Surgical management of hepatocellular carcinoma within and beyond BCLC indications in a middle volume center.

AIM OF THE STUDY: Current criteria for hepatic resection in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) according to Barcellona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) classification is debated. Actually, patients with multinodular or large HCC>5cm are excluded from surgical treatment following the algorithm, but several studies from referral centers showed that such patients may benefit from surgical resection in the clinical practice. The aim of this study was to compare short- and long-term outcomes after liver resection for HCC in stage 0/A or B in a middle volume center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were grouped according to BCLC classification. Postoperative mortality, morbidity, overall and disease-free survival, univariate analysis of prognostic factors on survival was analyzed. RESULTS: Among 66 surgical procedures in 64 patients included in the study, 41 were BCLC stage 0/A (62.1%) and 25 BCLC stage B (37.9%). The overall 30- and the 90-days mortality rates were 1.5% and 3%. Patients in BCLC stage B had higher transfusion rate (P=0.04) but similar morbidity and mortality compared to patients in BCLC stage 0/A. After a median follow-up of 35 months (range: 14-147), the overall survival at 1, 3 and 5 years resulted 95%, 61.1%, 46.2% for stage 0-A and 83.3%, 50%, 41.2% for stage B (P=0.73). Univariate analysis identified poorly differentiated tumors (P=0.02) and positive margin (P=0.02) as negative prognostic factors on survival. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment of HCC in BCLC stage B offers similar results than the ones in BCLC stage 0/A and consequently should not be considered contraindicated for such patients.

Management of treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment options.

New and more promising therapies for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) genotype 1 (G1) naive patients have recently been approved in the United States and Europe, and several more regimens are expected to become available within the next several years. While this scenario unfolds, it is necessary to develop a rational method to allocate current treatment in CHC G1 patients. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of boceprevir (BOC)- and telaprevir (TVR)-based triple therapy according to different patients' selection strategies. A semi-Markov model of CHC natural history and progression towards end-stage liver disease was built. We considered 3 selection strategies based on METAVIR fibrosis stage: (i) treat all patients with F1-F4 fibrosis, (ii) only F2-F4 and (iii) only F3-F4. For each strategy, TVR interleukin-28B-guided (IL28B-guided) and BOC rapid virologic response-guided (RVR-guided) therapies were applied. The model assessed the costs and outcomes, using a lifetime and 5-year time horizon, and adopting the Italian National Health System perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for F1-F4 strategy relative to F3-F4 was €5132 per quality-adjusted life years gained, across TVR IL-28B-guided therapy, and €7042 in the BOC RVR-guided therapy. Conversely, in the 5-year scenario, the ICER for F1-F4 strategy relative to F3-F4 was €1 818 679 (TVR IL28B-guided) and €1 866 437 (BOC RVR-guided) per end-stage liver disease or death (ESLD-D) avoided. In view of anticipated improvement in the efficacy of future regimens, selective treatment of only patients with advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis with TVR or BOC could represent the most cost-effective strategy to optimize resource utilization.