Outcomes of Hepatic Resection for a Single Large Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- 218 Downloads
The proper role of surgical resection, given the various treatment modalities available, needs to be further clarified in patients with a single large hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). To evaluate the role of surgical resection in this group of patients, we studied the long-term outcomes of patients that received hepatic resection for a single large (> 5–10 cm in diameter) HCC.
The clinicopathologic data and long-term outcomes of 61 patients with a single large HCC (> 5–10 cm in diameter; L group) were compared with those of 169 patients with a single small HCC (≤ 5 cm; S group). Prognostic factors were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analysis.
Operative mortality rates were low in both groups (0.6% in group S and 1.6% in group L), and the incidence of postoperative hepatic failure was rare even in group L (1.6%). The cumulative 5-year overall survival rate in group S was 59.0%, whereas in group L it was 52.9% (p = 0.385), and the corresponding cumulative 5-year disease-free survival rates were 44.1% and 31.7%, respectively (p = 0.063). Child class B was found to predict poor overall and disease-free survival by multivariate analysis versus Child class A in both groups. The presence of microvascular invasion was also identified as a significant prognostic factor, but it only affected disease-free survival in the two groups.
Single large HCCs do not require a large extent of hepatic resection and the associated increased risk of postoperative liver failure. The long-term survival of patients with a single large HCC is as good as that of patients with a single small HCC. We conclude that hepatic resection is a safe and effective therapy for single large HCCs.
KeywordsTace Hepatic Resection Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Microvascular Invasion Postoperative Liver Failure
- 14.Terminology Committee of the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association. IHPBA Brisbane 2000 terminology of liver anatomy and resections. HPB Surg 2000;2:333–339Google Scholar