Current status of radical laparoscopy for treating hepatocellular carcinoma with portal hypertension

Efficacy of radiofrequency ablation combined with sorafenib for treating liver cancer complicated with portal hypertension and prognostic factors

BACKGROUND

Patients with liver cancer complicated by portal hypertension present complex challenges in treatment.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of radiofrequency ablation in combination with sorafenib for improving liver function and its impact on the prognosis of patients with this condition.

METHODS

Data from 100 patients with liver cancer complicated with portal hypertension from May 2014 to March 2019 were analyzed and divided into a study group (n = 50) and a control group (n = 50) according to the treatment regimen. The research group received radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in combination with sorafenib, and the control group only received RFA. The short-term efficacy of both the research and control groups was observed. Liver function and portal hypertension were compared before and after treatment. Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), glypican-3 (GPC-3), and AFP-L3 levels were compared between the two groups prior to and after treatment. The occurrence of adverse reactions in both groups was observed. The 3-year survival rate was compared between the two groups. Basic data were compared between the survival and non-surviving groups. To identify the independent risk factors for poor prognosis in patients with liver cancer complicated by portal hypertension, multivariate logistic regression analysis was employed.

RESULTS

When comparing the two groups, the research group's total effective rate (82.00%) was significantly greater than that of the control group (56.00%; P < 0.05). Following treatment, alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels increased, and portal vein pressure decreased in both groups. The degree of improvement for every index was substantially greater in the research group than in the control group (P < 0.05). Following treatment, the AFP, GPC-3, and AFP-L3 levels in both groups decreased, with the research group having significantly lower levels than the control group (P < 0.05). The incidence of diarrhea, rash, nausea and vomiting, and fatigue in the research group was significantly greater than that in the control group (P < 0.05). The 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rates of the research group (94.00%, 84.00%, and 72.00%, respectively) were significantly greater than those of the control group (80.00%, 64.00%, and 40.00%, respectively; P < 0.05). Significant differences were observed between the survival group and the non-surviving group in terms of Child-Pugh grade, history of hepatitis, number of tumors, tumor size, use of sorafenib, stage of liver cancer, histological differentiation, history of splenectomy and other basic data (P < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that high Child-Pugh grade, tumor size (6-10 cm), history of hepatitis, no use of sorafenib, liver cancer stage IIIC, and previous splenectomy were independent risk factors for poor prognosis in patients with liver cancer complicated with portal hypertension (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patients suffering from liver cancer complicated by portal hypertension benefit from the combination of RFA and sorafenib therapy because it effectively restores liver function and increases survival rates. The prognosis of patients suffering from liver cancer complicated by portal hypertension is strongly associated with factors such as high Child-Pugh grade, tumor size (6-10 cm), history of hepatitis, lack of sorafenib use, liver cancer at stage IIIC, and prior splenectomy.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with clinically significant portal hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) on the short-term and long-term outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with and without clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH).

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed for articles published from inception to March 1, 2023. Meta-analysis of surgical and oncological outcomes was performed using a random effects model. Data were summarized as mean difference and risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Five cohort studies with a total of 310 HCC patients were included (CSPH 143; Non-CSPH 167). In terms of surgical outcomes, estimated blood loss and the length of hospital stay were significantly lower in the Non-CSPH group than in the CSPH group. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding other surgical outcomes, including the operative time, ratio of conversion to open surgery, and overall complication rate. In addition, there were also no significant differences between the two groups regarding the oncological outcomes, such as 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

HCC patients with and without CSPH who underwent LH had comparable surgical and oncological outcomes. LH is a safe and effective treatment for HCC patients with CSPH under the premise of rational screening of patients.

Is hepatectomy feasible for hepatocellular carcinoma patients with clinically significant portal hypertension and beyond the Milan criteria?

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) and beyond the Milan criteria undergoing hepatectomy were previously considered to be at high risk and to have a poor prognosis, especially for major hepatectomy. The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of hepatectomy in those patients.

METHODS

Data were collected on HCC patients with CSPH treated at a single centre from January 2010 to October 2021. Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was used to balance the bias between groups.

RESULTS

Of the included patients, 556 underwent hepatectomy and 172 underwent transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE). Comparison of patients beyond the Milan criteria and those with Milan criteria underwent hepatectomy, the 90-day mortality and complication rates were similar in the two groups. However, the overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of patients within the Milan criteria were significantly better than those beyond the Milan criteria (p < 0.001). In HCC patients beyond the Milan criteria, OS of performing hepatectomy was significantly longer than TACE (p < 0.001). Within HCC patients beyond the Milan criteria underwent hepatectomy, there was no significant difference in 90-day mortality and complications between minor and major hepatectomy in patients beyond the Milan criteria and no significant difference in RFS and OS after PSM.

CONCLUSIONS

Hepatectomy for HCC patients with CSPH and beyond the Milan criteria is safe and feasible, with an acceptable prognosis and no significant difference between minor and major hepatectomy.

Laparoscopic versus open repeat hepatectomy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched cohort studies

OBJECTIVE

The effectiveness of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) versus open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) on recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC) is unclear. We compared the surgical and oncological outcomes of LRH and ORH in patients with RHCC with a meta-analysis of studies based on propensity score-matched cohorts.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library with Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords until 30 September 2022. The quality of eligible studies was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI was used for the analysis of continuous variables; odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI was used for binary variables; and hazard ratio with 95% CI was used for survival analysis. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Five high-quality retrospective studies with 818 patients were included; 409 patients (50%) were treated with LRH and 409 (50%) with ORH. In most surgical outcomes, LRH was superior to ORH: less estimated blood loss, shorter operation time, lower major complication rate, and shorter length of hospital stay (MD=-225.9, 95% CI=[-360.8 to -91.06], P =0.001; MD=66.2, 95% CI=[5.28-127.1], P =0.03; OR=0.18, 95% CI=[0.05-0.57], P =0.004; MD=-6.22, 95% CI=[-9.78 to -2.67], P =0.0006). There were no significant differences in the remaining surgical outcomes: blood transfusion rate and overall complication rate. In oncological outcomes, LRH and ORH were not significantly different in 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with RHCC, most surgical outcomes with LRH were superior to those of ORH, but oncological outcomes with the two operations were similar. LRH may be a preferable option for the treatment of RHCC.

Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) versus open hepatectomy (OH) on the short-term and long-term outcomes of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) through a meta-analysis of studies using propensity score-matched cohorts.

METHODS

The literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases until August 31, 2022. Meta-analysis of surgical (major morbidity, the length of hospital stay, 90-day postoperative mortality), oncological (R0 resection rate, lymph node dissection rate) and survival outcomes (1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival) was performed using a random effects model. Data were summarized as relative risks (RR), mean difference (MD) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

Six case-matched studies with 1054 patients were included (LH 518; OH 536). Major morbidity was significantly lower (RR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.37-0.88, P = 0.01) and the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter (MD = -2.44, 95% CI = -4.19 to -0.69, P = 0.006) in the LH group than in the OH group, but there was no significant difference in 90-day postoperative mortality between the 2 groups. There were no significant differences in R0 resection rate, lymph node dissection rate, 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival or disease-free survival between the LH and OH groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LH has better surgical outcomes and comparable oncological outcomes and survival outcomes than does OH on ICC. Therefore, laparoscopy is at least not inferior to open surgery for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.