Advertisement

Impact of microscopically margin-positive resection on survival in children with hepatoblastoma after hepatectomy: a retrospective cohort study

  • Xianghai Ren
  • Haibo Li
  • Mei Diao
  • Hang Xu
  • Long LiEmail author
Original Article
  • 2 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Impact of R1 (microscopically margin-positive) resection on survival of patients with hepatoblastoma (HB) remains debatable. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of R0 (microscopically margin-negative) and R1 resection for HB in children after hepatectomy.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed files of children with HB who underwent resection at our institution between September 1, 2005, and November 30, 2017. Survival analyses and prognostic factors were evaluated using Kaplan–Meier curves and Cox regression models.

Results

Of 259 patients, 218 (84.2%) underwent R0 and 41 (15.8%) R1 resection. After adjusting for confounding factors, R1 resection demonstrated non-significantly lower overall survival (OS: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75; 95% CI 0.34–1.64) and shorter event-free survival (EFS: HR = 0.97; 95% CI 0.53–1.78) rates than R0 resection. However, stratified analysis showed significantly increased risk of poor OS and EFS in patients with metastasis and mixed epithelial/mesenchymal pathologic subtype in R1 compared with R0 resection (P values for interactions < 0.05). There was no significant difference between R0 resection with metastasis and R1 resection with metastasis in the incidence of local recurrence (P = 0.494); however, a significant difference in the incidence of local recurrence was seen between R0 and R1 resection for subgroups with mixed pathologic subtypes (P = 0.035).

Conclusions

With effective chemotherapy, microscopic margin status may not be associated with survival outcome in children with HB undergoing hepatectomy. However, stratified analysis showed that R1 resection might be associated with decreased survival in children with mixed epithelial/mesenchymal HB, compared with R0 resection, and not affect survival outcomes in those with an epithelial subtype and without metastasis.

Keywords

Hepatoblastoma Hepatectomy Metastasis Positive surgical margins Survival rate 

Notes

Funding

No funding was received.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

10147_2019_1573_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (62 kb)
Supplementary file1 (PDF 62 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hung GY, Lin LY, Yu TY et al (2018) Hepatoblastoma incidence in Taiwan: a population-based study. J Chin Med Assoc 81:541–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aronson DC, Meyers RL (2016) Malignant tumors of the liver in children. Sem Pedatr Surg 25:265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hishiki T, Matsunaga T, Sasaki F et al (2011) Outcome of hepatoblastomas treated using the Japanese Study Group for Pediatric Liver Tumor (JPLT) protocol-2: report from the JPLT. Pediatr Surg Int 27:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haeberle B, Dv S (2012) Treatment of hepatoblastoma in the German cooperative pediatric liver tumor studies. Front Biosci 4:493–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fahy AS, Shaikh F, Gerstle JT (2019) Multifocal hepatoblastoma: what is the risk of recurrent disease in the remnant liver? J Pediatr Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2019.01.036 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yuan XJ, Wang HM, Jiang H et al (2016) Multidisciplinary effort in treating children with hepatoblastoma in China. Cancer Lett 375:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fuchs J, Rydzynski J, Dietrich VS et al (2002) Pretreatment prognostic factors and treatment results in children with hepatoblastoma: a report from the German Cooperative Pediatric Liver Tumor Study HB 94. Cancer 95:172–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pham TA, Gallo AM, Concepcion W et al (2015) Effect of liver transplant on long-term disease-free survival in children with hepatoblastoma and hepatocellular cancer. JAMA Surg 150:1150–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meyers RL, Tiao G, De Goyet JD et al (2014) Hepatoblastoma state of the art: pre-treatment extent of disease, surgical resection guidelines and the role of liver transplantation. Curr Opin Pediatr 26:29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Towbin AJ, Meyers RL, Woodley H et al (2018) 2017 PRETEXT: radiologic staging system for primary hepatic malignancies of childhood revised for the Paediatric Hepatic International Tumour Trial (PHITT). Pediatr Radiol 48:1–19Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Uchida H, Sakamoto S, Sasaki K et al (2018) Surgical treatment strategy for advanced hepatoblastoma: resection versus transplantation. Pediatr Blood Cancer 65:e27383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Browne M, Sher D, Grant D et al (2008) Survival after liver transplantation for hepatoblastoma: a 2-center experience. J Pediatr Surg 43:1973–1981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faraj W, Dar F, Marangoni G et al (2008) Liver transplantation for hepatoblastoma. Liver Transpl 14:1614–1619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fuchs J, Cavdar S, Blumenstock G et al (2017) POST-TEXT III and IV hepatoblastoma: extended hepatic resection avoids liver transplantation in selected cases. Ann Surg 266:318–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lautz TB, Ben-Ami T, Tantemsapya N et al (2011) Successful nontransplant resection of POST-TEXT III and IV hepatoblastoma. Cancer 117:1976–1983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tajiri T, Kimura O, Fumino S et al (2012) Surgical strategies for unresectable hepatoblastomas. J Pediatr Surg 47:2194–2198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roebuck DJ, Aronson D, Clapuyt P et al (2007) 2005 PRETEXT: a revised staging system for primary malignant liver tumours of childhood developed by the SIOPEL group. Pediatr Radiol 37:123–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    József Z, Maibach R, Shafford E et al (2010) Successful treatment of childhood high-risk hepatoblastoma with dose-intensive multiagent chemotherapy and surgery: final results of the SIOPEL-3HR study. J Clin Oncol 28:2584–2590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    López-Terrada D, Alaggio R, de Dávila MT et al (2014) Towards an international pediatric liver tumor consensus classification: proceedings of the Los Angeles COG liver tumors symposium. Mod Pathol 27:472–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Qiao GL, Li L, Cheng W et al (2014) Predictors of survival after resection of children with hepatoblastoma: a single Asian center experience. Eur J Surg Oncol 40:1533–1539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aronson DC, Weeda VB, Maibach R et al (2019) Microscopically positive resection margin after hepatoblastoma resection: what is the impact on prognosis? A Childhood Liver Tumours Strategy Group (SIOPEL) report. Eur J Cancer 106:126–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meyers RL, Maibach R, Hiyama E et al (2017) Risk-stratified staging in paediatric hepatoblastoma: a unified analysis from the Children's Hepatic tumors International Collaboration. Lancet Oncol 18:122–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Czauderna P, Haeberle B, Hiyama E et al (2016) The Children’s Hepatic tumors International Collaboration (CHIC): Novel global rare tumor database yields new prognostic factors in hepatoblastoma and becomes a research model. Eur J Cancer 52:92–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Katzenstein HM, Furman WL, Malogolowkin MH et al (2017) Upfront window vincristine/irinotecan treatment of high-risk hepatoblastoma: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group AHEP0731 study committee. Cancer 123:2360–2367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shanmugam N, Scott JX, Kumar V et al (2017) Multidisciplinary management of hepatoblastoma in children: experience from a developing country. Pediatr Blood Cancer 64:e26249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Haas RJD, Wicherts DA, Flores E et al (2008) R1 resection by necessity for colorectal liver metastases is it still a contraindication to surgery? Ann Surg 248:626–637PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sakamoto S, Kasahara M, Mizuta K et al (2014) Nationwide survey of the outcomes of living donor liver transplantation for hepatoblastoma in Japan. Liver Transpl 20:333–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang LL, Filippi RZ, Zurakowski D et al (2010) Effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on hepatoblastoma: a morphologic and immunohistochemical study. Am J Surg Pathol 34:287–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Venkatramani R, Wang L, Malvar J et al (2012) Tumor necrosis predicts survival following neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for hepatoblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 59:493–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    József Z, Laurence B, Penelope B et al (2013) Dose-dense cisplatin-based chemotherapy and surgery for children with high-risk hepatoblastoma (SIOPEL-4): a prospective, single-arm, feasibility study. Lancet Oncol 14:834–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Society of Clinical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Peking Union Medical CollegeChinese Academy of Medical SciencesBeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Pediatric SurgeryCapital Institute of PediatricsBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations