Does persistent anti-HBc positivity influence the prognosis of HBsAg-negative hepatocellular carcinoma? comparative outcomes of anti-Hbc positive versus anti-Hbc negative non-B non-C HCC.

BACKGROUND: To compare the presentations and outcomes of anti-HBc seropositive Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HBc-HCC) with anti-HBc seronegative (NHBc-HCC) patients in HBsAg negative Non-HBV Non-HCV (NBNC-HCC) HCC population. METHODS: 515 newly diagnosed HCC patients from January 2011 to September 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. 145 (66.5%) NHBc-HCC and 73 (33.5%) HBc-HCC patients were identified. Patient demographics, disease characteristics, details of treatments, recurrence and survival outcomes were analysed. RESULTS: A significantly lower proportion of HBc-HCC patients were diagnosed through surveillence (6.8% vs 26.2%, p = 0.001). HBc-HCC patients were less likely cirrhotic (p < 0.001), portal hypertensive (p < 0.001), ascitic (p = 0.008) and thrombocytopenic (p = 0.003). A higher proportion of HBc-HCC patients had treatment with curative intent (46.6% vs 30.3%, p = 0.018) and surgery (39.7% vs 16.6%, p < 0.001). Although HBc-HCC patients had larger median tumor size (74.0 mm vs 55.0 mm, p = 0.016) with a greater proportion of patients having tumors ≥5 cm, there was no difference in the overall median survival (19.0 months vs 22.0 months, p = 0.919) and recurrence rates (38.2% vs 40.9%). CONCLUSION: Isolated anti-HBc seropositivity in HbsAg negative patients tend to present incidentally with delayed diagnoses resulting in larger tumors, but their long-term survival remain comparable.

Long-Term Oncological Safety of Minimally Invasive Hepatectomy in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Case-Control Study

<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>Minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is technically challenging, especially with large posteriorly located tumours or background of liver cirrhosis. This is a case-control study comparing the long-term oncological safety of HCC patients who underwent MIH and open hepatectomy (OH). Most of these patients have liver cirrhosis compared to other studies.</p><p><b>MATERIALS AND METHODS</b>Sixty patients were divided into 2 groups, 30 underwent MIH and 30 underwent OH for HCC resection. The patients in both groups were matched for extent of tumour resection, age and cirrhosis status. Patient characteristics, risk factors of HCC and all oncological data were studied.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Negative resection margins were achieved in 97% of patients in both groups. The mean blood loss during surgery was significantly lower in the MIH group compared to the OH group (361 mL vs 740 mL; 95% CI, 222.2, 734.9; P = 0.04). Hospitalisation is significantly shorter in MIH group (7 days vs 11 days; 95% CI, 6.9, 12.2,; P = 0.04). Eight patients (27%) in the MIH group and 13 patients (43%) in the OH group developed HCC recurrence (P = 0.17). One, 3 and 5 years disease-free survival between MIH and OH groups are 76% vs 55%, 58% vs 47%, and 58% vs 39% respectively (P = 0.18). One, 3 and 5 years overall survival between MIH and OH groups are 93% vs 78%, 89% vs 70%, and 59% vs 65% respectively (P = 0.41).</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>MIH is a safe and feasible curative treatment option for HCC with similar oncological outcomes compared to OH. MIH can be safely performed to remove tumours larger than 5 cm, in cirrhotic liver, as well as centrally and posterior located tumours. In addition, MIH patients have significant shorter hospitalisation and intraoperative blood loss.</p>

Expanding the donor pool for liver transplantation in the setting of an "opt-out" scheme: 3 years after new legislation

<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>The revised Human Organ Transplant Act (HOTA) was implemented in Singapore in July 2004. We aim to evaluate expanding the potential donor pool for liver transplant in Singapore with the inclusion of marginal donors.</p><p><b>MATERIALS AND METHODS</b>All donor referrals between July 2004 and June 2007 were studied. All potential deceased liver donors were heart-beating. After being reviewed by the transplant coordinator, potential donors were assessed by a transplant hepatologist and a transplant surgeon for suitability of organ donation strictly based on the programme's donor assessment protocol. Reasons for rejection as potential donors were documented. The clinical characteristics of all donor referrals were retrospectively reviewed, and an independent decision was made as to whether liver retrieval in each rejected case might have been possible.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Among the 128 potential donor referrals, 20 donors (15.6%) underwent liver retrieval. Of the 20 livers retrieved, 16 were implanted and 4 were not implanted (3 unfit recipients, and 1 donor liver with 40% steatosis). Another 10 donor livers were assessed intraoperatively and were rejected because of varying levels of steatosis. Of these livers assessed, 5 donor livers had steatosis <40% and 5 had steatosis >40%. Of the remaining potential donors, 45 were deemed not possible because of prolonged hypotension (9), on-going or unresolved sepsis (13), high-risk behaviour (4), non-actualisation (8), or pre-existing medical conditions (11). Another 53 donors may potentially have been suitable donors but were rejected because of possible sepsis (13), no suitable recipients (12), transient hypotension (10), transient abnormal liver function test (6), history of alcohol ingestion (5), non-actualisation because of consent (4) and other reasons (3). Overall, it was deemed that 61 donors (47.7%) might potentially have been suitable liver donors.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Despite new legislation (HOTA) in Singapore, the utilisation of cadaveric donor livers showed no increase in the last 3 years. By expanding our donor criteria to include marginal donors, we could potentially increase the availability of deceased donor livers to meet our waiting list demands.</p>