The Clinical Implications of Liver Resection Margin Size in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Terms of Positron Emission Tomography Positivity
- 145 Downloads
The positivity of positron emission tomography (PET) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) correlates with aggressive tumor factors and poor survival. Adequate resection margin size is still a topic of debate. We analyzed the clinical implications of resection margin size in patients with HCC in terms of PET positivity.
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 92 patients who underwent liver resection from March 2012 to October 2015. We investigated prognostic factors for recurrence and survival. We analyzed the correlation of resection margin size and PET positivity. Resection margins were classified as less than 1 cm and more than 1 cm.
Twenty six (31.3%) patients had PET-positive HCC. Multivariate analysis showed PET, satellite nodules, microvessel invasion, and multicentric occurrence were significant prognostic factors for HCC recurrence. Multivariate analysis also showed satellite nodules and microscopic portal vein invasion were significant prognostic factors for overall survival (OS). Resection margin size did not affect disease-free survival (DFS) (p = 0.681) or OS (p = 0.301) in patients with PET-negative HCC, but showed a difference in DFS [<1 cm at 11 months vs. ≥1 cm at 41 months (p = 0.188)] and OS [<1 cm at 28 months vs. ≥1 cm at 48 months (p < 0.001)] in patients with PET-positive HCC.
PET has low sensitivity for HCC. However, it is useful to predict treatment outcomes after liver resection or liver transplantation for HCC. Although the extent of liver resection must be decided based on liver function, a resection margin size >1 cm may improve DFS and OS in patients with PET-positive HCC.
This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (2014R1A1A1007901).
- 1.Forner A, Llovet JM, Bruix J (2012) Hepatocellular carcinoma. The Lancet 379(1245–125):5Google Scholar
- 2.European Association for the Study of the Liver, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (2012) EASL–EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 56:908–943Google Scholar
- 3.Korean Liver Cancer Study Group (KLCSG), National Cancer Center, Korea (NCC) (2015) 2014 KLCSG-NCC Korea practice guideline for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Gut Liver 9:267–317Google Scholar
- 7.Omata M, Lesmana LA, Tateishi R et al (2010) Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver consensus recommendations on hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Int 4(439–47):4Google Scholar
- 19.Lee HW, Suh K-S (2016) Liver transplantation for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Mol Hepatol 22(309–31):8Google Scholar
- 23.Rodríguez-Perálvarez M, Luong TV, Andreana L et al (2013) A systematic review of microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma: diagnostic and prognostic variability. Ann Surg Oncol 20(325–33):9Google Scholar
- 26.Hyun SH, Eo JS, Lee JW et al (2016) Prognostic value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in patients with barcelona clinic liver cancer stages 0 and A hepatocellular carcinomas: a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:1638–1645CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar