[Comparison of the efficacy of anatomical resection versus hepatic parenchymal preservation preference in patients with solitary small hepatocellular carcinoma and cirrhosis: a multicenter retrospective study].
AI interpretation is pending for this paper.
Open original publication →What the AI sees
Not AI summarized yet.
Research significance
Pending deeper interpretation.
Source abstract
Objective: To investigate the efficacy of anatomical resection (AR) in the early stages of treating solitary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) combined with liver cirrhosis with a diameter of ≤5 cm in comparison to different surgical methods of preferential hepatic parenchymal preservation (non-anatomical liver resection, NAR). Methods: The clinical data of 1 390 cases with solitary HCC combined with liver cirrhosis at an early stage who underwent liver resection at Mengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital of Fujian Medical University and six other medical centers from September 2013 to May 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into the AR group (486 cases) and the NAR group (904 cases) and the wide surgical margin (WSM) group (745 cases) and the narrow surgical margin (NSM) group (645 cases) according to whether they received AR and the width of the surgical margin (1 cm). The basic information of the patients, preoperative evaluation index data, and postoperative follow-up (follow-up every 3 months) were collected. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to plot the survival curve.The log-rank test was used to compare the difference in survival between the two groups. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to analyze the factors affecting the prognosis. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to reduce intergroup bias. Results: The overall survival (OS) rates for all patients at 1, 3, and 5 years were 95.5%, 79.9%, and 63.5%, respectively. The recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were 81.5%, 59.0%, and 43.7%, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in RFS rate between the AR group and the NAR group prior to PSM, but no statistically significant difference in OS rate (RFS rate: 47.0% vs. 41.9%,P<0.05; OS rate: 64.4% vs. 62.9%, P>0.05). The postoperative RFS rate and OS rate were significantly superior in the WSM group than those of the NSM group (RFS rate: 47.8% vs. 37.2%,P<0.001; OS rate: 69.0% vs. 57.3%, P<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in OS rate and RFS rate between the AR group and the NAR group following PSM (RFS: 46.3% vs. 45.1%,P>0.05; OS rate: 64.0% vs. 64.3%, P>0.05).The 5-year OS and RFS rates in the WSM group were 66.8% and 60.2%, respectively. The 5-year OS and RFS rates for the NSM group were 48.7% and 41.4%, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (P<0.05). Cox multivariate analysis indicated that serum albumin, tumor diameter, microvascular invasion, and surgical margin were independent prognostic factors affecting OS and RFS. The Child-Pugh grade and satellite lesions were independent prognostic factors affecting OS. Conclusion: Anatomical liver resection is not an independent risk factor for prognosis, but the state of the resection margin determines the prognosis of patients with solitary HCC combined with cirrhosis. Therefore, hepatic resection margins should be prioritized in such patients.