Anterior vs conventional approach hepatectomy for large liver cancer: A meta-analysis

AIM:To evaluate the clinical outcomes and safety of anterior-and conventional-approach hepatectomy for patients with large liver tumors.METHODS:Pub Med,EMBASE,Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials(RCTs)and controlled clinical trials comparing anterior-approach hepatectomy(AAH)and conventional-approach hepatectomy(CAH).Two observers independently extracted the data using a spreadsheet and assessed the studies for inclusion.Studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria and addressed the clinical questions of this analysis were further assessed using either fixed effects or random effects models.RESULTS:Two RCTs and six controlled clinical trials involving 807 patients met the predefined inclusion criteria.A total of 363 patients underwent AAH and 444underwent CAH.Meta-analysis indicated that the AAH group had fewer requirements for transfusion(OR=0.37,95%CI:0.21-0.63),less recurrence(OR=0.57,95%CI:0.37-0.87),and lower mortality(OR=0.29,95%CI:0.13-0.63).There were no significant differences between AAH and CAH with regard to perioperative complications(OR=0.94,95%CI:0.58-1.51),intraoperative tumor rupture(OR=0.98,95%CI:0.40-2.40),or length of hospital stay(weighted mean difference=-0.17,95%CI:-2.36-2.02).CONCLUSION:AAH has advantages of decreased transfusion,mortality and recurrence compared to CAH.It is a safe and effective method for large cancers requiring right hepatectomy.     

Anterior approach for major right hepatic resection

We review the history, indications, and latest modifications of the surgical technique of the anterior approach for right hepatectomy for massive tumors. The anterior approach provides a “no-touch” technique in resecting large right-lobe tumors, reduces bleeding volume, decreases the chance of iatrogenic rupture of tumors, and probably prolongs survival.     

Systematic review and meta-analysis of hepatic resection versus transarterial chemoembolization for solitary large hepatocellular carcinoma

Background

Surgical techniques and pre-operative patient evaluation have improved since the initial development of the Barcelona clinic liver cancer staging system. The optimal treatment for solitary hepatocellular carcinoma ≥5 cm remains unclear. The aim of this study was to review the long-term survival outcomes of hepatic resection versus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) for solitary large tumours.

Comparison of surgical resection and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for large hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction and ObjectivesLarge primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has a high mortality rate and a variety of treatments. Surgery and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) are important treatments. Which could be better remain debatable. The objective of the study is to compare the long-term overall survival of surgical resection (SR) and the use of TACE in patients with large hepatocellular carcinoma.Materials and MethodsWe assessed clinical trials through PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to March 2022. Two researchers independently screened articles, extracted data, and assessed the study quality according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses)guidelines. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). The secondary outcomes were OS after propensity scores matching (PSM) and progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsA total of 14 studies, including 3609 patients, were enrolled in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis indicated a significant improvement in the 1-year OS, 3-year OS, and 5-year OS favoring SR over TACE (OR = 2.19, 95% CI 1,60–3.00; OR = 3.47, 95% CI 2.47–4.88; OR = 2.72, 95% CI 2.03–3.64, p < 0.001, random model). The results were consistent across subgroups of tumor size and tumor numbers (p > 0.05). The pooled outcome indicated that 1-year OS, 3-year OS, and 5-year OS after PSM were higher in the SR group than in the TACE group (p < 0.001).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis indicates that among patients with large primary hepatocellular carcinoma, the overall survival rate of patients undergoing surgical resection was higher than that of patients undergoing TACE.     

Laparoscopic vs open approach to resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with known cirrhosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM: To review the currently available literature comparing laparoscopic to open resection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with known liver cirrhosis.METHODS: A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was conducted. The search terms used included (laparoscopic OR laparoscopy) AND (hepatic or liver) AND (surgery or resection) AND “hepatocellular carcinoma” AND (cirrhosis or cirrhotic). Furthermore, to widen the search, we also used the “related articles” section. Studies reporting a comparison of outcomes and methods of open vs laparoscopic hepatic resection for HCC in patients with liver cirrhosis were included. Meta-analysis of results was performed using a random effects model to compute relative risk (RR) and for dichotomous variables and standard mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables.RESULTS: A total of 420 patients from 4 cohort studies were included in final analysis. Patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures had statistically less blood loss compared to the open cohort, SMD of -1.01 (95%CI: -1.23-0.79), P < 0.001, with a reduced risk of transfusion, RR = 0.19 (95%CI: 0.09-0.38), P < 0.001. A wider clearance at tumour resection margins was achieved following a laparoscopic approach, SMD of 0.34 (95%CI: 0.08-0.60), P = 0.011. No significant difference was noted between laparoscopic and open resection operative times, SMD of -0.15 (95%CI: 0.35-0.05), P = 0.142. The overall RR of suffering from postoperative morbidity is 0.25 in favour of the open surgery cohort (95%CI: 0.17-0.37), P < 0.001. Patients under-going laparoscopic surgery had significantly shorter length of stays in hospital compared to the open cohort, SMD of -0.53 (95%CI: -0.73 to -0.32), P < 0.001.CONCLUSION: This review suggests that laparoscopic resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis is safe and may provide improved patient outcomes when compared to the open technique.     

A systematic review and meta-analysis of adjuvant transarterial chemoembolization after curative resection for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to systematically evaluate and determine those patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that would benefit from the administration of postoperative adjuvant transarterial chemoembolization (PA-TACE).MethodsPubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies up to July 30, 2019. The outcome of Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were extracted and converted to hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs).ResultsA total of 40 studies (10 RCTs and 30 non-RCTs) involving 11,165 patients were included. Overall, PA-TACE was associated with an increased OS [HR, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65–0.77); P < 0.001] and DFS [HR, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.66–0.80); P < 0.001]. Subgroup analysis in patients with microvascular invasion (MVI), tumor diameter >5 cm or multinodular tumors demonstrated that PA-TACE improved OS and DFS. In patients without MVI, PA-TACE showed no improvement in OS [HR, 1.14 (95% CI, 0.85–1.53); P = 0.370], and resulted in worse DFS than curative resection alone [HR, 1.20 (95% CI, 1.03–1.39); P = 0.002].ConclusionThis meta-analysis indicated that PA-TACE was beneficial in patients with HCC who were at high risk of postoperative recurrence including tumor diameter >5 cm, multinodular tumors and MVI-positive. In patients with tumor diameter ≤5 cm, single tumor or MVI-negative. PA-TACE does not appear to improve outcomes and may potentially promote postoperative recurrence in certain patients.     

Efficacy of major hepatic resection for large hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND/AIMS: A large hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) generally carries a poor prognosis despite curative hepatic resection. However, some cases have had good outcomes without recurrences. In this study, we investigated the factors which predicted a good prognosis. METHODOLOGY: Sixty-six patients with large HCC greater than 5 cm who underwent curative hepatic resections were divided into two groups. There were 55 patients who had recurrences within 5 years after surgery (group A) and 11 patients who did not have recurrences at the fifth year after surgery (group B). We compared the clinicopathological features between the two groups. RESULTS: No differences were seen in the pre-operative liver function tests and the incidence of histological cirrhosis. The incidence of positive rate of histological recurrence factors, such as intrahepatic metastasis and incomplete surgical margins, was significantly less in group B. Five (45%) and 10 (91%) of 11 patients in group B underwent pre-operative portal vein embolization and major hepatic resection, respectively, while 10 (18%) and 29 (53%) of 55 patients in group A underwent these procedures (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In order to increase tumor-free survival rates for patients with large HCC greater than 5 cm, major hepatic resection after portal vein embolization with complete surgical margins should be performed.     

Survival following redo hepatectomy vs radiofrequency ablation for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundRedo hepatic resection (RHR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are salvage treatment choices for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC). As yet, it is unclear as to which treatment modality is superior in terms of long term survival. The aim of this study was to compare the survival benefits and treatment efficacy of RHR and RFA for recurrent HCC.MethodsA literature review using the EMBASE, Medline, Google scholar, and Cochrane databases was performed. Meta-analyses were performed using an inference of variance, random effects model for 1, 3 and 5-year Disease Free Survival (DFS) and Overall Survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were major morbidity and mortality.ResultsFive retrospective studies including 639 patients were eligible. Overall, there were no differences in 1, 3 and 5-year DFS or OS for patients undergoing RHR or RFA for recurrent HCC. Comparison between the two groups demonstrated similar 5-year DFS (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67–1.11, p = 0.250) and 5-year OS (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.83–1.27, p = 0.082). However, RFA had a lower morbidity rate (2%) compared with RHR (17%, p < 0.001).ConclusionThis study demonstrates, neither RHR nor RFA appeared to be superior in terms of DFS and OS. Well-constructed, randomised, multicenter trials will be required to determine if a true difference exists.     

Surgical resection versus transarterial chemoembolization for BCLC intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background & objective

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is recommended as the first-line therapy for intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) algorithm. However, in clinical practice, many such patients undergo surgical resection. A meta-analysis with a systematic search of the medical literature was conducted to compare these two procedures for BCLC intermediate stage HCC.

Survival comparison between radiofrequency ablation and surgical resection for patients with small hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective:This study aimed to evaluate and compare the long-term therapeutic efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus that of surgical resection in small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).Methods:Relevant articles in English from PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were retrieved. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated to assess the prognostic value of RFA compared with that of surgical resection.Results:A total of 19 studies involving 15,071 patients were included. The combined HRs (95% confidence interval [CI]) of RFA for recurrence/relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were 1.55 (95% CI = 1.29-1.86, I² = 72.5%) and 1.61 (95% CI = 1.29-2.01, I² = 60.4%), respectively, compared with surgical resection. In subgroup analyses according to study design, both RFS and OS of the prospective subgroups showed statistical significance, and no statistical heterogeneity existed between studies.Conclusion:Our clinical data suggest that surgical resection offers better long-term oncologic outcomes than RFA.     

Laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery vs conventional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective:To systematically review and evaluate the safety, advantages and clinical application value of laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) for endometrial cancer by comparing it with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).Methods:We conducted a systematic review of the published literature comparing LESS with CLS in the treatment of endometrial cancer. English databases including PubMed, Embase, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library and Chinese databases including Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang and China Biology Medicine were searched for eligible observational studies up to July 10, 2019. We then evaluated the quality of the selected comparative studies before performing a meta-analysis using the RevMan 5.3 software. The complications, surgical time, blood loss during surgery, postoperative length of hospital stay and number of lymph nodes removed during surgery were compared between the 2 surgical approaches.Results:Four studies with 234 patients were finally included in this meta-analysis. We found that there was no statistically significant difference in complications between the 2 surgical approaches [odds ratio (OR): 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.18–2.21, P = .47, I² = 0%]. There was no statistically significant difference in blood loss between the 2 surgical approaches [mean difference (MD): –61.81, 95% CI: –130.87 to –7.25, P = .08, I² = 74%]. There was no statistically significant difference in surgical time between the 2 surgical approaches (MD: –11.51, 95% CI: –40.19 to 17.16, P = .43, I² = 81%). There was also no statistically significant difference in postoperative length of hospital stay between the 2 surgical approaches (MD: –0.56, 95% CI: –1.25 to –0.13, P = .11, I² = 72%). Both pelvic and paraaortic lymph nodes can be removed with either of the 2 procedures. There were no statistically significant differences in the number of paraaortic lymph nodes and total lymph nodes removed during surgery between the 2 surgical approaches [(MD: –0.11, 95% CI: –3.12 to 2.91, P = .29, I² = 11%) and (MD: –0.53, 95% CI (–3.22 to 2.16), P = .70, I² = 83%)]. However, patients treated with LESS had more pelvic lymph nodes removed during surgery than those treated with CLS (MD: 3.33, 95% CI: 1.05–5.62, P = .004, I² = 32%).Conclusion:Compared with CLS, LESS did not reduce the incidence of complications or shorten postoperative hospital stay. Nor did it increase surgical time or the amount of bleeding during surgery. LESS can remove lymph nodes and ease postoperative pain in the same way as CLS. However, LESS improves cosmesis by leaving a single small scar.     

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundRobotic surgery offers theoretical advantages to conventional laparoscopic surgery including improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization and better ergonomics. This review aimed to determine if these theoretical advantages translate into improved patient outcomes in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy through laparoscopic (LDP) or robotic (RDP) approaches.MethodA systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting minimally invasive surgery for distal pancreatectomy. Meta-analysis of intraoperative (blood loss, operating times, conversion and R0 resections) and postoperative outcomes (overall complications, pancreatic fistula, length of hospital stay) was performed using random effects models.ResultTwenty non-randomised studies including 3112 patients (793 robotic and 2319 laparoscopic) were considered appropriate for inclusion. LDP had significantly shorter operating time than RDP (mean: 28, p < 0.001) but no significant difference in blood loss (mean: 52 mL, p = 0.07). RDP was associated with significantly lower conversion rates than LDP (OR 0.48, p < 0.001), but no difference in spleen preservation rate and R0 resection. There were no significant differences in overall and major complications, overall and high-grade pancreatic fistula. However, RDP was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (mean: 1, p < 0.001).ConclusionRobotic distal pancreatectomy appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both techniques appear equivalent. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomised trial comparing both techniques are needed.     

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the quality of life after hepatic resection

BackgroundQuality of life (QoL) after hepatic resection is a pertinent issue that has been poorly studied. The aim of this study was to compare changes in QoL before and after hepatic resection.MethodsA systematic review was performed using Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library. Whenever possible, pooled mean differences of survey scores pre- and post-operatively were calculated.Results22 studies were included comprising a total of 1785 participants. Using the EORTC-QLQ 30C survey, patients with benign disease tend to have better QoL post-surgery than those with malignant disease. There were post-operative improvements in the following FACT-HEP domains: physical at 9 months (MD 3.14, 95%CI 2.70 to 3.58, P < 0.001), social and family at 3 (MD 1.45, 95%CI 0.12 to 2.77, p = 0.030), 6 (MD 1.12, 95%CI 0.21 to 2.04, p = 0.020), 9 (MD 0.66, 95%CI 0.03 to 1.28, p = 0.040), and 12 (MD 0.58, 95%CI 0.12 to 1.03, p = 0.010) months, emotional at 9 (P < 0.001) and 24 months (P < 0.001), hepatobiliary at 24 months (p < 0.001), and global health status at 9 months (p = 0.002).ConclusionQoL scores tend to deteriorate post-surgery, but recover to baseline in the long-term at 9-months. Patients with malignant disease, and those who underwent major hepatectomy, have poorer QoL scores.     

Efficacy of hepatic resection vs transarterial chemoembolization for solitary huge hepatocellular carcinoma

AIM: To compare the efficacy of hepatic resection (HR) and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for patients with solitary huge (≥ 10 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).METHODS: Records were retrospectively analyzed of 247 patients with solitary huge HCC, comprising 180 treated by HR and 67 by TACE. Long-term overall survival (OS) was compared between the two groups using the Kaplan-Meier method, and independent predictors of survival were identified by multivariate analysis. These analyses were performed using all patients in both groups and/or 61 pairs of propensity score-matched patients from the two groups.RESULTS: OS at 5 years was significantly higher in the HR group than the TACE group, across all patients (P = 0.002) and across propensity score-matched pairs (36.4% vs 18.2%, P = 0.039). The two groups showed similar postoperative mortality and morbidity. Multivariate analysis identified alpha-fetoprotein ≥ 400 ng/mL, presence of vascular invasion and TACE treatment as independent predictors of poor OS.CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that HR can be safe and more effective than TACE for patients with solitary huge HCC.     

Systematic review of surgical resection vs radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents one of the most common neoplasms worldwide. Surgical resection and local ablative therapies represent the most frequent first lines therapies adopted when liver transplantation can not be offered or is not immediately accessible. Hepatic resection (HR) is currently considered the most curative strategy, but in the last decade local ablative therapies have started to obtain satisfactory results in term of efficacy and, of them, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is considered the reference standard. An extensive literature review, from the year 2000, was performed, focusing on results coming from studies that directly compared HR and RFA. Qualities of the studies, characteristics of patients included, and patient survival and recurrence rates were analyzed. Except for three randomized controlled trials (RCT), most studies are affected by uncertain methodological approaches since surgical and ablated patients represent different populations as regards clinical and tumor features that are known to affect prognosis. Unfortunately, even the available RCTs report conflicting results. Until further evidences become available, it seems reasonable to offer RFA to very small HCC (< 2 cm) with no technical contraindications, since in this instance complete necrosis is most likely to be achieved. In larger nodules, namely > 2 cm and especially if > 3 cm, and/or in tumor locations in which ablation is not expected to be effective or safe, surgical removal is to be preferred.     

干扰素辅助治疗肝细胞癌随机对照试验的系统评价和Meta分析

目的 评价手术、消融、动脉栓塞化疗等治疗措施后辅助用干扰素(IFN)治疗病毒性肝炎相关性肝细胞癌的疗效和安全性.方法 检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、中国期刊全文数据库、中国生物医学文献数据库、万方数据库,并辅以手工检索和互联网检索灰色文献,纳入符合标准的文献,并进行系统评价和Meta分析.结果 共纳入8篇随机对照试验(RCT),共计857例,其中IFN组442例,对照组415例.Meta分析结果显示,根治性治疗后辅助用IFN治疗能降低肝癌1年复发率[相对危险度(RR)=0.71,95％可信区间(CI)为0.51～0.99]、3年复发率(RR=0.86,95％CI为0.76～0.98)、4年复发率(RR=0.79,95％CI为0.68～0,91);提高患者1年生存率(RR=1.09,95％CI为1.01～1.18)、2年生存率(RR=1.25,95％口CI为1.04～1.50),且组间差异均具有统计学意义.2、5年复发率和3、4、5年生存率的差异在组间无统计学意义.一项针对晚期肝细胞肝癌患者经肝动脉化疗栓塞(TACE)术后辅助用IFN治疗的RCT结果显示,TACE-IFN联合能降低患者的肝癌复发率,改善患者2年的无疾病生存率和2年的总生存率,但1年的无疾病生存率和1年的总生存率在组间的差异无统计学意义.结论 IFN辅助治疗病毒性肝炎相关性肝细胞癌能在一定程度上降低其复发率,提高患者生存率,且患者对IFN的不良反应能较好耐受.     

Metabolomic biomarkers for hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a highly malignant cancer which lack of effective diagnosis and prognosis biomarkers, therefore surging studies focused on the metabolite candidates for HCC. The current study was designed to systematically review the metabolic studies for HCC, summarize the current available evidence and provide implication for further studies within this area. By systematically screening Pubmed and Embase, and eligibility assessment, we eventually included 55 pieces of studies. After summarized their characteristics, we reviewed them by 3 parts, regarding to the different biofluid they carried out the experiments. By collecting the candidates from all the included studies, we carried out pathway enrichment to see the representative of the reported candidates, as expected the pathway consistent with the current knowledge of HCC. Next, we conduct quality assessment on the included studies. Only 36% of the current evidence grouped as high quality, indicating the quality of metabolic studies needs further improvement.