Skip to main content
Download PDF

Which factors predict tumor recurrence and survival after curative hepatectomy in hepatocellular carcinoma? Results from a European institution

BMC Surgery volume 24, Article number: 101 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

High tumor recurrence and dismal survival rates after curative intended resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are still concerning. The primary goal was to assess predictive factors associated with disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in a subset of patients with HCC undergoing hepatic resection (HR).

Methods

Between 08/2004–7/2021, HR for HCC was performed in 188 patients at our institution. Data allocation was conducted from a prospectively maintained database. The prognostic impact of clinico-pathological factors on DFS and OS was assessed by using uni- and multivariate Cox regression analyses. Survival curves were generated with the Kaplan Meier method.

Results

The postoperative 1-, 3- and 5- year overall DFS and OS rates were 77.9%, 49.7%, 41% and 72.7%, 54.7%, 38.8%, respectively. Tumor diameter ≥ 45 mm [HR 1.725; (95% CI 1.091–2.727); p = 0.020], intra-abdominal abscess [HR 3.812; (95% CI 1.859–7.815); p < 0.0001], and preoperative chronic alcohol abuse [HR 1.831; (95% CI 1.102–3.042); p = 0.020] were independently predictive for DFS while diabetes mellitus [HR 1.714; (95% CI 1.147–2.561); p = 0.009), M-Stage [HR 2.656; (95% CI 1.034–6.826); p = 0.042], V-Stage [HR 1.946; (95% CI 1.299–2.915); p = 0.001, Sepsis [HR 10.999; (95% CI 5.167–23.412); p < 0.0001], and ISGLS B/C [HR 2.008; (95% CI 1.273–3.168); p = 0.003] were significant determinants of OS.

Conclusions

Despite high postoperative recurrence rates, an acceptable long-term survival in patients after curative HR could be achieved. The Identification of parameters related to OS and DFS improves patient-centered treatment and surveillance strategies.

Peer Review reports

Background

HCC is the most frequently diagnosed primary hepatic malignancy and the third leading cause of cancer related death globally [1, 2]. The most relevant factor for HCC development is liver cirrhosis [2]. Other predisposing risk factors are viral, toxic, metabolic, and immuno-related [3]. Operative approaches including HR and liver transplantation (LT) are the most potential curative treatment options in patients with resectable HCC providing long term cancer free survival [4, 5]. LT is associated with a significant reduction of HCC recurrence compared to HR [6] as it not only removes the tumor but also the surrounding cirrhotic liver remnant and reduces the risk of de-novo HCC formation [7,8,9,10]. However, the shortage of liver allografts and the high drop-out rates during the waiting period precludes the widespread application of LT for HCC [4, 11, 12]. Continuing technical evolvements, improved perioperative management, and proper patient selection in recent years have resulted in significant decreasing morbidity and mortality rates across experienced western and eastern institutions following HR and expanded the pool of patients even with relevant co-morbidities as potential candidates for surgical resection [13,14,15]. Indeed, HR has been successfully applied in patients with advanced tumor stages demonstrating promising oncological results [16, 17].

However, long-term outcomes after liver resection of HCC remain discouraging as tumor recurrence after curative intended HR is still very high with reported recurrence rates of 62.5%-72.7% [18,19,20,21]. The complex and heterogeneous HCC nature, underlying hepatic disease conditions and different patient populations hamper precise tumor relapse prognosis [22]. Hence, it is crucial to identify predictive survival factors after hepatectomy and to integrate them into the clinical decision-making process as well as into preventive and postoperative screening strategies in order to estimate prognosis and improve long-term oncological outcomes [21, 23]. Recently, a new adjuvant immunotherapy with autologous cytokine-induced killer cells increased recurrence-free and overall survival in patients with high-risk of recurrence after curative HCC treatment compared to the control group [24].

Therefore, the primary aim of our study was to assess the relationship between tumor recurrence and survival with relevant clinico-pathological variables of mostly cirrhotic patients undergoing curative HR.

Methods

Patients and study design

All patients with first time curative intended HR due to HCC between August 2004 and July 2021 were identified within the prospectively maintained oncological database from the Department of General, Visceral and Pediatric Surgery at the Heinrich-Heine-University Duesseldorf, Germany and subsequently included in the final analysis. The exclusion criteria were as following: patient age < 18 years (n = 2), non-HCC pathology (n = 2), death within 30 postoperative days (n = 8), and lost to follow-up or incomplete follow-up data respectively (n = 4). This study was approved by the local ethics committee of the Heinrich-Heine-University Duesseldorf, Germany (study-no.: 2021–1800- KFogU) and was conducted in strict accordance with latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki and the “Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology” (STROBE) checklist for observational Studies [25]. Informed consent was waived because no data regarding the cases were disclosed. The primary endpoint was to calculate disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates and to identify predictive survival factors in patients after hepatectomy for HCC.

Clinico-pathological parameters

The following data were extracted for each eligible patient with regard to documented pre-and postoperative, surgical and pathological information:

  1. 1)

     Preoperative: demographics including age, gender, BMI (body mass index), ASA score (American Society of Anesthesiologists), relevant co-morbidities, pre-existing hepatic disease, laboratory findings (liver function tests, total blood count, renal parameters, albumin, α-fetoprotein, hepatitis serology), MELD Score (Model for End-Stage Liver Disease), Child–Pugh classification, preoperative imaging studies with number, size, and location of tumor nodules, volumetric liver calculation and/or hepatobiliary scintigraphy assessment (HBS) in case of insufficient or critical future liver remnant (FLR).

  2. 2)

    Intraoperative: type and extent of resection, biliary or vascular resection and reconstruction, duration of surgery (minutes), number of transfused blood units.

  3. 3)

    Postoperative: morbidity including bile leakage, intra-abdominal abscess formation, cholangitis, sepsis, wound infection, and liver failure classification according to the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS)´criteria [26].

  4. 4)

    Pathology: total number of tumors, maximum tumor diameter (mm), TNM classification based on UICC (Union internationale contre le cancer) 8th edition [27], tumor grading, width of resection margin, lymphangio-invasion (L-Stage), lymph node status (N-Stage), and micro- or macro-vascular tumor infiltration (V-Stage).

Type and extent of hepatic resection were defined according to the current available terminology for hepatectomy [28]. Major hepatectomy was considered if ≥ 3 segments were removed. Postoperative morbidity was stratified based on the Clavien-Dindo classification [29]. Sepsis criteria were evaluated based on the latest international consensus guidelines (Sepsis-3) [30]. The definition of preoperative chronic alcohol abuse was based on the ICD-10-GM (International Classification of Diseases) Version 2018 [31].

Preoperative evaluation and surgical approach

In each patient with suspected or histologically confirmed HCC an accurate tumor staging was performed including preoperative helical computed tomography (CT) scanning of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis and if necessary additional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the liver to evaluate number of nodules, size and location of the tumor. Patients with preoperative hepatic disease were referred to expert hepatologists to assess and optimize underlying hepatic malfunction if feasible. After complete tumor staging all HCC patients were discussed in a multidisciplinary oncological board. General treatment consensus was based on multiple factors such as age, general health and performance status, co-morbidities and extent of liver disease. Distant metastases or lymph node involvement per se were not exclusion criteria for surgical resection. In all cases, an individual therapeutic approach guided by a rigorous risk-versus-benefit assessment was intended. In patients designated for surgical resection with prospective FLRV of < 30% and/or hepatobiliary scintigraphy results below the cut-off of 2.69%/min/m2 [32] hepatic augmentation techniques including either portal venous embolization (PVE) or in situ split plus portal vein ligation (ISLT) were applied. All included patients underwent open surgical resection. After careful initial surgical exploration intraoperative hepatic ultrasound evaluation was routinely conducted to assess tumor extent and resectability, and to rule out undetected tumor nodules. Parenchyma dissection was performed using the cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA®; Valleylab, Boulder, Colorado, USA) without intermittent Pringle’s maneuver. Our technical approach of parenchymal in situ splitting has been recently described [33]. All the procedures were performed by the involved attending staff surgeons at the time of scheduled surgery. Of note, in patients undergoing ISLT a weekly volumetric and scintigraphic evaluation was performed to reassure adequate volume and function gain prior to the completion procedure.

Follow-up

After hospital discharge each patient remained attached to our outpatient clinic or the referral oncologist and general practitioner for follow-up assessment. The follow-up routine consisted of physical examination and tumor marker evaluation, as well as ultrasonography and computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging every 3 months within the first year after surgery extended to every 6 months beginning from the second postoperative year. Tumor recurrence was defined as the radiological or histological confirmation of newly detected tumor lesions after hepatic resection. Consecutively, DFS was defined as the time interval between hepatic resection and the onset of a new recurrence or last follow-up date while OS was defined as the time span from surgical resection to the occurrence of death from any cause respectively last follow-up.

Statistical analysis

Data derived from continuous variables were expressed as median ± standard deviation (SD) and assessed using either the t-test or the Mann–Whitney U test. Categorical data were summarized as frequencies (%) and were compared using Fisher’s exact or chi-square test. Survival curves were created with the Kaplan–Meier method and compared by the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were conducted to identify predictive survival factors. All relevant clinical and pathological variables with p ≤ 0.1 in the univariate analysis were entered into the regression analysis using the forward stepwise variable selection. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. The OS analysis was not tumor associated.

All analysis were performed using missing values imputation appraising bias that arises from missing clinical data in the patient cohort. Variables with missing values > 20% were excluded from the analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 25.0 software program (Statistical Package for Social Sciences; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Clinical characteristics and histopathological results

A total of 188 HCC patients (142 male /46 female) underwent curative resection at our institution between 2004 and 2021 and were eligible for the final analysis. Patient characteristics and the histopathological results are summarized in Table 1. The median age of the entire cohort was 68.50 ± 10.96 years (range 19–84 years) and the elderly population aged ≥ 70 years consisted of 89 (47.34%) patients. The median BMI of the entire study cohort was 25.97 ± 4.38. The majority of patients belonged to the ASA class III/V group (n = 124; 65.96%). Underlying hepatitis A, B and C infection was evident in 20 (10.64%), 42 (22.34%), and 56 (29.79%) patients respectively while alcoholic liver disease was documented in 37 (19.68%) patients. The liver function status based on the Child–Pugh classification was Child-A in 143 patients (76.06%), Child-B in 22 patients (11.70%) and Child-C in one patient (0.53%), whereas 22 patients (11.70) demonstrated no significant preoperative signs of liver cirrhosis. The median MELD score of all patients was 8.00 ± 3.52. Cardio-pulmonary disease were the most common co-morbid condition with 57.44%, followed by diabetes mellitus (34.04%), and chronic renal insufficiency (14.36%). Multiple HCC lesions were detected in 77 (40.96%) patients. The tumors of 134 (71.28%) patients were limited to one liver lobe. Only 5 (2.66%) patients had metastatic tumor spread. Based on preoperative imaging the median tumor diameter was 45.0 ± 48.48 mm. After final histopathological examination the tumors were classified as T-stage I/II and Grade I/II in 149 (79.26%) and 157 (83.51%) patients respectively. Vascular tumor infiltration was noted in 32 (17.02%) patients. The rate of R > 0.1 mm tumor clearance was 82.45%. Tumor infiltration and metastases into adjacent non-hepatic tissue were observed in 5 patients (2.66%). According to the UICC staging classification, 111 (59.04%) patients were stratified in stage I, 43 (22.87%) in stage II, 28 (14.89%) in stage III and 6 (3.19%) in stage IV A/B.

Table 1 Patient-histopathological characteristics and perioperative course
Full size table

Operative data and short-term postoperative outcome

The rate of major hepatectomy (≥ 3 segments) was 44.15% with a median of 2.00 ± 1.37 resected segments in the entire cohort. In 15 (7.98%) patients with locally advanced HCC, augmentation techniques (PVE and/or ISLT) were necessary to increase the FLR. Complex biliary reconstruction was conducted in 14 (7.45%) patients and the rate of biliary T-tube insertion was 20.21%. The median operative time was 307.00 ± 135.04 min. During the operative procedure 74 (39.36%) patients received blood transfusions. Major postoperative morbidity (CD ≥ 3a) occurred in 73 (38.83%) patients. Among the postoperative complications, advanced liver failure ISGLS B/C was noticed most frequently (n = 58; 30.85%). Other morbidities included wound infection (n = 24; 12.77%), bile leakage (n = 20; 10.64%), sepsis (n = 19; 10.11%), intra-abdominal abscess (n = 14; 7.45%), and cholangitis (n = 13; 6.91%). Table 1 displays the intra-and postoperative course in detail.

Overall and disease-free survival analysis

After a median follow-up of 27 months (range 1–196 months), 78 of 188 patients (41.49%) experienced disease recurrence. The site of relapse was intrahepatic in 71.79%, extrahepatic in 5.13% and synchronous intra-and extrahepatic tumor recurrence was noted in 23.08%. The actual 1, 3, and 5 year DFS rates were 77.9%, 49.7%, and 41% respectively. A total of 108 patients (57.45%) died within the follow-up period. The causes of death in these cases were HCC recurrence (n = 32; 29.63%), liver or multi-organ failure (n = 41; 37.96%), and other causes (n = 35; 32.41%). The 1, 3, and 5 year OS rates were 72.7%, 54.7%, and 38.8% respectively. Table 2 outlines the univariate analysis of predictive variables for DFS and OS. Accordingly, univariate analysis revealed that Hepatitis A (p = 0.064), chronic alcohol abuse (p = 0.027), tumor diameter ≥ 45 mm (p = 0.019), M-Stage (p = 0.003), UICC-Stage (p = 0.006), and intra-abdominal abscess (p < 0.0001) were significant risk factors for DFS whereas the following variables were associated with OS: Age ≥ 70 years (p = 0.027), BMI ≥ 25.97 kg/m2 (p = 0.054), Child–Pugh Score (p = 0.018), diabetes mellitus (p = 0.040), tumor diameter ≥ 45 mm(p = 0.005), T-Stage (p = 0.033), M-Stage (p < 0.0001), tumor grade (p = 0.019), L-Stage (p = 0.003), V-Stage (p < 0.0001), UICC-Stage (p < 0.0001), ISLT/PVE (p = 0.049), resected segments ≥ 3 (p = 0.002), biliary reconstruction (p = 0.003), CD ≥ 3a (p < 0.0001), intra-abdominal abscess (p = 0.051), cholangitis (p < 0.0001), sepsis (p < 0.0001), and ISGLS B/C (p < 0.0001). The significant factors identified by univariate analysis for DFS and OS were consecutively included into a multivariate Cox regression model. Tables 3 and 4 show the results of the multivariate analysis. Hence, tumor diameter ≥ 45 mm [HR 1.725; (95% CI 1.091–2.727); p = 0.020], intra-abdominal abscess [HR 3.812; (95% CI 1.859–7.815); p < 0.0001], and preoperative chronic alcohol abuse [HR 1.831; (95% CI 1.102–3.042); p = 0.020] were independently predictive for DFS (Fig. 1a-c). On the other hand, diabetes mellitus [HR 1.714; (95% CI 1.147–2.561); p = 0.009), M-Stage [HR 2.656; (95% CI 1.034–6.826); p = 0.042], V-Stage [HR 1.946; (95% CI 1.299–2.915); p = 0.001, Sepsis [HR 10.999; (95% CI 5.167–23.412); p < 0.0001], and ISGLS B/C [HR 2.008; (95% CI 1.273–3.168); p = 0.003] were independently associated with OS (Fig. 2a-e).

Table 2 Univariate analysis of predictive variables for DFS and OS
Full size table
Table 3 Multivariate analysis of predictive OS factors
Full size table
Table 4 Multivariate analysis of predictive DFS factors
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

DFS curves according to significant predictive factors: a Tumor Diameter b Intra-abdominal abscess c Alcohol abuse

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

OS curves according to significant predictive factors: a Diabetes mellitus b M-Stage c V-Stage d Sepsis e ISGLS B/C

Full size image

Discussion

Tumor recurrence following curative hepatectomy for HCC is a commonly observed problem accounting for poor survival rates [21]. In the presented study, we identified several factors which inversely affect recurrence-free and overall survival in a western cohort of mainly cirrhotic patients undergoing HR. Multivariate cox regression analysis revealed that tumor diameter ≥ 45 mm, intra-abdominal abscess formation, and preoperative chronic alcohol abuse are significant predictive parameters of tumor recurrence. OS is independently influenced by diabetes mellitus, M-Stage, V-Stage, sepsis, and postoperative liver failure ISGLS B/C. In our patient cohort, the overall 1-, 3- and 5 year DFS rates were 77.9%, 49.7%, and 41% respectively. The corresponding 1-, 3- and 5 year OS rates were 72.7%, 54.7%, and 38.8% respectively. However, different study populations with various liver conditions may influence the generalization of our findings, as our short-and midterm outcome data differ from previously reported European and Asian results [34,35,36].

Postoperative HCC recurrence is considered to be closely related to patho-biological tumor features [37, 38]. Here, tumor size has been shown to be an accurate and independent predictor of HCC response [39]. Indeed, larger tumor diameter is directly associated with early recurrence after surgical resection and transplantation [40, 41]. The aneuploid DNA content in HCC tumors exceeding 3 cm leads to a highly aggressive behavior and thus to a worse survival [42]. In the literature, a wide range of prognostic tumor size cut-off values from 2.6–10 cm have been previously suggested [43, 44]. Our analysis revealed a tumor size ≥ 4.5 cm as a significant parameter of recurrence. Tumor diameter is consequently a key component of clinical prognostic tools such as the Milan criteria [45] and the University of California, San Francisco criteria [46]. Beside tumor size, the AFP (alpha-fetoprotein) score is widely applied to assess postoperative prognosis as it correlates with vascular invasion and differentiation in HCC [47, 48]. Recently Mazzotta et al. [49] have shown that, in addition to the AFP score, the number of HCC lesions (≥ 5 nodules) before transplantation has a significant impact on overall survival. Therefore, the combination of AFP score and tumor number is recommended to exclude high-risk listed patients and to accurately predict oncological outcome after liver transplantation [49].

Vascular tumor involvement either as macroscopic or microscopic vessel invasion represents another pivotal characteristic related to high tumor recurrence and disadvantageous outcome [50, 51]. It has been demonstrated that macro-vascular invasion is associated with an approximately fourfold decrease in time-to-recurrence and reduced long term survival [52, 53]. Micro-vascular invasion (MVI) is defined as the presence of tumor emboli within the central hepatic vein, the portal vein, or the large capsular vessels [54]. Several studies identified MVI as an independent factor for early recurrence [19, 55, 56]. However, despite discouraging prognosis in patients with vascular tumor involvement, hepatic resection still achieves superior 1-year survival rates compared to other treatment options and best supportive care [53]. In the presented analysis, vascular infiltration was an independent predictive factor of OS but not DFS. We therefore speculate that vascular tumor involvement results in a higher rate of extended hepatectomies to achieve clear margins, which in turn could be associated with major complications and decreased survival within 90 postoperative days. Thirty-two patients (17.02%) of our cohort showed vascular invasion [microscopic n = 29; (15.43%), macroscopic n = 3; (1.60%)] and 20 major hepatic resections were performed in this subgroups accounting for a 35% 90-day mortality rate. In various cancer types, distant metastases as an expression of advanced tumor burden were associated with a rather unfavorable survival. A large data-based study [57] analyzed the outcome of patients with locally resectable HCC and extrahepatic metastasis and compared the results with a cohort of not-resected patients. Hepatic resection had a favorable impact on the prognosis of HCC in this specific subgroup of patients. In contrast, at the time of surgery distant metastases were present in 5 patients of our study cohort and M-Stage was independently associated with a poor OS.

It is already known that diabetes mellitus (DM) triggers hepatic carcinogenesis through various pathophysiological mechanisms [58, 59] and there is epidemiological evidence suggesting that diabetes increases the risk of HCC prevalence and mortality [60]. However, inconsistent findings were reported regarding the prognostic impact of diabetes mellitus in patients with HCC undergoing curative resection [61, 62]. A previously conducted meta-analysis with 16 included studies demonstrated that DM was associated with an increased risk of overall postoperative complications and unfavorable DFS and OS after hepatectomy [63]. Our findings are in-line with the results from Wang et al. [61] highlighting the negative influence of DM on OS in cirrhotic HCC patients. Alcohol consumption also increases the risk of HCC mainly due to the development of liver cirrhosis. The prevalence of alcohol-induced HCC is higher in Western countries compared to the Asian territory where HCC is predominately related to viral infection [64, 65]. Preoperative alcoholic intake was identified as an independent risk factor of poor DFS in HCC patients after hepatectomy. The severity of alcohol consumption has significantly influenced DFS rates [66]. Furthermore, resumption of abusive alcohol drinking after LT has been shown to correlate with poor long-term survival [67]. Of note, our observation is based on evaluation of preoperative alcoholism, whereas persistent alcohol consumption was not documented during the follow-up examinations.

The presence of postoperative complications plays an important role in the prospective disease course of HCC patients following HR. Patients with postoperative complications showed a significant reduction in OS [HR 1.39; 95% CI (1.28–1.50); p < 0.0001] and a worse DFS [HR 1.25; 95% (CI 1.16–1.35); p < 0.001] in comparison to patients without postoperative morbidity irrespective of the complication severity as demonstrated in a meta-analysis with 14.096 included patients [68]. Among postoperative complications, intra-abdominal infection and sepsis were found to be significant predictors of both poor recurrence-free and overall survival in liver resection for HCC and colorectal liver metastases respectively [69, 70]. A possible explanation relies in the fact that postoperative infectious complications may be involved in an excessive and sustained systemic pro-inflammatory response promoting adhesion and the invasive capacity of circulating cancer cells alongside functional impairment of anti-tumor immune cells including cytotoxic T cells and natural killer cells [71,72,73].

The ISGLS criteria of posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) have reliably stratified patients according to the risk of early postoperative mortality following HR [74, 75]. Recently, Fukushima et al. [76] addressed the value of ISGLS liver failure criteria in patients with HCC resection demonstrating its significant impact on both DFS and OS. In contrast, our study was only able to find a correlation between ISGLS criteria Grade B/C and OS.

Liver cirrhosis per se has been identified as a risk factor of late recurrence regarding de novo HCC formation when compared to patients with viral hepatitis without cirrhosis [50, 54]. The majority of our included patients (n = 166; 88.29%) had different degrees of liver cirrhosis. Interestingly, the 3-and 5 year DFS rates in our study were markedly higher in comparison to Penzkofer et al. (3-and 5 year DFS of 20%, and 7% respectively) who analyzed survival in non-cirrhotic HCC patients after resection [34]. Another recent study [77] identified that DFS and OS rates were significantly influenced by perioperative blood product transfusions in HCC but our study results did not show this correlation.

The wide range of clinical implication of these elucidated predictive parameters are obvious. Survival benefit in patients with HR based on pre-operative variables raises the question which patients might oncologically benefit most from surgery and which individual factors could be optimized prior resection. Moreover, as demonstrated, postoperative morbidity plays an important role in both DFS and OS. Therefore, efforts should be made to minimize these complications or to effectively treat them. Taken together, predictive survival factors should be incorporated into the patient tailored treatment and postoperative surveillance strategy.

However, our study has some important limitations given the retrospective protocol with a relatively small sample size. Furthermore, data were derived from a single European institution without a possible validation in a large multi-center control cohort. It is noteworthy that the treatment of tumor recurrence and its effects on survival were not evaluated. In deceased patients it was not always possible to strictly discriminate between sepsis and single/or multiorgan failure as the leading cause of death. Importantly, the analysis is subject to a selection and missing values bias as patient allocation and operative strategy were determined by the institutional approach and preference of the involved surgeons and cases with missing or incomplete follow-up data were excluded from the analysis. In view of the long study interval, advances in surgical and non-surgical treatment practice, improved perioperative management and, above all, better tumor follow-up programs must be taken into account when interpreting the results.

Conclusions

Various oncological and non-oncological parameters were identified predicting DFS and OS in patients undergoing curative HR for HCC. The implementation of these factors into interdisciplinary treatment concepts and adjustment of perioperative modifiable non-oncological variables could further improve oncological outcome. Larger scaled and multi-institutional studies with comparable patient cohorts are needed to further validate the presented results.

Availability of data and materials

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

HCC:

Hepatocellular carcinoma

DFS:

Disease-free survival

OS:

Overall survival

HR:

Hepatic resection

LT:

Liver transplantation

STROBE:

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist

BMI:

Body mass index

ASA:

American Society of Anesthesiologists

MELD:

Model for End-Stage Liver Disease

HBS:

Hepatobiliary scintigraphy

FLR:

Future liver remnant

ISGLS:

International Study Group of Liver Surgery

UICC:

Union internationale contre le cancer

CD:

Clavien-Dindo

ICD:

International Classification of Diseases

CT:

Computed tomography

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

PVE:

Portal venous embolization

ISLT:

In situ split plus portal vein ligation

CUSA:

Cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator

SD:

Standard deviation

HRs:

Hazard ratios

CIs:

Confidence intervals

AFP score:

Alpha-fetoprotein

MVI:

Micro-vascular invasion

DM:

Diabetes mellitus

PHLF:

Posthepatectomy liver failure

References

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Llovet JM, Kelley RK, Villanueva A, Singal AG, Pikarsky E, Roayaie S, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021;7(1):6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Parikh S, Hyman D. Hepatocellular cancer: a guide for the internist. Am J Med. 2007;120(3):194–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chapman WC, Klintmalm G, Hemming A, Vachharajani N, Majella Doyle MB, DeMatteo R, et al. Surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in North America: can hepatic resection still be justified? J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220(4):628–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tsilimigras DI, Bagante F, Moris D, Merath K, Paredes AZ, Sahara K, et al. Defining the chance of cure after resection for hepatocellular carcinoma within and beyond the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer guidelines: A multi-institutional analysis of 1,010 patients. Surgery. 2019;166(6):967–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Koh JH, Tan DJH, Ong Y, Lim WH, Ng CH, Tay PWL, et al. Liver resection versus liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma within Milan criteria: a meta-analysis of 18,421 patients. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2022;11(1):78–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Huang DQ, Muthiah MD, Zhou L, Jumat H, Tan WX, Lee GH, et al. Predicting HCC Response to Multikinase Inhibitors With In Vivo Cirrhotic Mouse Model for Personalized Therapy. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;11(5):1313–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Doyle MBM, Vachharajani N, Maynard E, Shenoy S, Anderson C, Wellen JR, et al. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: long-term results suggest excellent outcomes. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215(1):19–28 (discussion 28-30).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mehta N, Bhangui P, Yao FY, Mazzaferro V, Toso C, Akamatsu N, et al. Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Working. Group Report from the ILTS Transplant Oncology Consensus Conference. Transplantation. 2020;104(6):1136–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jarnagin W, Chapman WC, Curley S, D’Angelica M, Rosen C, Dixon E, et al. Surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: expert consensus statement. HPB (Oxford). 2010;12(5):302–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Parikh ND, Hutton D, Marrero W, Sanghani K, Xu Y, Lavieri M. Projections in donor organs available for liver transplantation in the United States: 2014–2025. Liver Transpl. 2015;21(6):855–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Machairas N, Tsilimigras DI, Pawlik TM. State-of-the-art surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2021;406(7):2151–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fan ST, Lo CM, Liu CL, Lam CM, Yuen WK, Yeung C, et al. Hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: toward zero hospital deaths. Ann Surg. 1999;229(3):322–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Taketomi A, Kitagawa D, Itoh S, Harimoto N, Yamashita YI, Gion T, et al. Trends in morbidity and mortality after hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma an institute’s experience with 625 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204(4):580–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Torzilli G, Makuuchi M, Inoue K, Takayama T, Sakamoto Y, Sugawara Y, et al. No-mortality liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients: is there a way? A prospective analysis of our approach. Arch Surg. 1999;134(9):984–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Liu W, Wang K, Bao Q, Sun Y, Xing BC. Hepatic resection provided long-term survival for patients with intermediate and advanced-stage resectable hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Surg Oncol. 2016;2(14):62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Torzilli G, Donadon M, Marconi M, Palmisano A, Del Fabbro D, Spinelli A, et al. Hepatectomy for stage B and stage C hepatocellular carcinoma in the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer classification: results of a prospective analysis. Arch Surg. 2008;143(11):1082–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee SY, Konstantinidis IT, Eaton AA, Gönen M, Kingham TP, D’Angelica MI, et al. Predicting recurrence patterns after resection of hepatocellular cancer. HPB (Oxford). 2014;16(10):943–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Imamura H, Matsuyama Y, Tanaka E, Ohkubo T, Hasegawa K, Miyagawa S, et al. Risk factors contributing to early and late phase intrahepatic recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatectomy. J Hepatol. 2003;38(2):200–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Portolani N, Coniglio A, Ghidoni S, Giovanelli M, Benetti A, Tiberio GAM, et al. Early and late recurrence after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: prognostic and therapeutic implications. Ann Surg. 2006;243(2):229–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Tung-Ping Poon R, Fan ST, Wong J. Risk factors, prevention, and management of postoperative recurrence after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Surg. 2000;232(1):10–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Zheng J, Chou JF, Gönen M, Vachharajani N, Chapman WC, Majella Doyle MB, et al. Prediction of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence Beyond Milan Criteria After Resection: Validation of a Clinical Risk Score in an International Cohort. Ann Surg. 2017;266(4):693–701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yang T, Liu K, Liu CF, Zhong Q, Zhang J, Yu JJ, et al. Impact of postoperative infective complications on long-term survival after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Surg. 2019;106(9):1228–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee JH, Lee JH, Lim YS, Yeon JE, Song TJ, Yu SJ, et al. Adjuvant immunotherapy with autologous cytokine-induced killer cells for hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2015;148(7):1383-1391.e6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ. 2007;335(7624):806–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rahbari NN, Garden OJ, Padbury R, Brooke-Smith M, Crawford M, Adam R, et al. Posthepatectomy liver failure: a definition and grading by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS). Surgery. 2011;149(5):713–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Brierley. TNM classification of malignant tumours, 8th Edition. 8th ed. Chichester, West Sussex, UK ; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2017. p. 272.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nagino M, DeMatteo R, Lang H, Cherqui D, Malago M, Kawakatsu S, et al. Proposal of a New Comprehensive Notation for Hepatectomy: The “New World” Terminology. Ann Surg. 2021;274(1):1–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):187–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. DIMDI - ICD-10-GM Version 2018. Available from: https://www.dimdi.de/static/de/klassifikationen/icd/icd-10-gm/kode-suche/htmlgm2018/ Cited 2024 Feb. 18

  32. de Graaf W, van Lienden KP, Dinant S, Roelofs JJTH, Busch ORC, Gouma DJ, et al. Assessment of Future Remnant Liver Function Using Hepatobiliary Scintigraphy in Patients Undergoing Major Liver Resection. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14(2):369–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Alexander A, Lehwald-Tywuschik N, Rehders A, Dizdar L, Fluegen G, Safi SA, et al. Optimizing Growth of the Future Liver Remnant and Making In-Situ Liver Transsection Safe-A Standardized Approach to ISLT or ALPPS. Curr Oncol. 2023;30(3):3277–88.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Penzkofer L, Mittler J, Heinrich S, Wachter N, Straub BK, Kloeckner R, et al. Outcome after Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Noncirrhotic Liver-A Single Centre Study. J Clin Med. 2022;11(19):5802.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Shimada K, Sakamoto Y, Esaki M, Kosuge T, Morizane C, Ikeda M, et al. Analysis of prognostic factors affecting survival after initial recurrence and treatment efficacy for recurrence in patients undergoing potentially curative hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(8):2337–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Zhang TT, Zhao XQ, Liu Z, Mao ZY, Bai L. Factors affecting the recurrence and survival of hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatectomy: a retrospective study of 601 Chinese patients. Clin Transl Oncol. 2016;18(8):831–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lu XY, Xi T, Lau WY, Dong H, Xian ZH, Yu H, et al. Pathobiological features of small hepatocellular carcinoma: correlation between tumor size and biological behavior. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2011;137(4):567–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gu XQ, Zheng WP, Teng DH, Sun JS, Zheng H. Impact of non-oncological factors on tumor recurrence after liver transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma patients. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22(9):2749–59.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Llovet JM, Brú C, Bruix J. Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: the BCLC staging classification. Semin Liver Dis. 1999;19(3):329–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chan AWH, Zhong J, Berhane S, Toyoda H, Cucchetti A, Shi K, et al. Development of pre and post-operative models to predict early recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after surgical resection. J Hepatol. 2018;69(6):1284–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Welling TH, Eddinger K, Carrier K, Zhu D, Kleaveland T, Moore DE, et al. Multicenter Study of Staging and Therapeutic Predictors of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence Following Transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2018;24(9):1233–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Cong WM, Wu MC. The biopathologic characteristics of DNA content of hepatocellular carcinomas. Cancer. 1990;66(3):498–501.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Wakayama K, Kamiyama T, Yokoo H, Orimo T, Shimada S, Einama T, et al. Huge hepatocellular carcinoma greater than 10 cm in diameter worsens prognosis by causing distant recurrence after curative resection. J Surg Oncol. 2017;115(3):324–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Zhu Y, Gu L, Chen T, Zheng G, Ye C, Jia W. Factors influencing early recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after curative resection. J Int Med Res. 2020;48(8):300060520945552.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Mazzaferro V, Regalia E, Doci R, Andreola S, Pulvirenti A, Bozzetti F, et al. Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(11):693–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Yao FY, Ferrell L, Bass NM, Watson JJ, Bacchetti P, Venook A, et al. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: expansion of the tumor size limits does not adversely impact survival. Hepatology. 2001;33(6):1394–403.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Duvoux C, Roudot-Thoraval F, Decaens T, Pessione F, Badran H, Piardi T, et al. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a model including α-fetoprotein improves the performance of Milan criteria. Gastroenterology. 2012;143(4):986–94 (e3; quiz e14-15).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Notarpaolo A, Layese R, Magistri P, Gambato M, Colledan M, Magini G, et al. Validation of the AFP model as a predictor of HCC recurrence in patients with viral hepatitis-related cirrhosis who had received a liver transplant for HCC. J Hepatol. 2017;66(3):552–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Mazzotta AD, Pascale A, Cano L, Rosmorduc O, Allard MA, Sa Cunha A, et al. Number of hepatocellular carcinoma nodules in patients listed for liver transplantation within alpha-fetoprotein score: a new prognostic risk factor. Transpl Int. 2021;34(5):954–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Colecchia A, Schiumerini R, Cucchetti A, Cescon M, Taddia M, Marasco G, et al. Prognostic factors for hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(20):5935–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Lurje G, Bednarsch J, Czigany Z, Amygdalos I, Meister F, Schöning W, et al. Prognostic factors of disease-free and overall survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing partial hepatectomy in curative intent. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2018;403(7):851–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Roayaie S, Blume IN, Thung SN, Guido M, Fiel MI, Hiotis S, et al. A system of classifying microvascular invasion to predict outcome after resection in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2009;137(3):850–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Lee YH, Hsu CY, Huang YH, Hsia CY, Chiou YY, Su CW, et al. Vascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma: prevalence, determinants and prognostic impact. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;48(8):734–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Poon RT, Fan ST, Ng IO, Lo CM, Liu CL, Wong J. Different risk factors and prognosis for early and late intrahepatic recurrence after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer. 2000;89(3):500–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Jung SM, Kim JM, Choi GS, Kwon CHD, Yi NJ, Lee KW, et al. Characteristics of Early Recurrence After Curative Liver Resection for Solitary Hepatocellular Carcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;23(2):304–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Shah SA, Greig PD, Gallinger S, Cattral MS, Dixon E, Kim RD, et al. Factors associated with early recurrence after resection for hepatocellular carcinoma and outcomes. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;202(2):275–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Mao K, Yan Y, Zhang J, Wang J, Wang R, Ling X, et al. The impact of liver resection on survival outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma patients with extrahepatic metastases: A propensity score matching study. Cancer Med. 2018;7(9):4475–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Ho SY, Yuan MH, Chen CC, Liu PH, Hsu CY, Huang YH, et al. Differential Survival Impact of Diabetes Mellitus on Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Role of Staging Determinants. Dig Dis Sci. 2020;65(11):3389–402.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Shau WY, Shao YY, Yeh YC, Lin ZZ, Kuo R, Hsu CH, et al. Diabetes mellitus is associated with increased mortality in patients receiving curative therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncologist. 2012;17(6):856–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Wang P, Kang D, Cao W, Wang Y, Liu Z. Diabetes mellitus and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2012;28(2):109–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Wang YY, Huang S, Zhong JH, Ke Y, Guo Z, Liu JQ, et al. Impact of diabetes mellitus on the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after curative hepatectomy. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(12):e113858.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Ikeda Y, Shimada M, Hasegawa H, Gion T, Kajiyama K, Shirabe K, et al. Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma with diabetes mellitus after hepatic resection. Hepatology. 1998;27(6):1567–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Li Q, Wang Y, Ma T, Lv Y, Wu R. Clinical outcomes of patients with and without diabetes mellitus after hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(2):e0171129.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Nishikawa H, Osaki Y. Non-B, non-C hepatocellular carcinoma (Review). Int J Oncol. 2013;43(5):1333–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Uetake S, Yamauchi M, Itoh S, Kawashima O, Takeda K, Ohata M. Analysis of risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with HBs antigen- and anti-HCV antibody-negative alcoholic cirrhosis: clinical significance of prior hepatitis B virus infection. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2003;27(8 Suppl):47S-51S.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Kudo A, Tanaka S, Ban D, Matsumura S, Irie T, Ochiai T, et al. Alcohol consumption and recurrence of non-B or non-C hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatectomy: a propensity score analysis. J Gastroenterol. 2014;49(9):1352–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Pfitzmann R, Schwenzer J, Rayes N, Seehofer D, Neuhaus R, Nüssler NC. Long-term survival and predictors of relapse after orthotopic liver transplantation for alcoholic liver disease. Liver Transpl. 2007;13(2):197–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Kong J, Li G, Chai J, Yu G, Liu Y, Liu J. Impact of Postoperative Complications on Long-Term Survival After Resection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(13):8221–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Ruan DY, Lin ZX, Li Y, Jiang N, Li X, Wu DH, et al. Poor oncologic outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma patients with intra-abdominal infection after hepatectomy. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(18):5598–606.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Farid SG, Aldouri A, Morris-Stiff G, Khan AZ, Toogood GJ, Lodge JPA, et al. Correlation between postoperative infective complications and long-term outcomes after hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastasis. Ann Surg. 2010;251(1):91–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Refolo MG, Messa C, Guerra V, Carr BI, D’Alessandro R. Inflammatory Mechanisms of HCC Development. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(3):641.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. McDonald B, Spicer J, Giannais B, Fallavollita L, Brodt P, Ferri LE. Systemic inflammation increases cancer cell adhesion to hepatic sinusoids by neutrophil mediated mechanisms. Int J Cancer. 2009;125(6):1298–305.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Wei T, Zhang XF, Bagante F, Ratti F, Marques HP, Silva S, et al. Postoperative Infectious Complications Worsen Long-Term Survival After Curative-Intent Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29(1):315–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Rahbari NN, Reissfelder C, Koch M, Elbers H, Striebel F, Büchler MW, et al. The predictive value of postoperative clinical risk scores for outcome after hepatic resection: a validation analysis in 807 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(13):3640–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Baumgartner R, Gilg S, Björnsson B, Hasselgren K, Ghorbani P, Sauter C, et al. Impact of post-hepatectomy liver failure on morbidity and short- and long-term survival after major hepatectomy. BJS Open. 2022;6(4):zrac097.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Fukushima K, Fukumoto T, Kuramitsu K, Kido M, Takebe A, Tanaka M, et al. Assessment of ISGLS definition of posthepatectomy liver failure and its effect on outcome in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18(4):729–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Nakayama H, Okamura Y, Higaki T, Moriguchi M, Takayama T. Effect of blood product transfusion on the prognosis of patients undergoing hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis. J Gastroenterol. 2023;58(2):171–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. No funding was obtained for this study.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Nadja Lehwald-Tywuschik, Andrea Alexander and Levent Dizdar, contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery (A), Heinrich-Heine-University and University Hospital Duesseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, Bldg. 12.46, 40225, Duesseldorf, Germany

    Sascha Vaghiri, Dimitrios Prassas, Onur Mustafov, Sinan Kalmuk, Wolfram Trudo Knoefel, Nadja Lehwald-Tywuschik, Andrea Alexander & Levent Dizdar

  2. Department of Surgery, Katholisches Klinikum Essen, Philippusstift, Teaching Hospital of Duisburg-Essen University, Huelsmannstrasse 17, 45355, Essen, Germany

    Dimitrios Prassas

Authors
  1. Sascha Vaghiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dimitrios Prassas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Onur Mustafov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sinan Kalmuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wolfram Trudo Knoefel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nadja Lehwald-Tywuschik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Andrea Alexander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Levent Dizdar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Study conception and design (S.V., L.D., N.L.T.), Acquisition of data (S.V., O.M., and D.P.), Analysis and interpretation of data (S.V., L.D, S.K., and A.A.), Statistical analysis (L.D., and S.V.), Drafting of manuscript (S.V., L.D., and A.A.), Critical revision of manuscript (N.L.T., and W.T.K.). All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolfram Trudo Knoefel.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the local institutional review board (Heinrich Heine University, Duesseldorf, Germany; study-no.: 2021–1800- KFogU). All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. Informed consent was waived (ethics committee of the Heinrich-Heine-University Duesseldorf, Germany, study-no.: 2021–1800- KFogU) because no data regarding the cases were disclosed. The waiver did not affect the rights and welfare of the subjects, and the research topic was not associated with any risk to the subjects.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vaghiri, S., Prassas, D., Mustafov, O. et al. Which factors predict tumor recurrence and survival after curative hepatectomy in hepatocellular carcinoma? Results from a European institution. BMC Surg 24, 101 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-024-02399-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-024-02399-y

Keywords

BMC Surgery

ISSN: 1471-2482

Contact us