Surgical and oncological outcomes after laparoscopic vs. open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is a feasible and safe choice for primary hepatocellular carcinoma located at favorable location during the development period of a tertiary hospital: A case-control study

Objectives

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been well known for its advantages in the past 10 years, but little is known regarding its oncologic outcomes while the technique is being developed at an institution. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of LH for patients with primary HCC at favorable locations, focusing on postoperative short- and long-term outcomes during the development period.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed patients diagnosed with primary HCC who underwent hepatectomy between January 2013 and December 2019 at Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital. Patients with HCC at favorable locations (anterolateral segments) were collected and divided into laparoscopic and open hepatectomy (OH) groups. The data for long-term outcomes, as the primary endpoint, and postoperative outcomes, as the secondary endpoint, were collected.

Results

The review included 159 patients, among which 42 and 44 patients in favorable locations underwent open and laparoscopic hepatectomies, respectively. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, major complication rate, and 90-day mortality rate between the two groups. The laparoscopic group had a lower transfusion rate, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and lower 90-day readmission rate. There were no significant differences in 12-, 36-, and 60-month overall survival and disease-free survival.

Conclusion

LH for favorably located HCC is the preferred surgical approach compared to OH due to the decreased transfusion rate, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and lower 90-day readmission rate. LH did not compromise the 90-day mortality rate with sustained long-term overall and disease-free survival. LH for favorably located HCC is a safe and effective surgical approach even during the development period.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted. Surface under cumulative ranking area values, mean difference, odds ratio, and 95% credible intervals were calculated for all outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to determine the most cost-effective clustering approach. Costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy were the primary outcomes assessed, with postoperative overall morbidity, mortality, and length of stay associated with total costs for open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic liver resection incurred the lowest total costs (laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection: mean difference -2,529.84, 95% credible intervals -4,192.69 to -884.83; laparoscopic liver resection versus robotic liver resection: mean difference -3,363.37, 95% credible intervals -5,629.24 to -1,119.38). Open liver resection had the lowest procedural costs but incurred the highest hospitalization costs compared to laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection. Conversely, robotic liver resection had the highest total and procedural costs but the lowest hospitalization costs. Robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection had a significantly reduced length of stay than open liver resection and showed less postoperative morbidity. Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in the lowest readmission and liver-specific complication rates. Laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection demonstrated advantages in costs-morbidity efficiency. While robotic liver resection offered notable benefits in mortality and length of stay, these were balanced against its highest total costs, presenting a nuanced trade-off in the costs-mortality and costs-efficacy analyses.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection represents a more cost-effective option for hepatectomy with superior postoperative outcomes and shorter length of stay than open liver resection. Robotic liver resection, though costlier than laparoscopic liver resection, along with laparoscopic liver resection, consistently exceeds open liver resection in surgical performance.

Resection Versus Transplant for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: How to Offer the Best Modality

Liver resection and liver transplantation are the mainstay of treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Patient comorbidities, tumor resectability, and perioperative morbidity and mortality risk, specifically of post-hepatectomy liver failure, are determining factors when deciding between liver resection and liver transplantation in patients who do not have an obvious contraindication to either treatment. Liver resection is preferred in patients without cirrhosis, and it may be a reasonable choice in patient with cirrhosis but preserved liver function and no portal hypertension if the size and function of the future liver remnant are appropriate, especially if organ availability is scarce.

Laparoscopic versus open resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth commonest malignancy worldwide, and the fourth-leading cause of cancer related death. Partial liver resection (LR) forms the mainstay of therapy for suitable patients with preserved liver function. In recent years, significant advances in surgical technology, refinement of operative techniques and improvements in peri-operative care have facilitated the widespread adoption of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) with encouraging outcomes. Liver cirrhosis (LC) is present in up to 80% of patients with HCC, and adds a further dimension of complexity to LR. Cirrhotic patients have a propensity for greater intraoperative blood loss as well as increased postoperative complications such as refractory ascites and posthepatectomy liver failure. Tumor localization within the fibrotic parenchyma is challenging, giving rise to concerns about resection margin status. Patients are also at higher risk of developing metachronous lesions, which affects long-term survival. Presently, the exact role of LLR in HCC patients with underlying LC is not well-defined. Current evidence suggests that LLR offers a multitude of benefits in the short-term such as reduced blood loss and blood transfusion requirements and lower morbidity, when compared to open resection. Oncologic adequacy and long-term survival do not appear to be compromised. Special consideration must be given for LLR in patients with advanced cirrhosis, or those who require extensive major hepatectomies. We present here a brief review of the literature surrounding LLR for HCC on a background of LC.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes in Laparoscopic Versus Open Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Elderly Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is considered a safe and feasible treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in recent studies. However, in elderly patients, application of LH still remains controversial, and the outcomes of LH versus open hepatectomy (OH) have not been fully evaluated. Our objective is to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of LH with OH in elderly patients with HCC. Materials and Methods: All studies comparing LH and OH in elderly patients with HCC were systematically searched in the databases of PubMed, EmBase, and Web of Science. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, 2014). The last search was performed on March 20, 2022. Short-term outcomes include blood loss, operation time, blood transfusion, overall and major postoperative complications, mortality, hospital stay, tumor size, and surgical margin. Long-term outcomes include 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS); 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS); and 1-, 3-, and 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS). Results: Fourteen studies involving 1596 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The short-term outcomes of LH were a shorter postoperative hospital stay and fewer overall and major postoperative complications (all P < .00001). However, there were no significant differences in operation time, blood loss, blood transfusion rate, surgical margin, tumor size, and mortality. For the long-term outcomes, LH is comparable with OH in terms of 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS; 1-, 3-, and 5-year DFS; and 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS. Conclusions: Compared with OH, LH is a safe and feasible treatment for elderly patients with HCC.

Update on Percutaneous Local Ablative Procedures for the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

 Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common tumor worldwide. Because many hepatocellular carcinomas are already unresectable at the time of initial diagnosis, percutaneous tumor ablation has become established in recent decades as a curative therapeutic approach for very early (BCLC 0) and early (BCLC A) HCC. The aim of this paper is to provide a concise overview of the percutaneous local ablative procedures currently in use, based on their technical characteristics as well as clinical relevance, taking into account the current body of studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 The literature search included all original papers, reviews, and meta-analyses available via MEDLINE and Pubmed on the respective percutaneous ablation procedures; the primary focus was on randomized controlled trials and publications from the last 10 years.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

 Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) are well-established procedures that are considered equal to surgical resection in the treatment of stage BCLC 0 and A HCC with a diameter up to 3 cm due to their strong evidence in international and national guidelines. For tumors with a diameter between 3 and 5 cm, the current S3 guidelines recommend a combination of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and thermal ablation using RFA or MWA as combination therapy is superior to thermal ablation alone in tumors of this size and shows comparable results to surgical resection in terms of overall survival. Alternative, less frequently employed thermal procedures include cryotherapy (CT) and laser ablation (LA). Non-thermal procedures include irreversible electroporation (IRE), interstitial brachytherapy (IBT), and most recently, electrochemotherapy (ECT). Due to insufficient evidence, these have only been used in individual cases and within the framework of studies. However, the nonthermal methods are a reasonable alternative for ablation of tumors adjacent to large blood vessels and bile ducts because they cause significantly less damage to these structures than thermal ablation methods. With advances in the technology of the respective procedures, increasingly good evidence, and advancements in supportive techniques such as navigation devices and fusion imaging, percutaneous ablation procedures may expand their indications for the treatment of larger and more advanced tumors in the coming years.

KEY POINTS

· RFA and MWA are considered equal to surgical resection as a first-line therapy for the curative treatment of stage BCLC 0 and A HCCs with a diameter of up to 3 cm.. · For HCCs with a diameter between 3 and 5 cm, a combination of TACE and RFA or MWA is recommended. This combination therapy yields results comparable to those of surgical resection in terms of overall survival.. · Due to insufficient evidence, alternative ablation methods have only been used in individual cases and within the framework of studies. However, nonthermal methods, such as IRE, IBT, and, most recently, ECT, are a reasonable alternative for ablation of HCCs adjacent to large blood vessels and bile ducts because they cause significantly less damage to these structures than thermal ablation methods..

CITATION FORMAT

· Luerken L, Haimerl M, Doppler M et al. Update on Percutaneous Local Ablative Procedures for the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2022; DOI: 10.1055/a-1768-0954.