4.7 Article

Assessing Textbook Outcomes Following Liver Surgery for Primary Liver Cancer Over a 12-Year Time Period at Major Hepatobiliary Centers

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 27, 期 9, 页码 3318-3327

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-020-08548-w

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction The objective of the current study was to comprehensively assess the change of practice in hepatobiliary surgery by determining the rates and the trends of textbook outcomes (TO) among patients undergoing surgery for primary liver cancer over time. Methods Patients undergoing curative-intent resection for primary liver malignancies, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) between 2005 and 2017 were analyzed using a large, international multi-institutional dataset. Rates of TO were assessed over time. Factors associated with achieving a TO and the impact of TO on long-term survival were examined. Results Among 1829 patients, 944 (51.6%) and 885 (48.4%) individuals underwent curative-intent resection for HCC and ICC, respectively. Over time, patients were older, more frequently had ASA class > 2, albumin-bilirubin grade 2/3, major vascular invasion and more frequently underwent major liver resection (all p < 0.05). Overall, a total of 1126 (62.0%) patients achieved a TO. No increasing trends in TO rates were noted over the years (p(trend) = 0.90). In addition, there was no increasing trend in the TO rates among patients undergoing either major (p(trend) = 0.39) or minor liver resection (p(trend) = 0.63) over the study period. Achieving a TO was independently associated with 26% and 37% decreased hazards of death among ICC (HR 0.74, 95%CI 0.56-0.97) and HCC patients (HR 0.63, 95%CI 0.46-0.85), respectively. Conclusion Approximately 6 in 10 patients undergoing surgery for primary liver tumors achieved a TO. While TO rates did not increase over time, TO was associated with better long-term outcomes following liver resection for both HCC and ICC.

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

4.7
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