Mesohepatectomy for the treatment of patients with centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma

Central hepatectomy versus major hepatectomy for patients with centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

For those with a centrally located HCC, the two types of liver sectionectomy that can be performed are extended hepatectomy (EH) and central hepatectomy (CH). This meta-analysis aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between patients treated with CH and patients treated with EH for those with centrally located HCC.

METHOD

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library for eligible studies from inception to 1 April 2022 and a systematic review and meta-analysis were done to compare the outcomes between the two groups.

RESULTS

we included 9 studies with a total of 1674 patients in this study. The pooled results in this meta-analysis showed equal long-term overall survival, Disease-free survival, recurrence and mortality between the two groups (5-year OS, RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.96-1.35, P = 0.12; I² = 56%), (5-year DFS, RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.61-1.08, P = 0.15; I² = 60%), (Recurrence, RR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.94-1.15, P = 0.45; I² = 27%), and (Mortality, RR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.26-1.15, P = 0.11; I² = 0%). In addition to that, no significant difference could be detected in the overall incidence of complications between the two groups (Complications, RR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.76-1.16, P = 0.57; I² = 0%). However, CH is associated with a remarkable increase in the rate of biliary fistula (Biliary fistula, RR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.07-3.40, P = 0.03; I² = 0%). And Liver cell failure was higher in the case of EH (LCF, RR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.30-0.76, P = 0.002; I² = 0%). Regarding the operative details, CH is associated with longer operative time (Time of the operation, Mean difference = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.36, 1.27, P = 0.0004; I² = 57%).

CONCLUSION

No significant difference in the short and long-term survival and recurrence between CH and MH for CL-HCC. However, CH is associated with greater future remnant liver volume that decreases the incidence of LCF and provides more opportunities for a repeat hepatectomy after tumour recurrence.

Long-Term Outcomes of Mesohepatectomy for Centrally Located Liver Tumors: Two-Decade Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Mesohepatectomy is a viable treatment option for patients diagnosed with centrally located liver tumors (CLLTs). There are several reports from Eastern centers, but few data are available on this topic from Western centers.

STUDY DESIGN

Data of 128 consecutive patients who underwent mesohepatectomy between September 2000 and September 2020 in our center were analyzed from a prospectively collected database. Patient demographic data, liver tumor characteristics, and intraoperative data were collected. In addition, posthepatectomy bile leakage (PHBL), posthepatectomy hemorrhage (PHH), posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF), and 90-day mortality after mesohepatectomy were assessed. Long-term outcomes were also reported, and factors that may influence disease-free survival were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 128 patients, 113 patients (88.3%) had malignant hepatic tumors (primary and metastatic tumors in 41 [32%] and 72 [56.3%] patients, respectively), and 15 patients suffered from benign lesions (11.7%). Among the relevant surgical complications (grade B or C), PHBL was the most common complication after mesohepatectomy and occurred in 11.7% of patients, followed by PHLF in 3.1% of patients and PHH in 2.3% of patients. Only four patients (3.1%) died within 90 days after mesohepatectomy. The 5-year overall survival and overall recurrence (for malignant lesion) rates were 76.5% and 45.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Mesohepatectomy is a safe and feasible surgical treatment with low morbidity and mortality for patients with CLLT. Long-term outcomes can be improved by increased surgical expertise.

A model prediction of long-term prognosis in patients with centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing hepatectomy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The prognostic prediction for centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma (CL-HCC) after hepatectomy has not been well established. We aimed to develop prognostic nomograms for patients undergoing hepatectomy for CL-HCC.

METHODS

A cohort of 380 patients who underwent curative hepatectomy for CL-HCC at our hospital between 2009 and 2015 were retrospectively studied. We randomly divided the subjects into training (n = 210) and validation (n = 170) groups. Univariate and multivariate survival analysis were used to identify prognostic factors. Visually orientated nomograms were constructed using Cox proportional hazards models. The performance of the nomogram was evaluated by the area under the ROC curve (AUC), calibration curve and compared with the conventional staging systems.

RESULTS

The statistical nomogram for OS built on the basis of ALBI grade, tumor number, tumor size, classification, hepatectomy methods, capsule formation and microvascular invasion (MVI) had good calibration and discriminatory abilities, with AUC of 0.746 (65-month survival). The nomogram for DFS was based on tumor number, tumor size, classification, HBV-DNA load, capsule formation and MVI, with AUC of 0.733 (65-month survival). These nomograms showed satisfactory performance in the validation cohort (AUC, 0.733 for 65-month OS; and 0.702 for 65-month DFS). The AUC of our nomograms were greater than those of conventional staging systems in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSION

The established nomograms might be useful for estimating survival for patients with CL-HCC after liver resection.

Anatomic mesohepatectomy versus extended hepatectomy for patients with centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Both mesohepatectomy (MH) and extended hepatectomy (EH) can be performed for centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this study, the long-term prognosis of these surgical approaches was assessed in patients with HCC.

METHODS

A retrospective review was undertaken of 171 HCC patients who underwent anatomic hepatectomy for centrally located HCC between January 2005 and January 2016 in West China Hospital, Sichuan University. The impact of the surgical methods on prognosis was assessed for these patients by multivariable regression analysis. In addition, the patients in the MH group were matched in a 1:2 ratio with EH controls.

RESULTS

In non-adjusted models, patients in the MH group had similar overall survival (OS, p = 0.066) and disease free survival (DFS, p = 0.654) compared to EH patients. After adjusting for all identified confounders, MH patients showed better OS in comparison with patients in the EH group (p = 0.001), while the DFS was similar. In the propensity score-matched (PSM) subset, patients in MH group had better OS (p = 0.033) but similar DFS (p = 0.328) compared to patients in the EH group.

CONCLUSION

Anatomic MH can be recommended as a reasonable surgical option in selected patients with centrally located HCC.

Mesohepatectomy Versus Extended Hemihepatectomies for Centrally Located Liver Tumors: A Meta-Analysis

The comparison of Mesohepatectomy (MH) with conventional extended hemihepatectomies (EH) for patients with centrally located liver tumors (CLLTs) were inconsistent. Our aims were to systemically compare MH with EH and to determine whether MH can achieve a similar clinical outcome as EH through this meta-analysis. PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge and Cochrane Library were searched updated to June 11, 2016. Blood loss and operation time favored MH in elder patients (mean difference [MD] for blood loss: -692.82 ml, 95% CI: -976.72 to -408.92 ml, P < 0.001; MD for operation time: -78.75 min, 95% CI: -107.66 to -49.81, P < 0.001). Morbidity rate (29.2%, 95% CI: 24.1 to 34.8%), mortality rate (2.0%, 95% CI: 1.2 to 3.3%) and overall survival (median OS 38.2 m, 95% CI: 34.0 to 42.8 m) of MH were comparable with those of EH. The low liver failure rate favored MH (odds ratio [OR]: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.88, P = 0.03). For MH, bile leakage was the most common surgical complication (MH vs. EH: 13.5% vs. 6.7%, P = 0.016), while for EH, it was wound infection (MH vs. EH: 6.9% vs. 15.7%, P < 0.001). Thus MH might be in general safe and feasible for treating CLLTs with a similar clinical outcome as EH.

Management of centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma: Update 2016

Centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is sited in the central part of the liver and adjacent to main hepatic vascular structures. This special location is associated with an increase in the difficulty of surgery, aggregation of the recurrence disease, and greater challenge in disease management. This review summarizes the evolution of our understanding for centrally located HCC and discusses the development of treatment strategies, surgical approaches and recurrence prevention methods. To improve patient survival, a multi-disciplinary modality is greatly needed throughout the whole treatment period.