Yong-Cheng Liu1, Yi-Ze Mao2, Jun-Cheng Wang3, Jun Wang4, Xiang-Ming Lao5, Min-Shan Chen6, Sheng-Ping Li7. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310020, China; Department of Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, No. 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou 510060, China. Electronic address: liuych3@mail3.sysu.edu.cn. 2. Department of Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, No. 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou 510060, China. Electronic address: maoyz@sysucc.org.cn. 3. Department of Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, No. 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou 510060, China. Electronic address: wangjch@sysucc.org.cn. 4. Department of Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, No. 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou 510060, China. Electronic address: wangjun@sysucc.org.cn. 5. Department of Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, No. 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou 510060, China. Electronic address: laoxm@sysucc.org.cn. 6. Department of Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, No. 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou 510060, China. Electronic address: chenmsh@sysucc.org.cn. 7. Department of Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, No. 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou 510060, China. Electronic address: lishp@sysucc.org.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diaphragmatic resection is not common in patients undergoing hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aims to evaluate retrospectively the clinical characteristics and surgical results of HCC patients undergoing hepatectomy plus diaphragmatic resection. METHODS: Between January 2000 and December 2013, 52 HCC patients underwent curative resections combined with diaphragmatic resection, with 11 patients had pathological diaphragmatic invasion (DI), 41 patients had diaphragmatic fibrous adhesion (DFA). The clinicopathological features and results were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: 86.5% of the patients had HBV infection. Diameter of tumors was 8.6 ± 3.4 cm, and 34.6% had multiple tumors. In addition, 28.8% had microvascular invasion, 3.8% had macrovascular invasion, but none of the patients had lymph node metastasis or distant metastasis. Moreover, 21.2% had tumor rupture before surgical resection. The DI group exhibited similar clinicopathological features with the DFA group. There were no treatment-related deaths, and major complication was postoperative pleural effusion (46.2%). Other clinical pulmonary issues, such as pneumothorax (5.8%) and pneumonia (3.8%), were also detected. OS at 1, 3 and 5 years was 82.0%, 41.2% and 35.7%, respectively. There was no significant difference in OS and DFS between the DI and DFA groups (P = 0.499 and P = 0.956, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: En bloc resection of diaphragm was associated with acceptable morbidity and mortality, and there was no difference in OS and DFS between HCC patients with DI or DFA. Therefore, it would be advisable to perform en bloc diaphragmatic resection when HCC patients present with gross diaphragmatic involvement.
BACKGROUND: Diaphragmatic resection is not common in patients undergoing hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aims to evaluate retrospectively the clinical characteristics and surgical results of HCCpatients undergoing hepatectomy plus diaphragmatic resection. METHODS: Between January 2000 and December 2013, 52 HCCpatients underwent curative resections combined with diaphragmatic resection, with 11 patients had pathological diaphragmatic invasion (DI), 41 patients had diaphragmatic fibrous adhesion (DFA). The clinicopathological features and results were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: 86.5% of the patients had HBV infection. Diameter of tumors was 8.6 ± 3.4 cm, and 34.6% had multiple tumors. In addition, 28.8% had microvascular invasion, 3.8% had macrovascular invasion, but none of the patients had lymph node metastasis or distant metastasis. Moreover, 21.2% had tumor rupture before surgical resection. The DI group exhibited similar clinicopathological features with the DFA group. There were no treatment-related deaths, and major complication was postoperative pleural effusion (46.2%). Other clinical pulmonary issues, such as pneumothorax (5.8%) and pneumonia (3.8%), were also detected. OS at 1, 3 and 5 years was 82.0%, 41.2% and 35.7%, respectively. There was no significant difference in OS and DFS between the DI and DFA groups (P = 0.499 and P = 0.956, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: En bloc resection of diaphragm was associated with acceptable morbidity and mortality, and there was no difference in OS and DFS between HCCpatients with DI or DFA. Therefore, it would be advisable to perform en bloc diaphragmatic resection when HCCpatients present with gross diaphragmatic involvement.
Authors: Kit-Fai Lee; Randolph H L Wong; Howard H W Leung; Eugene Y J Lo; Charing C N Chong; Anthony W H Chan; Paul B S Lai Journal: J Surg Case Rep Date: 2020-06-15