Hepatocellular carcinoma as predominant cancer subgroup accounting for sex differences in post-hepatectomy liver failure, morbidity and mortality

Evaluation of liver regeneration after hemi-hepatectomy by combining computed tomography and post-operative liver function

Background

Accurate evaluation of postoperative liver regeneration is essential to prevent postoperative liver failure.

Aims

To analyze the predictors that affect liver regeneration after hemi-hepatectomy.

Method

Patients who underwent hemi-hepatectomy in Hangzhou First People's Hospital and Hangzhou Shulan Hospital from January 2016 to December 2021 were enrolled in this study. The regeneration index (RI) was calculated by the following equation: RI = [(postoperative total liver volume {TLVpost} - future liver remnant volume {FLRV}/FLRV] × 100 %. Hepatic dysfunction was defined according to the "TBilpeak>7" standard, which was interpreted as (peak) total bilirubin (TBil) >7.0 mg/dL. Good liver regeneration was defined solely when the RI surpassed the median with hepatic dysfunction. Logistic regression analyses were performed to estimate prognostic factors affecting liver regeneration.

Result

A total of 153 patients were enrolled, with 33 in the benign group and 120 patients in the malignant group. In the entire study population, FLRV% [OR 4.087 (1.405-11.889), P = 0.010], international normalized ratio (INR) [OR 2.763 (95%CI, 1.008-7.577), P = 0.048] and TBil [OR 2.592 (95%CI, 1.177-5.710), P = 0.018] were independent prognostic factors associated with liver regeneration. In the benign group, only the computed tomography (CT) parameter FLRV% [OR, 11.700 (95%CI, 1.265-108.200), P = 0.030] predicted regeneration. In the malignant group, parenchymal hepatic resection rate (PHRR%) [OR 0.141 (95%CI, 0.040-0.499), P = 0.002] and TBil [OR 3.384 (95%CI, 1.377-8.319), P = 0.008] were independent prognostic factors.

Conclusion

FLRV%, PHRR%, TBil and INR were predictive factors associated with liver regeneration.

Comparison of the LiMAx test vs. the APRI+ALBI score for clinical utility in preoperative risk assessment in patients undergoing liver surgery - A European multicenter study

INTRODUCTION

Posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) remains the main reason for short-term mortality after liver surgery. APRI+ALBI, aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio (APRI) combined with albumin-bilirubin grade (ALBI), score and the liver function maximum capacity test (LiMAx) are both established preoperative (preop) liver function tests. The aim of this study was to compare both tests for their predictive potential for clinically significant PHLF grade B and C (B+C).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

352 patients were included from 4 European centers. Patients had available preop APRI+ALBI scores and LiMAx results. Predictive potential for PHLF, PHLF B+C and 90-day mortality was compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and calculation of the area under the curve (AUC). Published cutoffs of ≥ -2.46 for APRI+ALBI and of <315 for LiMAx were assessed using chi-squared test.

RESULTS

APRI+ALBI showed superior predictive potential for PHLF B+C (N = 34; AUC = 0.766), PHLF grade C (N = 20; AUC = 0.782) and 90-day mortality (N = 15; AUC = 0.750). When comparing the established cutoffs of both tests, APRI+ALBI outperformed LiMAx in prediction of PHLF B+C (APRI+ALBI ≥2.46: Positive predictive value (PPV) = 19%, negative predictive value (NPV) = 97%; LiMAx <315: PPV = 3%, NPV = 90%) and 90-day mortality (APRI+ALBI ≥2.46: PPV = 12%, NPV = 99%; LiMAx <315: PPV = 0%, NPV = 94%) CONCLUSION: In our analysis, APRI+ALBI outperformed LiMAx measurement in the preop prediction of PHLF B+C and postoperative mortality, at a fraction of the costs, manual labor and invasiveness.

Current evidence on posthepatectomy liver failure: comprehensive review

INTRODUCTION

Despite important advances in many areas of hepatobiliary surgical practice during the past decades, posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) still represents an important clinical challenge for the hepatobiliary surgeon. The aim of this review is to present the current body of evidence regarding different aspects of PHLF.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted to identify relevant articles for each topic of PHLF covered in this review. The literature search was performed using Medical Subject Heading terms on PubMed for articles on PHLF in English until May 2022.

RESULTS

Uniform reporting on PHLF is lacking due to the use of various definitions in the literature. There is no consensus on optimal preoperative assessment before major hepatectomy to avoid PHLF, although many try to estimate future liver remnant function. Once PHLF occurs, there is still no effective treatment, except liver transplantation, where the reported experience is limited.

DISCUSSION

Strict adherence to one definition is advised when reporting data on PHLF. The use of the International Study Group of Liver Surgery criteria of PHLF is recommended. There is still no widespread established method for future liver remnant function assessment. Liver transplantation is currently the only effective way to treat severe, intractable PHLF, but for many indications, this treatment is not available in most countries.