4.6 Article

Prognostic factors in the surgical treatment of caudate lobe hepatocellular carcinoma

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 16, Issue 9, Pages 1123-1128

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v16.i9.1123

Keywords

Hepatectomy; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Caudate lobe; Prognostic factors

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM: To evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of liver resection for caudate lobe hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 114 consecutive patients with HCC, originating from the caudate lobe, who underwent resection between January 2001 and January 2007. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed on several clinicopathologic variables to determine the factors affecting long-term outcome and intrahepatic recurrence. RESULTS: Overall mortality and morbidity were 0% and 18%, respectively. After a median follow-up of 31 mo (interquartile range, 11-66 mo), tumor recurrence had occurred in 76 patients (66.7%). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 65.7%, 38.1%, and 18.4%, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 76.1%, 54.7%, and 31.8%, respectively. Univariate analysis showed that subsegmental location of the tumor (45.7% v5 16.2%, P = 0.01), liver cirrhosis (12.3% v5 47.9%, P = 0.03), surgical margin (18.5% vs 54.6%, P = 0.04), vascular invasion (37.9% vs 23.2%, P = 0.04) and extended caudate resection (42.1% vs 15.4%, P = 0.04) were related to poorer long-term survival. Multivariate analysis showed that only subsegmental location of the tumor, liver cirrhosis and surgical margin were significant independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: Hepatectomy was an effective treatment for HCC in the caudate lobe. The subsegmental location of the tumor, liver cirrhosis and surgical margin affected long-term survival. (C) 2010 Baishideng. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available