4.6 Article

Hepatic resection can provide long-term survival of patients with non-early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: Extending the Indication for resection?

期刊

SURGERY
卷 152, 期 5, 页码 809-820

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2012.03.024

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Science Council [98-2314-B-075-030-MY2]
  2. Center of Excellence for Cancer Research at TVGH, Taipei, Taiwan [DOH100-TD-C-111-007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Indications for resection of non-early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remain controversial. This study aimed to identify factors that affect outcome of patients with Barcelona Clinical Liver Cancer Classification (BCLC) stage B or stage C HCC after hepatic resection. Methods: From 1991 to 2006, 478 patients with HCC (BCLC stage B, n = 318 and BCLC stage C, n = 160) who underwent resection were enrolled. Factors in terms of overall survival and recurrence were analyzed. Results: After a median follow-up of 29.5 months, 304 patients had died. The cumulative overall survival rate at 5 years was 46.5% in BCLC stage B patients and 29.1% in stage C patients (P < .001). Multivariate analysis disclosed that serum albumin levels <= 4 g/dL, indocyanine green retention rate at 15 minutes >10%, serum creatinine >1.2 mg/dL, multinodularity, Edmondson stage III or IV in tumor cell differentiation, and the presence of macroscopic vascular invasion were independent risk factors of poor overall survival. There were 331 patients with tumor recurrence after resection. Recurrence rate was less in BCLC stage B than that in BCLC stage C (P = .001). Multivariate analysis showed that serum albumin level <= 4 g/dL, multinodularity, cut margin <= 1 cm, and Edmondson stage III or IV were associated with the recurrence of HCC. Conclusion: Hepatic resection can provide long-term survival benefit in selected BCLC stage B or C patients with compensated liver function, especially in those presenting with a single neoplasm without vascular invasion (Surgery 2012;152:809-20.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据