4.5 Review

Multidisciplinary management of recurrent and metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma after resection: an international expert consensus

Journal

HEPATOBILIARY SURGERY AND NUTRITION
Volume 7, Issue 5, Pages 353-371

Publisher

AME PUBL CO
DOI: 10.21037/hbsn.2018.08.01

Keywords

Recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC); multidisciplinary management; consensus

Funding

  1. State Key Scientific and Technological Research Programs [2017ZX10203207-003-0020]
  2. Scientific and Technological Support Project of Sichuan Province [2018SZ0204, 2016SZ0025, 2015SZ0049]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth-most common cancer and the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the world. However, 40-70% patients eventually suffer from postoperative recurrence within 5 years. HCC recurrence after surgery severely affects prognosis of the patients. Nevertheless, there is an opportunity to improve patients' prognosis if doctors and researchers can recognize the importance of a standardized perioperative management and study it in clinical and pre-clinical settings. Hence, based on our own experience and published studies from other researchers, we develop this consensus regarding multidisciplinary management of locally recurrent and metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma after resection. This consensus consists of the entire course of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC) management, including prediction of recurrence, prevention, diagnosis, treatment and surveillance of RHCC. Consensus recommendations are presented with grades of evidences (Ia, Ib, IIa, IIb, III and IV), and strength of recommendations (A, B, C, D and E). We also develop a decision-making path for RHCC treatment, which can intuitively demonstrate the management for RHCC. It is hoped that we may make some effort to standardize the management of RHCC and ultimately understand how to improve outcomes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available