of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Impact of narrow margin and R1 resection for hepatocellular carcinoma on the salvage liver transplantation strategy. An intention-to-treat analysis

BACKGROUND

No studies have investigated whether narrow margin is a risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence outside transplantability criteria. The objective was to assess on an intent-to-treat (ITT) basis whether hepatectomy with narrow margin affects the outcomes in patients enrolled in the salvage liver transplantation (LT) strategy.

METHODS

From 2007 to 2016, patients enrolled in the salvage LT strategy were divided into 2 groups: narrow (<10 mm) vs. wide (≥10 mm) margin groups. R1 resection was defined as positive histologic margin involvement. Recurrence rate, transplantability rate of recurrence and ITT overall survival (ITT-OS) were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 81 patients were studied: 43 patients with narrow margin and 38 with wide margin. The recurrence rates, pattern and delay of recurrence, transplantability following recurrence, and ITT-OS were similar between the two groups. These results were maintained when comparing patients with R1 resection to those with R0 resection.

CONCLUSION

On an ITT basis, hepatectomy with narrow margin or R1 resection did not impair the transplantability of recurrence and survival of patients enrolled in the salvage LT strategy. Narrow margin and even R1 resection following hepatectomy in the setting of salvage LT strategy should not be the basis for altering the strategy.

Validation of the prognostic performance in various nodal staging systems for gallbladder cancer: results of a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Although the current nodal staging system for gallbladder cancer (GBC) was changed based on the number of positive lymph nodes (PLN), it needs to be evaluated in various situations.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical data for 398 patients with resected GBC and compared nodal staging systems based on the number of PLNs, the positive/retrieved LN ratio (LNR), and the log odds of positive LN (LODDS). Prognostic performance was evaluated using the C-index.

RESULTS

Subgroups were formed on the basis of an restricted cubic spline plot as follows: PLN 3 (PLN = 0, 1-2, ≥ 3); PLN 4 (PLN = 0, 1-3, ≥ 4); LNR (LNR = 0, 0-0.269, ≥ 0.27); and LODDS (LODDS < - 0.8, - 0.8-0, ≥ 0). The oncological outcome differed significantly between subgroups in each system. In all patients with GBC, PLN 4 (C-index 0.730) and PLN 3 (C-index 0.734) were the best prognostic discriminators of survival and recurrence, respectively. However, for retrieved LN (RLN) ≥ 6, LODDS was the best discriminator for survival (C-index 0.852).

CONCLUSION

The nodal staging system based on PLN was the optimal prognostic discriminator in patients with RLN < 6, whereas the LODDS system is adequate for RLN ≥ 6. The following nodal staging system considers applying different systems according to the RLN.

Is anatomical resection necessary for early hepatocellular carcinoma? A single institution retrospective experience

Aim: The present study aimed to determine whether anatomical resection was necessary for early hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods: A log-rank test or two-stage test was used for univariate analysis. A Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariable analysis. Results: For patients without microvascular invasion, a resection margin ≥1 cm provided the longest recurrence-free survival time regardless of whether they underwent anatomical resection (p = 0.005) or nonanatomical resection (p = 0.006). For patients with microvascular invasion, anatomical resection combined with a resection margin ≥1 cm provided the longest recurrence-free survival time compared with other treatments (p = 0.001). Conclusion: Anatomical resection was not necessary for patients without microvascular invasion. However, for patients with microvascular invasion, both anatomical resection and a resection margin ≥1 cm were necessary.