BACKGROUND: Staging laparoscopy (SL) is not regularly performed for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It may change treatment strategy, preventing unnecessary open exploration. An additional advantage of SL is possible biopsy of the nontumorous liver to assess fibrosis/cirrhosis. This study aimed to determine whether SL for patients with HCC still is useful. METHODS: Patients with HCC who underwent SL between January 1999 and December 2011 were analyzed. Their demographics, preoperative imaging studies, surgical findings, and histology were assessed. RESULTS: The 56 patients (34 men and 22 women; mean age, 60 ± 14 years) in this study underwent SL for assessment of extensive disease or metastases. For two patients, SL was unsuccessful because of intraabdominal adhesions. For four patients (7.1 %), SL showed unresectability because of metastases (n = 1), tumor progression (n = 1), or severe cirrhosis in the contralateral lobe (n = 2). An additional five patients did not undergo laparotomy due to disease progression detected on imaging after SL. Exploratory laparotomy for the remaining 47 patients showed 6 (13 %) additional unresectable tumors due to advanced tumor (n = 5) or nodal metastases (n = 1). Consequently, the yield of SL was 7 % (95 % confidence interval (CI), 3-17 %), and the accuracy was 27 % (95 % CI, 11-52 %). A biopsy of the contralateral liver was performed for 45 patients who underwent SL, leading to changes in management for 4 patients (17 %) with cirrhosis. CONCLUSIONS: The overall yield of SL for HCC was 7 %, and the accuracy was 27 %. When accurate imaging methods are available and additional percutaneous liver biopsy is implemented as a standard procedure in the preoperative workup of patients with HCC, the benefit of SL will become even less.
BACKGROUND: Staging laparoscopy (SL) is not regularly performed for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It may change treatment strategy, preventing unnecessary open exploration. An additional advantage of SL is possible biopsy of the nontumorous liver to assess fibrosis/cirrhosis. This study aimed to determine whether SL for patients with HCC still is useful. METHODS:Patients with HCC who underwent SL between January 1999 and December 2011 were analyzed. Their demographics, preoperative imaging studies, surgical findings, and histology were assessed. RESULTS: The 56 patients (34 men and 22 women; mean age, 60 ± 14 years) in this study underwent SL for assessment of extensive disease or metastases. For two patients, SL was unsuccessful because of intraabdominal adhesions. For four patients (7.1 %), SL showed unresectability because of metastases (n = 1), tumor progression (n = 1), or severe cirrhosis in the contralateral lobe (n = 2). An additional five patients did not undergo laparotomy due to disease progression detected on imaging after SL. Exploratory laparotomy for the remaining 47 patients showed 6 (13 %) additional unresectable tumors due to advanced tumor (n = 5) or nodal metastases (n = 1). Consequently, the yield of SL was 7 % (95 % confidence interval (CI), 3-17 %), and the accuracy was 27 % (95 % CI, 11-52 %). A biopsy of the contralateral liver was performed for 45 patients who underwent SL, leading to changes in management for 4 patients (17 %) with cirrhosis. CONCLUSIONS: The overall yield of SL for HCC was 7 %, and the accuracy was 27 %. When accurate imaging methods are available and additional percutaneous liver biopsy is implemented as a standard procedure in the preoperative workup of patients with HCC, the benefit of SL will become even less.
Authors: M Claudon; D Cosgrove; T Albrecht; L Bolondi; M Bosio; F Calliada; J-M Correas; K Darge; C Dietrich; M D'Onofrio; D H Evans; C Filice; L Greiner; K Jäger; N de Jong; E Leen; R Lencioni; D Lindsell; A Martegani; S Meairs; C Nolsøe; F Piscaglia; P Ricci; G Seidel; B Skjoldbye; L Solbiati; L Thorelius; F Tranquart; H P Weskott; T Whittingham Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 6.548
Authors: Andronik Kapiev; Igor Rabin; Ron Lavy; Bar Chikman; Zahar Shapira; Hasan Kais; Natan Poluksht; Yaron Amsalam; Zvi Halpern; Ilia Markon; Ilan Wassermann; Ariel Halevy Journal: Isr Med Assoc J Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 0.892
Authors: Donald Poon; Benjamin O Anderson; Li-Tzong Chen; Koichi Tanaka; Wan Yee Lau; Eric Van Cutsem; Harjit Singh; Wan Cheng Chow; London Lucien Ooi; Pierce Chow; Maung Win Khin; Wen Hsin Koo Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: E J Nieveen van Dijkum; L T de Wit; O M van Delden; E A Rauws; J J van Lanschot; H Obertop; D J Gouma Journal: Cancer Date: 1997-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Wilmar de Graaf; Krijn P van Lienden; Sander Dinant; Joris J T H Roelofs; Olivier R C Busch; Dirk J Gouma; Roelof J Bennink; Thomas M van Gulik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Tejas Parikh; Stephen J Drew; Vivian S Lee; Samson Wong; Elizabeth M Hecht; James S Babb; Bachir Taouli Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-01-25 Impact factor: 11.105