BACKGROUND: Portal vein embolization (PVE) was developed for patients with insufficient future liver remnant volume and function and has gained relevant support worldwide before major hepatectomy. However, the efficacy of preoperative PVE for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with impaired liver function remains uncertain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-seven HCC patients who were scheduled for PVE followed by hepatectomy were enrolled in this study. Their short- and long-term outcomes were investigated, according to the liver damage classification defined by the Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan. RESULTS: Of 97 patients who underwent preoperative PVE, 30 (32.4%) could not undergo subsequent hepatectomy. Dropout rate from treatment strategy was significantly higher in patients with liver damage B (n = 13, 61.5%) than in those with liver damage A (n = 84, 26.2%) (P = 0.014). Among the 67 patients who underwent planned hepatectomy after PVE, 53 were categorized to liver damage A, and 14 were categorized to liver damage B at the point of hepatectomy. Although major complication and mortality rates were comparable between the two groups, the cumulative overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) after hepatectomy were markedly worse in patients with liver damage B than in those with liver damage A (5-year OS rate: 23.1% vs 74.6%, P = 0.014, 5-year DFS rate: 7.8% vs 33.5%, P = 0.054, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The treatment strategy of PVE followed by hepatectomy might be a contraindication for HCC patients with impaired liver function categorized as liver damage B because of the higher dropout rate and poorer long-term outcomes after hepatectomy.
BACKGROUND: Portal vein embolization (PVE) was developed for patients with insufficient future liver remnant volume and function and has gained relevant support worldwide before major hepatectomy. However, the efficacy of preoperative PVE for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with impaired liver function remains uncertain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-seven HCC patients who were scheduled for PVE followed by hepatectomy were enrolled in this study. Their short- and long-term outcomes were investigated, according to the liver damage classification defined by the Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan. RESULTS: Of 97 patients who underwent preoperative PVE, 30 (32.4%) could not undergo subsequent hepatectomy. Dropout rate from treatment strategy was significantly higher in patients with liver damage B (n = 13, 61.5%) than in those with liver damage A (n = 84, 26.2%) (P = 0.014). Among the 67 patients who underwent planned hepatectomy after PVE, 53 were categorized to liver damage A, and 14 were categorized to liver damage B at the point of hepatectomy. Although major complication and mortality rates were comparable between the two groups, the cumulative overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) after hepatectomy were markedly worse in patients with liver damage B than in those with liver damage A (5-year OS rate: 23.1% vs 74.6%, P = 0.014, 5-year DFS rate: 7.8% vs 33.5%, P = 0.054, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The treatment strategy of PVE followed by hepatectomy might be a contraindication for HCC patients with impaired liver function categorized as liver damage B because of the higher dropout rate and poorer long-term outcomes after hepatectomy.
Authors: Adel Abulkhir; Paolo Limongelli; Andrew J Healey; Osama Damrah; Paul Tait; James Jackson; Nagy Habib; Long R Jiao Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: M Makuuchi; B L Thai; K Takayasu; T Takayama; T Kosuge; P Gunvén; S Yamazaki; H Hasegawa; H Ozaki Journal: Surgery Date: 1990-05 Impact factor: 3.982