Cargando…

Oncological outcomes of anatomic versus non-anatomic resections for small hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies

BACKGROUND: Primary liver cancer is the second-most commonly occurring cancer and has resulted in numerous deaths worldwide. Hepatic resection is of two main types, i.e., anatomic resection (AR) and non-anatomic resection (NAR). The oncological outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients aft...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dai, Xiao-ming, Xiang, Zhi-qiang, Wang, Qian, Li, Hua-jian, Zhu, Zhu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9484142/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36117165
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12957-022-02770-4
_version_ 1784791822094041088
author Dai, Xiao-ming
Xiang, Zhi-qiang
Wang, Qian
Li, Hua-jian
Zhu, Zhu
author_facet Dai, Xiao-ming
Xiang, Zhi-qiang
Wang, Qian
Li, Hua-jian
Zhu, Zhu
author_sort Dai, Xiao-ming
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Primary liver cancer is the second-most commonly occurring cancer and has resulted in numerous deaths worldwide. Hepatic resection is of two main types, i.e., anatomic resection (AR) and non-anatomic resection (NAR). The oncological outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients after AR and NAR are still considered controversial. Therefore, we aimed to compare the impact of AR and NAR on the oncological outcomes of HCC patients with tumor diameters ≤ 5 cm using the propensity score matching method and research-based evidence. METHOD: A systematic literature search was conducted. The main outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), intrahepatic recurrence rate, and extrahepatic metastasis rate. Relative risk (RR) was calculated from forest plots and outcomes using random-effects model (REM). RESULT: AR significantly improved DFS at 1, 3. and 5 years after surgery, compared to NAR (RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 1.04–1.15, P = 0.0003; RR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.07–1.27, P = 0.0005; RR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.07–1.55, P = 0.008). However, both of the difference in DFS at 7 years and OS at 1 and 3 years after AR versus that after NAR were not statistically significant. Nevertheless, the long-term OS associated with AR (5, 7, and 10 years) was superior to that associated with NAR (RR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.03–1.21, P = 0.01; RR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.04–1.36, P = 0.01; RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.05–1.34, P = 0.008). The difference in the intrahepatic recurrence rate after AR versus that after NAR was not statistically significant, but the extrahepatic metastasis rate after AR was significantly lower than that observed after NAR (RR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.40–0.94, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Therefore, AR should be the preferred surgical approach for HCC patients with tumor diameters ≤ 5 cm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42022330596.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9484142
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94841422022-09-20 Oncological outcomes of anatomic versus non-anatomic resections for small hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies Dai, Xiao-ming Xiang, Zhi-qiang Wang, Qian Li, Hua-jian Zhu, Zhu World J Surg Oncol Review BACKGROUND: Primary liver cancer is the second-most commonly occurring cancer and has resulted in numerous deaths worldwide. Hepatic resection is of two main types, i.e., anatomic resection (AR) and non-anatomic resection (NAR). The oncological outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients after AR and NAR are still considered controversial. Therefore, we aimed to compare the impact of AR and NAR on the oncological outcomes of HCC patients with tumor diameters ≤ 5 cm using the propensity score matching method and research-based evidence. METHOD: A systematic literature search was conducted. The main outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), intrahepatic recurrence rate, and extrahepatic metastasis rate. Relative risk (RR) was calculated from forest plots and outcomes using random-effects model (REM). RESULT: AR significantly improved DFS at 1, 3. and 5 years after surgery, compared to NAR (RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 1.04–1.15, P = 0.0003; RR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.07–1.27, P = 0.0005; RR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.07–1.55, P = 0.008). However, both of the difference in DFS at 7 years and OS at 1 and 3 years after AR versus that after NAR were not statistically significant. Nevertheless, the long-term OS associated with AR (5, 7, and 10 years) was superior to that associated with NAR (RR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.03–1.21, P = 0.01; RR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.04–1.36, P = 0.01; RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.05–1.34, P = 0.008). The difference in the intrahepatic recurrence rate after AR versus that after NAR was not statistically significant, but the extrahepatic metastasis rate after AR was significantly lower than that observed after NAR (RR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.40–0.94, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Therefore, AR should be the preferred surgical approach for HCC patients with tumor diameters ≤ 5 cm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42022330596. BioMed Central 2022-09-19 /pmc/articles/PMC9484142/ /pubmed/36117165 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12957-022-02770-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Review
Dai, Xiao-ming
Xiang, Zhi-qiang
Wang, Qian
Li, Hua-jian
Zhu, Zhu
Oncological outcomes of anatomic versus non-anatomic resections for small hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies
title Oncological outcomes of anatomic versus non-anatomic resections for small hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies
title_full Oncological outcomes of anatomic versus non-anatomic resections for small hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies
title_fullStr Oncological outcomes of anatomic versus non-anatomic resections for small hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies
title_full_unstemmed Oncological outcomes of anatomic versus non-anatomic resections for small hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies
title_short Oncological outcomes of anatomic versus non-anatomic resections for small hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies
title_sort oncological outcomes of anatomic versus non-anatomic resections for small hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9484142/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36117165
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12957-022-02770-4
work_keys_str_mv AT daixiaoming oncologicaloutcomesofanatomicversusnonanatomicresectionsforsmallhepatocellularcarcinomasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofpropensityscorematchedstudies
AT xiangzhiqiang oncologicaloutcomesofanatomicversusnonanatomicresectionsforsmallhepatocellularcarcinomasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofpropensityscorematchedstudies
AT wangqian oncologicaloutcomesofanatomicversusnonanatomicresectionsforsmallhepatocellularcarcinomasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofpropensityscorematchedstudies
AT lihuajian oncologicaloutcomesofanatomicversusnonanatomicresectionsforsmallhepatocellularcarcinomasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofpropensityscorematchedstudies
AT zhuzhu oncologicaloutcomesofanatomicversusnonanatomicresectionsforsmallhepatocellularcarcinomasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofpropensityscorematchedstudies