Effect of anatomical liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite retrospective studies comparing anatomical liver resection (AR) and non-anatomical liver resection (NAR), the efficacy and benefits of AR for hepatocellular carcinoma remain unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors systemically reviewed MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library for propensity score matched cohort studies that compared AR and NAR for hepatocellular carcinoma. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes were recurrence patterns and perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 22 propensity score matched studies (AR, n =2,496; NAR, n =2590) were included. AR including systemic segmentectomy was superior to NAR regarding the 3-year and 5-year OS. AR showed significantly better 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year RFS than NAR, with low local and multiple intrahepatic recurrence rates. In the subgroup analyses of tumour diameter less than or equal to 5 cm and tumours with microscopic spread, the RFS in the AR group was significantly better than that in the NAR group. Patients with cirrhotic liver in the AR group showed comparable 3-year and 5-year RFS with the NAR group. Postoperative overall complications were comparable between AR and NAR. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrated that AR showed better OS and RFS with a low local and multiple intra-hepatic recurrence rate than NAR, especially in patients with tumour diameter less than or equal to 5 cm and non-cirrhotic liver.

Liver Resection Versus Local Ablation Therapies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Within the Milan Criteria: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the oncologic outcomes of liver resection (LR) and local ablation therapies for HCC. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although several studies have compared LR and local ablation therapies, the optimal treatment of choice for HCC within the Milan criteria remains controversial. METHODS: We systemically searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized control trials (RCTs) and matched nonrandomized trials (NRTs) that compared LR and local ablation therapies for HCC within the Milan criteria. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were recurrence free survival (RFS) and recurrence pattern. RESULTS: A total of 7 RCTs and 18 matched NRTs, involving 2865 patients in the LR group and 2764 patients in the local ablation therapy group [RFA, MWA, RFA plus trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE)], were included. Although there was no significant difference in OS between LR and RFA, LR showed a significantly better 5-year RFS than RFA in the analysis of RCTs (hazards ratio: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.92; P = 0.006). The RFA group showed a significantly higher local recurrence than the LR group in both analyses of RCTs and NRTs. Additionally, the LR group showed better OS and RFS than the MWA or RFA plus TACE groups. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis showed that LR was superior to RFA in terms of RFS and incidence of local recurrence. Moreover, LR showed better oncologic outcomes than MWA or RFA plus TACE.