Abstract

BackgroundResection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) originating in the caudate lobe remains challenging, while the optimal extent of resection is debated. We aimed to evaluate the relative benefits of combined caudate lobectomy (CCL) versus isolated caudate lobectomy (ICL) for caudate HCC.MethodsPatients who underwent curative-intent resection for caudate HCC between January 2010 and December 2018 were identified from a single-center database. Surgical outcomes of the two strategy groups were analyzed before and after propensity score matching. A systematic review with meta-analysis was also performed to compare outcomes of CCL versus ICL for caudate HCC.ResultsA total of 28 patients were included: 11 in the CCL and 17 in the ICL group. Compared with ICL, the CCL group contained patients with larger tumors and a higher incidence of vascular invasion. After propensity score matching, 6 pairs of patients were selected. In the well-matched cohort, CCL demonstrated significantly improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) (P = 0.047) compared with ICL; no significant differences were noted for overall survival (OS), operation time, blood loss and morbidity rate. A total of 227 patients from nine eligible studies and ours were involved in the systematic review. Meta-analysis revealed that CCL provided better RFS (hazard ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.31–0.92) than ICL; no significant differences were observed in OS, operation time, blood loss and morbidity rate.ConclusionCCL confers superior RFS over ICL without compromise of perioperative outcomes and should be prioritized for patients with caudate HCC when feasible, especially for those with large-sized tumors.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.