Does minimally invasive liver resection improve long-term survival compared to open resection for hepatocellular carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Textbook outcome in liver surgery: open vs minimally invasive hepatectomy among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

We sought to investigate whether minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) was superior to open hepatectomy (OH) in terms of achieving textbook outcome in liver surgery (TOLS) after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Patients who underwent resection of HCC between 2000 and 2020 were identified from an international database. TOLS was defined by the absence of intraoperative grade ≥2 events, R1 resection margin, posthepatectomy liver failure, bile leakage, major complications, in-hospital mortality, and readmission.

RESULTS

A total of 1039 patients who underwent HCC resection were included in the analysis. Although most patients underwent OH (n = 724 [69.7%]), 30.3% (n = 315) underwent MIH. Patients who underwent MIH had a lower tumor burden score (3.6 [IQR, 2.6-5.2] for MIH vs 6.1 [IQR, 3.9-10.1] for OH) and were more likely to undergo minor hepatectomy (84.1% [MIH] vs 53.6% [OH]) than patients who had an OH (both P < .001). After propensity score matching to control for baseline differences between the 2 cohorts, the incidence of TOLS was comparable among patients who had undergone MIH (56.6%) versus OH (64.8%) (P = .06). However, MIH was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (6.0 days [IQR, 4.0-8.0] for MIH vs 9.0 days [IQR, 6.0-12.0] for OH). Among patients who had MIH, the odds ratio of achieving TOLS remained stable up to a tumor burden score of 4; after which the chance of TOLS with MIH markedly decreased.

CONCLUSION

Patients with HCC who underwent resection with MIH versus OH had a comparable likelihood of TOLS, although MIH was associated with a short length of stay.

Merits and boundaries of the BCLC staging and treatment algorithm: Learning from the past to improve the future with a novel proposal

In this Expert Opinion, we thoroughly analyse the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging and treatment algorithm for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that, since 1999, has standardised HCC management, offering a structured approach for the prognostic evaluation and treatment of patients with HCC. The first part of the article presents the strengths and evolutionary improvements of the BCLC staging system. Nevertheless, both patient characteristics and available treatments have changed in the last two decades, limiting the role of the BCLC criteria for treatment allocation in a growing number of patients. As therapeutic options expand and become more effective, the stage-linked treatment decision-making algorithm may lead to undertreatment and suboptimal outcomes for patients with disease beyond early-stage HCC. Consequently, strict adherence to BCLC criteria is limited in expert centres, particularly for patients diagnosed beyond early-stage HCC. Although the BCLC system remains the benchmark against which other therapeutic frameworks must be judged, the era of precision medicine calls for patient-tailored therapeutic decision-making (by a multidisciplinary tumour board) rather than stage-dictated treatment allocation. Acknowledging this conceptual difference in clinical management, the second part of the article describes a novel "multiparametric therapeutic hierarchy", which integrates a comprehensive assessment of clinical factors, biomarkers, technical feasibility, and resource availability. Lastly, considering the increasing efficacy of locoregional and systemic treatments, the concept of "converse therapeutic hierarchy" is introduced. These treatments can increase the feasibility (conversion approach) and effectiveness (adjuvant approach of systemic therapy) of potentially curative approaches to greatly improve clinical outcomes.

What Is the Role of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery in Treating Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma on Cirrhosis?

Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) has been slowly introduced in the past two decades and today represents a major weapon in the fight against HCC, for several reasons. This narrative review conveys the major emerging concepts in the field. The rise in metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD)-related HCC means that patients with significant cardiovascular risk will benefit more profoundly from MILS. The advent of efficacious therapy is leading to conversion from non-resectable to resectable cases, and therefore more patients will be able to undergo MILS. In fact, resection outcomes with MILS are superior compared to open surgery both in the short and long term. Furthermore, indications to surgery may be further expanded by its use in Child B7 patients and by the use of laparoscopic ablation, a curative technique, instead of trans-arterial approaches in cases not amenable to radiofrequency. Therefore, in a promising new approach, multi-parametric treatment hierarchy, MILS is hierarchically superior to open surgery and comes second only to liver transplantation.

Liver resection versus radiofrequency ablation or trans-arterial chemoembolization for early-stage (BCLC A) oligo-nodular hepatocellular carcinoma: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The 2022 Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) algorithm does not recommend liver resection (LR) in BCLC A patients with oligo-nodular (two or three nodules ≤3 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This sharply contrasts with the therapeutic hierarchy concept, implying a precise treatment order exists within each BCLC stage. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of LR versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE) in BCLC A patients.

METHODS

A meta-analysis adhering to PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook was performed. All RCT, cohort and case-control studies that compared LR versus RFA or TACE in oligo-nodular BCLC A HCC published between January 2000 and October 2023 were comprehensively searched on PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and China Biology Medicine databases. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at 3 and 5 years. Risk ratio (RR) was computed as a measure of treatment effect (OS and DFS benefit) to calculate common and random effects estimates for meta-analyses with binary outcome data.

RESULTS

2601 patients from 14 included studies were analysed (LR = 1227, RFA = 686, TACE = 688). There was a significant 3- and 5-year OS benefit of LR over TACE (RR = 0.55, 95% c.i. 0.44 to 0.69, P < 0.001 and RR 0.57, 95% c.i. 0.36 to 0.90, P = 0.030, respectively), while there was no significant 3- and 5-year OS benefit of LR over RFA (RR = 0.78, 95% c.i. 0.37 to 1.62, P = 0.452 and RR 0.74, 95% c.i. 0.50 to 1.09, P = 0.103, respectively). However, a significant 3- and 5-year DFS benefit of LR over RFA was found (RR = 0.70, 95% c.i. 0.54 to 0.93, P = 0.020 and RR 0.82, 95% c.i. 0.72 to 0.95, P = 0.015, respectively). A single study comparing LR and TACE regarding DFS showed a significant superiority of LR. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale quality of studies was high in eight (57%) and moderate in six (43%).

CONCLUSIONS

In BCLC A oligo-nodular HCC patients, LR should be preferred to RFA or TACE (therapeutic hierarchy concept). Additional comparative cohort studies are urgently needed to increase the certainty of this evidence.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Surveillance, Diagnosis, Evaluation and Management

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) ranks fourth in cancer-related deaths worldwide. Semiannual surveillance of the disease for patients with cirrhosis or hepatitis B virus allows for early detection with more favorable outcomes. The current underuse of surveillance programs demonstrates the need for intervention at both the patient and provider level. Mail outreach along with navigation provision has proven to increase surveillance follow-up in patients, while provider-targeted electronic medical record reminders and compliance reports have increased provider awareness of HCC surveillance. Imaging is the primary mode of diagnosis in HCC with The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) being a widely accepted comprehensive system that standardizes the reporting and data collection for HCC. The management of HCC is complex and requires multidisciplinary team evaluation of each patient based on their preference, the state of the disease, and the available medical and surgical interventions. Staging systems are useful in determining the appropriate intervention for HCC. Early-stage HCC is best managed by curative treatment modalities, such as liver resection, transplant, or ablation. For intermediate stages of the disease, transarterial local regional therapies can be applied. Advanced stages of the disease are treated with systemic therapies, for which there have been recent advances with new drug combinations. Previously sorafenib was the mainstay systemic treatment, but the recent introduction of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab proves to have a greater impact on overall survival. Although there is a current lack of improved outcomes in Phase III trials, neoadjuvant therapies are a potential avenue for HCC management in the future.

Outcomes and Patient Selection in Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection for HCC and Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) are the two most common malignant tumors that require liver resection. While liver transplantation is the best treatment for HCC, organ shortages and high costs limit the availability of this option for many patients and make resection the mainstay of treatment. For patients with CRLM, surgical resection with negative margins is the only potentially curative option. Over the last two decades, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been increasingly adopted for the resection of a variety of tumors and was found to have similar long-term outcomes compared to open liver resection (OLR) while offering the benefits of improved short-term outcomes. In this review, we discuss the current literature on the outcomes of LLR vs. OLR for patients with HCC and CRLM. Although the use of LLR for HCC and CRLM is increasing, it is not appropriate for all patients. We describe an approach to selecting patients best-suited for LLR. The four common difficulty-scoring systems for LLR are summarized. Additionally, we review the current evidence behind the emerging robotically assisted liver resection technology.

Hospital Volume and Textbook Outcomes in Minimally Invasive Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Hospital volume affects outcomes of patients who underwent resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We sought to assess the impact of minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) volume on short- and long-term outcomes among patients with HCC.

METHODS

Patients who underwent MIH for HCC from 2010 to 2018 were identified from the National Cancer Database. Multivariable modeling with restricted cubic splines (RCS) was utilized to identify the MIH hospital volume threshold. Textbook outcome (TO) was defined as no conversion to open resection, negative margins after resection (R0), no extended length-of-stay, no readmission, and no 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

Among 3268 patients who underwent MIH for HCC, median age was 65.0 (IQR 59.0-72.0) and the majority was male (n = 2308, 70.6%). MIH hospital volume ranged from 1 to 87 cases, with a median of 13 (IQR 7-23). Overall, 2151 (60.9%) patients achieved TO after resection. While particularly high rates of achievement were found for no 90-day mortality (n = 3106, 95.0%), no readmission (n = 3153, 96.5%), and R0 resection (n = 3,017, 92.3%), other TO components including no conversion to open (n = 2778, 85.0%) and no prolonged LOS (n = 2584, 79.1%) were achieved less frequently. Patients treated at high-volume centers (≥50 MIH cases) were more likely to experience TO (high volume centers, n = 334, 68.7% vs. low volume centers, n = 1656, 59.5%, p < 0.001) and better long-term survival (5-year OS; high volume centers, 64.7% vs. low volume centers, 54.6%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

MIH hospital volume was associated with a higher likelihood of achieving TO and improved long-term survival among patients undergoing resection of HCC.

Predictors of Long-Term Outcomes of Video-Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery in Obese Patients with Colorectal Cancer: A Propensity Score Matching Study

Background: Minimally invasive methods in colorectal surgery offer unquestionable advantages, especially in the context of obesity. The current study addresses the lack of scientific evidence on the long-term oncologic safety of video-laparoscopic (VL) approaches in excess-weight CRC patients undergoing surgery. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a surgical database consisting of 138 CRC patients undergoing VL (n = 87, 63%) and open CRC surgery (n = 51, 37%). To reduce selection bias, a propensity score matching was applied as a preliminary step to balance the comparison between the two surgery groups, i.e., VL and open surgery. Data from patients treated by the same surgeon were used.to minimize bias. Additional Cox regression models were run on the matched sample (N = 98) to explore the observed benefits of VL surgery in terms of overall and cancer-free survival. The nonparametric Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare the two surgical approaches and assess the likelihood of survival and cancer relapse. Results: The study sample was mostly male (N = 86, 62.3%), and VL outnumbered open surgery (63% versus 37%). Both before and after the matching, the VL-allocated group showed better overall survival (p < 0.01) with comparable cancer-free survival over more than five years of median observation time (66 months). Kaplan Meier survival probability curves corroborated the VL significant protective effect on survival (HR of 0.32; 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.81) even after adjusting for major confounding factors (age, gender, comorbidity index, BMI, tumor localization, tumor staging, tumor grading, clearance, CRM). Findings on oncologic performance by tumor relapse were comparable but lacked significance due to the small number of events observed. Conclusions: Comparing CRC surgical approaches, VL allocation showed comparable cancer-free survival but also a better performance on overall mortality than open surgery over more than five years of median observation.