Laparoscopic surgery for large left lateral liver tumors: safety and oncologic outcomes

Clinical Implication of E2F Transcription Factor 1 in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Tissues

Background: To date, the clinical management of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients remains challenging and the mechanisms of E2F transcription factor 1 (E2F1) underlying HCC are obscure. Materials and Methods: Our study integrated datasets mined from several public databases to comprehensively understand the deregulated expression status of E2F1. Tissue microarrays and immunohistochemistry staining was used to validate E2F1 expression level. The prognostic value of E2F1 was assessed. In-depth subgroup analyses were implemented to compare the differentially expressed levels of E2F1 in HCC patients with various tumor stages. Functional enrichments were used to address the predominant targets of E2F1 and shedding light on their potential roles in HCC. Results: We confirmed the elevated expression of E2F1 in HCC. Subgroup analyses indicated that elevated E2F1 level was independent of various stages in HCC. E2F1 possessed moderate discriminatory capability in differentiating HCC patients from non-HCC controls. Elevated E2F1 correlated with Asian race, tumor classification, neoplasm histologic grade, eastern cancer oncology group, and plasma AFP levels. Furthermore, high E2F1 correlated with poor survival condition and pooled HR signified E2F1 as a risk factor for HCC. Enrichment analysis of differentially expressed genes, coexpressed genes, and putative targets of E2F1 emphasized the importance of cell cycle pathway, where CCNE1 and CCNA2 served as hub genes. Conclusions: We confirmed the upregulation of E2F1 and explored the prognostic value of E2F1 in HCC patients. Two putative targeted genes (CCNE1 and CCNA2) of E2F1 were identified for their potential roles in regulating cell cycle and promote antiapoptotic activity in HCC patients.

Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for large hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score study

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains controversial, especially for tumors larger than 5 cm. We compared the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resection (OLR) for large HCC.

METHODS

Patients with large HCC after curative hepatectomy were enrolled. To compare the short-term outcomes, propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) were performed to reduce the effect of confounding factors, respectively. Subsequently, Cox-regression analyses were conducted to identify the independent risk factors associated with decreased recurrence-free survival (RFS) and poor overall survival (OS).

RESULT

There were 265 patients enrolled in the final analysis: 146 who underwent OLR and 119 who underwent LLR. There was no significant difference between the OLR and LLR groups according to PSM and IPTW analysis (all P > 0.05). Multivariable analysis revealed that LLR was not independently associated with poorer OS (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.80-1.67, P = 0.448) or RFS (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.88-1.70, P = 0.238).

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences in perioperative complications or long-term prognosis between LLR and OLR for large HCC, which provides evidence for standard laparoscopic surgical practice with adequate surgeon experience and careful patient selection.

Laparoscopic versus open in right posterior sectionectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now widely adopted for the treatment of liver tumors due to its minimally invasive advantages. However, multicenter, large-sample population-based laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS) has rarely been reported. We aimed to assess the advantages and drawbacks of right posterior sectionectomy compared with laparoscopic and open surgery by meta-analysis.

METHODS

Relevant literature was searched using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, and Web of Science databases up to September 12, 2021. Quality assessment was performed based on a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.3. The data were calculated by odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for fixed-effects and random-effects models.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included seven studies involving 739 patients. Compared with open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS), the LRPS group had lower intraoperative blood loss (MD - 135.45; 95%CI - 170.61 to - 100.30; P < 0.00001) and shorter postoperative hospital stays (MD - 2.17; 95% CI - 3.03 to - 1.31; P < 0.00001). However, there were no statistically significant differences between LRPS and ORPS regarding operative time (MD 44.97; P = 0.11), pedicle clamping (OR 0.65; P = 0.44), clamping time (MD 2.72; P = 0.31), transfusion rate (OR 1.95; P = 0.25), tumor size (MD - 0.16; P = 0.13), resection margin (MD 0.08; P = 0.63), R0 resection (OR 1.49; P = 0.35), recurrence rate (OR 2.06; P = 0.20), 5-year overall survival (OR 1.44; P = 0.45), and 5-year disease-free survival (OR 1.07; P = 0.88). Furthermore, no significant difference was observed in terms of postoperative complications (P = 0.08), bile leakage (P = 0.60), ascites (P = 0.08), incisional infection (P = 0.09), postoperative bleeding (P = 0.56), and pleural effusion (P = 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

LRPS has an advantage in the length of hospital stay and blood loss. LRPS is a very useful technology and feasible choice in patients with the right posterior hepatic lobe tumor.

Pure laparoscopic versus open left lateral sectionectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score matching analysis

Backgrounds/Aims

Anatomical resection has superior oncologic outcomes over non-anatomical resection in hepatocellular carcinoma, and left lateral sectionectomy is the simplest and easiest perform anatomical resection procedure among liver resections. The purpose of this study was to find out the safety and feasibility of pure laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (PLLLS) for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Methods

Patients who underwent left lateral sectionectomy at a tertiary referral hospital, from August 2007 to April 2019 were enrolled in this retrospective study. After matching the 1 : 3 propensity score, 17 open and 51 pure laparoscopic cases were selected out of 102 cases of total left lateral resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. The group was analyzed in terms of patient demographics, preoperative data, and postoperative outcomes.

Results

During the study period, there was no open conversion case. The mean operative time and complication were not statistically significant different between the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference in disease-free survival and overall survival had no statistical between the two groups. There were no mortality cases, and postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the PLLLS group than in the open left lateral sectionectomy (OLLS) group.

Conclusions

The oncologic outcomes and complication rate were the same in the PLLLS and OLLS groups. However, the hospital stay was shorter in the PLLLS group than in the OLLS group. The present study findings demonstrate that the PLLLS is a safe and feasible procedure for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Impact of tumor size on the difficulty of minimally invasive liver resection

INTRODUCTION

We performed this study in order to investigate the impact of tumour size on the difficulty of MILR, as well as to elucidate the optimal tumour size cut-off/s to distinguish between 'easy' and 'difficult' MILRs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is retrospective review of 603 consecutive patients who underwent MILR between 2006 and 2019 of which 461 met the study inclusion criteria. We first conducted an exploratory analysis to visualize the associations between tumor size and various surrogates of laparoscopic difficulty in order to determine to optimal tumor size cutoff for stratification. Visual inspection of flexible spline-based models as well as quantitative evidence determined that perioperative outcomes differed between patients with tumor size of 30-69 mm and tumours ≥70 mm. These cutoffs were used for further downstream analyses.

RESULTS

The cohort of 461 patients was divided into 3 groups based on tumour diameter size. Patients with larger tumours experienced longer operating times ((PGroup 2 vs 1<0.001, PGroup 3 vs 1<0.001, PGroup 3 vs 2<0.001), higher blood loss (PGroup 2 vs 1<0.001, PGroup 3 vs 1<0.001, PGroup 3 vs 2<0.001), as well as significantly longer hospital stay (PGroup 2 vs 1<0.001, PGroup 3 vs 1<0.001, PGroup 3 vs 2<0.001). There was a monotonic trend towards increasing blood transfusion rates (P = 0.006), overall morbidity (P = 0.029) and 90-day mortality rates (P = 0.047) with increasing tumour size.

CONCLUSION

Although tumour size of 30 mm serves as an optimal cut-off for predicting difficult resections as per the Iwate criteria, a trichotomy (<30 mm, 30-69 mm, ≥70 mm) may provide additional granularity. Further large-scale prospective studies are needed to corroborate these findings.

Safety and feasibility for laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe resection: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy has been used widely due to its advantages as a minimally invasive surgery. However, multicenter, large-scale, population-based laparoscopic caudate lobe resection (LCLR) versus open caudate lobe resection (OCLR) has rarely been reported. We assessed the feasibility and safety of LCLR compared with OCLR using meta-analysis.

METHODS

Relevant literature was retrieved using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, Web of Science, CNKI, and WanFang Med databases up to July 30th, 2020. Multiple parameters of feasibility and safety were compared between the treatment groups. Quality of studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.3. Results are expressed as odds ratio (OD) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for fixed- and random-effects models.

RESULTS

Seven studies with 237 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with OCLR, the LCLR group had a lower intraoperative blood loss (MD - 180.84; 95% CI - 225.61 to - 136.07; P < 0.0001), shorter postoperative hospital stays (MD - 4.38; 95% CI - 7.07 to - 1.7; P = 0.001), shorter operative time (MD - 50.24; 95% CI - 78.57 to - 21.92; P = 0.0005), and lower rates in intraoperative blood transfusion (OR 0.12; P = 0.01). However, there were no statistically significant differences between LCLR and OCLR regarding hospital expenses (MD 0.92; P = 0.12), pedicle clamping (OR 1.57; P = 0.32), postoperative complications (OR 0.58; P = 0.15), bile leak (P = 0.88), ascites (P = 0.34), and incisional infection (P = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

LCLR has multiple advantages over OCLR, especially intraoperative blood loss and hospital stays. LCLR is a very useful technology and feasible choice in patients with caudate lobe lesions.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Left Lateral Segmentectomy for Large Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

With the advancement of endoscopic technology, laparoscopic liver resection has become the standard procedure for left lateral segmentectomy. The aim of this study was to compare perioperative and oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and open left lateral segmentectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) >5 cm.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 66 patients underwent left lateral segmentectomy for HCC (>5 cm) during the period spanning between 2013 and 2015. To overcome selection bias, 1:3 match using propensity score-matched analysis was performed between laparoscopic and open liver resection.

RESULTS

Relatively smaller tumor size (6.0 vs. 7.0 cm; P=0.030) and more frequent incidence of complete tumor capsule (93.3% vs. 58.8%; P=0.013) were observed in the laparoscopic group compared with the open group before matching. Although the longer operation time (195 vs. 150 min; P=0.022) was consumed in the laparoscopic procedure after matching, the laparoscopic group had shorter postoperative hospital stay (6 vs. 7 d; P=0.002) and less blood loss volume (50 vs. 100 mL; P=0.022). The Pringle maneuver for hepatic inflow occlusion was more likely to be applied in patients who underwent open surgery. The incidence of postoperative complication seemed to be lower in the laparoscopic group (6.7%) compared with that in the open group (11.8%) before matching. On the basis of propensity score-matched analysis, the complication rates were comparable between the 2 groups (7.1% vs. 6.7%, P=0.953). No difference in the 1-year and 3-year overall and recurrence-free survival rates was found between the laparoscopic and open groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic left lateral segmentectomy for large HCC patients showed better perioperative outcomes and equivalent oncologic outcomes as the open procedure, providing evidence for considering as a standard laparoscopic practice through careful selection.