Lu Wu1,2, Diamantis I Tsilimigras1, Katiuscha Merath1, J Madison Hyer1, Anghela Z Paredes1, Rittal Mehta1, Kota Sahara1, Fabio Bagante1, Eliza W Beal1, Feng Shen2, Timothy M Pawlik3. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, Columbus, OH, USA. 2. Department of Hepatic Surgery, Eastern Hepato-biliary Surgery Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China. 3. Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, Columbus, OH, USA. tim.pawlik@osumc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the current study was to re-evaluate the role of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) among patients with early-stage (stage I or II) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing partial hepatectomy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) was conducted to identify patients with early-stage HCC who underwent partial hepatectomy in the USA from 2010 to 2013. Overall survival (OS) was compared in three cohorts: crude; stabilized inverse probability of treatment propensity score weighting (IPTW); and propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: Among 4027 patients included in the study, only 11.7%, (n = 473) underwent MILR. In the stabilized IPTW cohort, patients who underwent MILR versus open resection were more likely to have tumors greater than 3 cm (63.9%, n = 285 vs. 51.4%, n = 228, p < 0.001) and poorly/undifferentiated tumors (21.5%, n = 96 vs. 12.9%, n = 57, p < 0.001). Within the crude cohort, a 5-year OS was superior among patients in the open surgical group (67.8%) compared with patients who underwent MILR (56.6%) (p < 0.001). After classic PSM analysis, the 5-year OS of patients undergoing MILR and open surgery were noted to be comparable (57.3% vs 63.8%, p = 0.17; HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.92-1.45). In contrast, after applying IPTW, the 5-year OS of patients who underwent MILR (55.5%) was worse compared with patients who had an open resection (67.5%) (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.15-1.84; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term outcomes of patients undergoing MILR were comparable with patients who had open surgery when assessed by standard PSM. The use of IPTW resulted in more unbalanced groups leading to residual confounding and bias.
BACKGROUND: The aim of the current study was to re-evaluate the role of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) among patients with early-stage (stage I or II) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing partial hepatectomy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) was conducted to identify patients with early-stage HCC who underwent partial hepatectomy in the USA from 2010 to 2013. Overall survival (OS) was compared in three cohorts: crude; stabilized inverse probability of treatment propensity score weighting (IPTW); and propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: Among 4027 patients included in the study, only 11.7%, (n = 473) underwent MILR. In the stabilized IPTW cohort, patients who underwent MILR versus open resection were more likely to have tumors greater than 3 cm (63.9%, n = 285 vs. 51.4%, n = 228, p < 0.001) and poorly/undifferentiated tumors (21.5%, n = 96 vs. 12.9%, n = 57, p < 0.001). Within the crude cohort, a 5-year OS was superior among patients in the open surgical group (67.8%) compared with patients who underwent MILR (56.6%) (p < 0.001). After classic PSM analysis, the 5-year OS of patients undergoing MILR and open surgery were noted to be comparable (57.3% vs 63.8%, p = 0.17; HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.92-1.45). In contrast, after applying IPTW, the 5-year OS of patients who underwent MILR (55.5%) was worse compared with patients who had an open resection (67.5%) (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.15-1.84; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term outcomes of patients undergoing MILR were comparable with patients who had open surgery when assessed by standard PSM. The use of IPTW resulted in more unbalanced groups leading to residual confounding and bias.
Authors: Jin He; Neda Amini; Gaya Spolverato; Kenzo Hirose; Martin Makary; Christopher L Wolfgang; Matthew J Weiss; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-08-02 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Faiz Gani; Utkarsh Goel; Alex B Blair; Jasvinder Singh; Heidi N Overton; Christian F Meyer; Joseph K Canner; Timothy M Pawlik; Nita Ahuja; Fabian M Johnston Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Patrick R Varley; Samer T Tohme; Alexis P Chidi; Julie Goswami; Dirk van der Windt; David A Geller; Allan Tsung Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Devalkumar J Rajyaguru; Andrew J Borgert; Angela L Smith; Reggie M Thomes; Patrick D Conway; Thorvardur R Halfdanarson; Mark J Truty; A Nicholas Kurup; Ronald S Go Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-01-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ahmed Twaij; Philip H Pucher; Mikael H Sodergren; Tamara Gall; Ara Darzi; Long R Jiao Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-07-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Sanjay Mohanty; Ravi Rajaram; Karl Y Bilimoria; Riad Salem; Timothy M Pawlik; David J Bentrem Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Linh M Duong; Hui Cai; Martha J Shrubsole; Christina E Bailey; Kamran Idrees; Xiao-Ou Shu Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 6.921