BACKGROUND/AIMS: Few studies have assessed the significance of prognostic factors in cirrhotic patients undergoing resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODOLOGY: Overall survival and disease-free survival were evaluated in 53 cirrhotic patients undergoing hepatic resection for supervening hepatocellular carcinoma. The value of the UICC TNM classification, and the Izumi modified staging system on prognosis were analyzed. RESULTS: In multivariate analysis lack of micro/macrovascular invasion were predictive for long-term outcome. The difference between stages 1 and 2 or stage 3 and 4A using the UICC TNM classification was not significant with respect to survival or disease-free survival. UICC TNM classification was modified as follows; stage 1, solitary tumor without vascular invasion; stage 2, solitary or multiple tumor(s) involving adjacent vessel branch; stage 3, tumor(s) involving major vessel branch or with regional lymph node metastases; stage 4, tumor(s) with distant metastases. TNM (modified in accordance with Izumi) showed a significant difference between each stage with respect to survival and disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: A uniform tumor classification of hepatocellular carcinoma is advocated. Our results show that the UICC TNM classification for hepatocellular carcinoma is inadequate and may even on occasion lead to unnecessary resection. The modified staging system of Izumi is superior in determining outcome for cirrhotic patients with supervening hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing resection.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Few studies have assessed the significance of prognostic factors in cirrhoticpatients undergoing resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODOLOGY: Overall survival and disease-free survival were evaluated in 53 cirrhoticpatients undergoing hepatic resection for supervening hepatocellular carcinoma. The value of the UICC TNM classification, and the Izumi modified staging system on prognosis were analyzed. RESULTS: In multivariate analysis lack of micro/macrovascular invasion were predictive for long-term outcome. The difference between stages 1 and 2 or stage 3 and 4A using the UICC TNM classification was not significant with respect to survival or disease-free survival. UICC TNM classification was modified as follows; stage 1, solitary tumor without vascular invasion; stage 2, solitary or multiple tumor(s) involving adjacent vessel branch; stage 3, tumor(s) involving major vessel branch or with regional lymph node metastases; stage 4, tumor(s) with distant metastases. TNM (modified in accordance with Izumi) showed a significant difference between each stage with respect to survival and disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: A uniform tumor classification of hepatocellular carcinoma is advocated. Our results show that the UICC TNM classification for hepatocellular carcinoma is inadequate and may even on occasion lead to unnecessary resection. The modified staging system of Izumi is superior in determining outcome for cirrhoticpatients with supervening hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing resection.