RESUMO
Importance: Clear indications on how to select retreatments for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are still lacking. Objective: To create a machine learning predictive model of survival after HCC recurrence to allocate patients to their best potential treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Real-life data were obtained from an Italian registry of hepatocellular carcinoma between January 2008 and December 2019 after a median (IQR) follow-up of 27 (12-51) months. External validation was made on data derived by another Italian cohort and a Japanese cohort. Patients who experienced a recurrent HCC after a first surgical approach were included. Patients were profiled, and factors predicting survival after recurrence under different treatments that acted also as treatment effect modifiers were assessed. The model was then fitted individually to identify the best potential treatment. Analysis took place between January and April 2021. Exposures: Patients were enrolled if treated by reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, chemoembolization, or sorafenib. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survival after recurrence was the end point. Results: A total of 701 patients with recurrent HCC were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 71 [9] years; 151 [21.5%] female). Of those, 293 patients (41.8%) received reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, 188 (26.8%) received sorafenib, and 220 (31.4%) received chemoembolization. Treatment, age, cirrhosis, number, size, and lobar localization of the recurrent nodules, extrahepatic spread, and time to recurrence were all treatment effect modifiers and survival after recurrence predictors. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the predictive model was 78.5% (95% CI, 71.7%-85.3%) at 5 years after recurrence. According to the model, 611 patients (87.2%) would have benefited from reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, 37 (5.2%) from sorafenib, and 53 (7.6%) from chemoembolization in terms of potential survival after recurrence. Compared with patients for which the best potential treatment was reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, sorafenib and chemoembolization would be the best potential treatment for older patients (median [IQR] age, 78.5 [75.2-83.4] years, 77.02 [73.89-80.46] years, and 71.59 [64.76-76.06] years for sorafenib, chemoembolization, and reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, respectively), with a lower median (IQR) number of multiple recurrent nodules (1.00 [1.00-2.00] for sorafenib, 1.00 [1.00-2.00] for chemoembolization, and 2.00 [1.00-3.00] for reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation). Extrahepatic recurrence was observed in 43.2% (n = 16) for sorafenib as the best potential treatment vs 14.6% (n = 89) for reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation as the best potential treatment and 0% for chemoembolization as the best potential treatment. Those profiles were used to constitute a patient-tailored algorithm for the best potential treatment allocation. Conclusions and Relevance: The herein presented algorithm should help in allocating patients with recurrent HCC to the best potential treatment according to their specific characteristics in a treatment hierarchy fashion.
Assuntos
Carcinoma Hepatocelular , Quimioembolização Terapêutica , Neoplasias Hepáticas , Humanos , Feminino , Idoso , Masculino , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/cirurgia , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/patologia , Sorafenibe/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias Hepáticas/cirurgia , Neoplasias Hepáticas/patologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Recidiva Local de Neoplasia/patologia , HepatectomiaRESUMO
HYPOTHESIS: The increasing number of elderly patients undergoing liver resections mandates updating of clinical outcomes on this specific population. DESIGN: Case series. SETTING: A tertiary care teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Twenty-three patients older than 70 years who underwent right hepatectomies (including 7 extended right hepatectomies) between January 1, 1995, and October 31, 2001 (group 1) and 99 patients younger than 70 years who underwent 64 right hepatectomies and 35 extended right hepatectomies during the same period (group 2) were included for a total sample population of 122. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preoperative clinicopathological features, intraoperative factors, in-hospital mortality, postoperative complications, intensive care unit requirement, hospital stay, and course of main biochemical liver function test results of groups 1 and 2 were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: The 2 groups were similar for indications for surgery and the presence of underlying liver disease. Group 1 had a higher incidence of associated pulmonary diseases (21.7% vs 5%, P =.02) and patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of III (ie, a patient with severe systemic disease limiting activity, but not incapacitating) (56.5% vs 26.3% of cases, P =.01). There were no differences in intraoperative requirement of packed red blood cells and in operation time. There were no in-hospital deaths in group 1; there were 2 deaths (2%) in group 2. Nine patients (39.1%) in group 1 and 32 patients (32.3%) in group 2 experienced postoperative complications (P =.53), of whom, respectively, 5 (21.7%) and 17 (17.2%) developed transient liver dysfunction (P =.56), and 4 (17.4%) and 5 (5.1%) required a supplementary intesive care unit stay (P =.06). The postoperative stay (mean [SD], 16 [14] days vs 13 [9] days, P =.88) and peak values of the aminotransferase level, total serum bilirubin level, and prothrombin time were similar in the 2 groups. The timing of the peak value of the total serum bilirubin level (mean [SD], 4.1 [4.8] days vs 2.5 [2.5] days, P =.28) and its period of normalization (mean [SD], 9.4 [10.8] days vs 6.7 [5.1] days, P =.67) were also similar for both groups. For patients with malignancies, the 3-year survival rate was 64.2% in group 1 and 53.9% in group 2 (P =.53). CONCLUSION: Being older than 70 years should not be a contraindication for major hepatectomies, provided that liver cirrhosis and severe associated medical conditions are ruled out during the preoperative evaluation.