有手术指征的单个大于 5 厘米的大肝细胞癌:是否必须进行大肝细胞切除术?倾向分数加权分析。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Pub Date : 2024-08-11 DOI:10.1007/s00423-024-03419-4
Mattia Garancini, Matteo Serenari, Simone Famularo, Federica Cipriani, Francesco Ardito, Nadia Russolillo, Simone Conci, Daniele Nicolini, Pasquale Perri, Matteo Zanello, Maurizio Iaria, Quirino Lai, Maurizio Romano, Giuliano La Barba, Sarah Molfino, Paola Germani, Tommaso Dominioni, Giuseppe Zimmiti, Maria Conticchio, Luca Fumagalli, Mauro Zago, Albert Troci, Ivano Sciannamea, Cecilia Ferrari, Mauro Alessandro Scotti, Guido Griseri, Adelmo Antonucci, Michele Crespi, Enrico Pinotti, Marco Chiarelli, Riccardo Memeo, Mohamed Abu Hilal, Marcello Maestri, Paola Tarchi, Gianluca Baiocchi, Giorgio Ercolani, Giacomo Zanus, Massimo Rossi, Raffaele Dalla Valle, Elio Jovine, Antonio Frena, Stefan Patauner, Gian Luca Grazi, Marco Vivarelli, Andrea Ruzzenente, Alessandro Ferrero, Felice Giuliante, Luca Aldrighetti, Guido Torzilli, Matteo Cescon, Davide Bernasconi, Fabrizio Romano
{"title":"有手术指征的单个大于 5 厘米的大肝细胞癌:是否必须进行大肝细胞切除术?倾向分数加权分析。","authors":"Mattia Garancini, Matteo Serenari, Simone Famularo, Federica Cipriani, Francesco Ardito, Nadia Russolillo, Simone Conci, Daniele Nicolini, Pasquale Perri, Matteo Zanello, Maurizio Iaria, Quirino Lai, Maurizio Romano, Giuliano La Barba, Sarah Molfino, Paola Germani, Tommaso Dominioni, Giuseppe Zimmiti, Maria Conticchio, Luca Fumagalli, Mauro Zago, Albert Troci, Ivano Sciannamea, Cecilia Ferrari, Mauro Alessandro Scotti, Guido Griseri, Adelmo Antonucci, Michele Crespi, Enrico Pinotti, Marco Chiarelli, Riccardo Memeo, Mohamed Abu Hilal, Marcello Maestri, Paola Tarchi, Gianluca Baiocchi, Giorgio Ercolani, Giacomo Zanus, Massimo Rossi, Raffaele Dalla Valle, Elio Jovine, Antonio Frena, Stefan Patauner, Gian Luca Grazi, Marco Vivarelli, Andrea Ruzzenente, Alessandro Ferrero, Felice Giuliante, Luca Aldrighetti, Guido Torzilli, Matteo Cescon, Davide Bernasconi, Fabrizio Romano","doi":"10.1007/s00423-024-03419-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Single large hepatocellular carcinoma >5cm (SLHCC) traditionally requires a major liver resection. Minor resections are often performed with the goal to reduce morbidity and mortality. Aim of the study was to establish if a major resection should be considered the best treatment for SLHCC or a more limited resection should be preferred.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multicenter retrospective analysis of the HE.RC.O.LE.S. Group register was performed. All collected patients with surgically treated SLHCC were divided in 5 groups of treatment (major hepatectomy, sectorectomy, left lateral sectionectomy, segmentectomy, non-anatomical resection) and compared for baseline characteristics, short and long-term results. A propensity-score weighted analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>535 patients were enrolled in the study. Major resection was associated with significantly increased major complications compared to left lateral sectionanectomy, segmentectomy and non-anatomical resection (all p<0.05) and borderline significant increased major complications compared to sectorectomy (p=0.08). Left lateral sectionectomy showed better overall survival compared to major resection (p=0.02), while other groups of treatment resulted similar to major hepatectomy group for the same item. Absence of oncological benefit after major resection and similar outcomes among the 5 groups of treatment was confirmed even in the sub-population excluding patients with macrovascular invasion.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Major resection was associated to increased major post-operative morbidity without long-term survival benefit; when technically feasible and oncologically adequate, minor resections should be preferred for the surgical treatment of SLHCC.</p>","PeriodicalId":17983,"journal":{"name":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Single large hepatocellular carcinoma > 5 cm with surgical indication: is it mandatory a major hepatectomy? a propensity-score weighted analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Mattia Garancini, Matteo Serenari, Simone Famularo, Federica Cipriani, Francesco Ardito, Nadia Russolillo, Simone Conci, Daniele Nicolini, Pasquale Perri, Matteo Zanello, Maurizio Iaria, Quirino Lai, Maurizio Romano, Giuliano La Barba, Sarah Molfino, Paola Germani, Tommaso Dominioni, Giuseppe Zimmiti, Maria Conticchio, Luca Fumagalli, Mauro Zago, Albert Troci, Ivano Sciannamea, Cecilia Ferrari, Mauro Alessandro Scotti, Guido Griseri, Adelmo Antonucci, Michele Crespi, Enrico Pinotti, Marco Chiarelli, Riccardo Memeo, Mohamed Abu Hilal, Marcello Maestri, Paola Tarchi, Gianluca Baiocchi, Giorgio Ercolani, Giacomo Zanus, Massimo Rossi, Raffaele Dalla Valle, Elio Jovine, Antonio Frena, Stefan Patauner, Gian Luca Grazi, Marco Vivarelli, Andrea Ruzzenente, Alessandro Ferrero, Felice Giuliante, Luca Aldrighetti, Guido Torzilli, Matteo Cescon, Davide Bernasconi, Fabrizio Romano\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00423-024-03419-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Single large hepatocellular carcinoma >5cm (SLHCC) traditionally requires a major liver resection. Minor resections are often performed with the goal to reduce morbidity and mortality. Aim of the study was to establish if a major resection should be considered the best treatment for SLHCC or a more limited resection should be preferred.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multicenter retrospective analysis of the HE.RC.O.LE.S. Group register was performed. All collected patients with surgically treated SLHCC were divided in 5 groups of treatment (major hepatectomy, sectorectomy, left lateral sectionectomy, segmentectomy, non-anatomical resection) and compared for baseline characteristics, short and long-term results. A propensity-score weighted analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>535 patients were enrolled in the study. Major resection was associated with significantly increased major complications compared to left lateral sectionanectomy, segmentectomy and non-anatomical resection (all p<0.05) and borderline significant increased major complications compared to sectorectomy (p=0.08). Left lateral sectionectomy showed better overall survival compared to major resection (p=0.02), while other groups of treatment resulted similar to major hepatectomy group for the same item. Absence of oncological benefit after major resection and similar outcomes among the 5 groups of treatment was confirmed even in the sub-population excluding patients with macrovascular invasion.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Major resection was associated to increased major post-operative morbidity without long-term survival benefit; when technically feasible and oncologically adequate, minor resections should be preferred for the surgical treatment of SLHCC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17983,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03419-4\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03419-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:传统上,大于 5 厘米的单个大肝细胞癌(SLHCC)需要进行肝脏大部切除。为了降低发病率和死亡率,通常会进行小块切除。本研究的目的是确定肝癌大部切除术是治疗肝癌的最佳方法,还是更倾向于有限切除:方法:对HE.RC.O.LE.S.集团登记册进行多中心回顾性分析。方法:对HE.RC.O.LE.S组登记册进行了一项多中心回顾性分析。收集的所有接受手术治疗的SLHCC患者被分为5个治疗组(肝大部切除术、肝小部切除术、肝左外侧切除术、肝节段切除术、非解剖性切除术),并对基线特征、短期和长期结果进行了比较。进行了倾向分数加权分析:结果:共有 535 名患者参与研究。与左侧切口切除术、分段切除术和非解剖性切除术相比,大部切除术导致的主要并发症明显增加(所有并发症的P值均为0):大部切除与术后主要发病率增加有关,但无长期生存获益;在技术可行且肿瘤学充分的情况下,SLHCC 的手术治疗应首选小部切除。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Single large hepatocellular carcinoma > 5 cm with surgical indication: is it mandatory a major hepatectomy? a propensity-score weighted analysis.

Purpose: Single large hepatocellular carcinoma >5cm (SLHCC) traditionally requires a major liver resection. Minor resections are often performed with the goal to reduce morbidity and mortality. Aim of the study was to establish if a major resection should be considered the best treatment for SLHCC or a more limited resection should be preferred.

Methods: A multicenter retrospective analysis of the HE.RC.O.LE.S. Group register was performed. All collected patients with surgically treated SLHCC were divided in 5 groups of treatment (major hepatectomy, sectorectomy, left lateral sectionectomy, segmentectomy, non-anatomical resection) and compared for baseline characteristics, short and long-term results. A propensity-score weighted analysis was performed.

Results: 535 patients were enrolled in the study. Major resection was associated with significantly increased major complications compared to left lateral sectionanectomy, segmentectomy and non-anatomical resection (all p<0.05) and borderline significant increased major complications compared to sectorectomy (p=0.08). Left lateral sectionectomy showed better overall survival compared to major resection (p=0.02), while other groups of treatment resulted similar to major hepatectomy group for the same item. Absence of oncological benefit after major resection and similar outcomes among the 5 groups of treatment was confirmed even in the sub-population excluding patients with macrovascular invasion.

Conclusion: Major resection was associated to increased major post-operative morbidity without long-term survival benefit; when technically feasible and oncologically adequate, minor resections should be preferred for the surgical treatment of SLHCC.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
8.70%
发文量
342
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Langenbeck''s Archives of Surgery aims to publish the best results in the field of clinical surgery and basic surgical research. The main focus is on providing the highest level of clinical research and clinically relevant basic research. The journal, published exclusively in English, will provide an international discussion forum for the controlled results of clinical surgery. The majority of published contributions will be original articles reporting on clinical data from general and visceral surgery, while endocrine surgery will also be covered. Papers on basic surgical principles from the fields of traumatology, vascular and thoracic surgery are also welcome. Evidence-based medicine is an important criterion for the acceptance of papers.
期刊最新文献
Intensified outpatient nutrition management improves body weight and skeletal muscle loss after esophageal cancer surgery: a single-center, retrospective, single-arm clinical study. Assessment of first-touch skills in robotic surgical training using hi-Sim and the hinotori surgical robot system among surgeons and novices. Comparing surgical outcomes of powered versus manual surgical staplers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 3D vs. 2D-4 K: Performance and self-perception of laparoscopic novices in a randomized prospective teaching intervention using standard tasks and box trainers. Research methodologies for eliciting patients' preferences in invasive procedures: a scoping review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1