Suppr超能文献

肝细胞癌患者的挽救性肝移植与原位肝移植对比

Salvage Liver Transplant versus Primary Liver Transplant for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

作者信息

Yadav Dipesh Kumar, Chen Wei, Bai Xueli, Singh Alina, Li Guogang, Ma Tao, Yu Xiazhen, Xiao Zhi, Huang Bingfeng, Liang Tingbo

机构信息

Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China (mainland).

Department of Surgery, Bir Hospital, National Academy of Medical Science (NAMS), Kanti Path, Kathmandu, Nepal.

出版信息

Ann Transplant. 2018 Aug 3;23:524-545. doi: 10.12659/AOT.908623.

Abstract

The strategy of salvage liver transplantation (SLT) originated for initially resectable and transplantable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) to preclude upfront transplantation, with SLT in the case of recurrence. However, SLT remains a controversial approach in comparison to primary liver transplant (PLT). The aim of our study was to conduct a systemic review and meta-analysis to assess the short-term outcomes, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) between SLT and PLT for patients with HCC, stratifying results according to the Milan criteria and donor types. A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify studies comparing SLT and PLT. A fixed effects model and a random effects model meta-analysis were conducted to assess the short-term outcomes, OS, and DFS based on the evaluation of heterogeneity. SLT had superior 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year OS and DFS compared with that of PLT. After classifying data according to donor type and Milan criteria, our meta-analysis revealed: that for deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) recipients, there were no significant differences in 1-year and 3-year OS rate between the SLT group and the PLT group. However, the 5-year OS rate was superior in the SLT group compared to the PLT group. Similarly, SLT had superior 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year OS rate compared to PLT in living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) recipients. Moreover, 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year DFS were also superior in SLT compared to PLT in both the DDLT and LDLT recipients. In patients within Milan criteria there were no statistically significant differences in 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year OS and DFS between the SLT group and the PLT group. Similarly, in patients beyond Milan criteria, both SLT and PLT showed no significant difference for 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year OS rate. Our meta-analysis included the largest number of studies comparing SLT and PLT, and SLT was found to have significantly better OS and DFS. Moreover, this meta-analysis suggests that SLT has comparable postoperative complications to that of PLT, and thus, SLT may be a better treatment strategy for recurrent HCC patients and patients with compensated liver, whenever feasible, considering the severe organ limitation and the safety of SLT. However, PLT can be referred as a treatment strategy for HCC patients with cirrhotic and decompensated liver.

摘要

挽救性肝移植(SLT)策略最初是为了应对可切除且可移植的肝细胞癌(HCC),避免直接进行移植,而是在复发时进行SLT。然而,与原位肝移植(PLT)相比,SLT仍然是一种存在争议的方法。我们研究的目的是进行一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估SLT和PLT治疗HCC患者的短期结局、总生存期(OS)和无病生存期(DFS),并根据米兰标准和供体类型对结果进行分层。检索了PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆,以确定比较SLT和PLT的研究。基于异质性评估,采用固定效应模型和随机效应模型进行荟萃分析,以评估短期结局、OS和DFS。与PLT相比,SLT的1年、3年和5年OS及DFS更优。根据供体类型和米兰标准对数据进行分类后,我们的荟萃分析显示:对于尸体供肝肝移植(DDLT)受者,SLT组和PLT组的1年和3年OS率无显著差异。然而,SLT组的5年OS率优于PLT组。同样,在活体供肝肝移植(LDLT)受者中,与PLT相比,SLT的1年、3年和5年OS率更优。此外,在DDLT和LDLT受者中,SLT的1年、3年和5年DFS也优于PLT。在符合米兰标准的患者中,SLT组和PLT组的1年、3年和5年OS及DFS无统计学显著差异。同样,在超出米兰标准的患者中,SLT和PLT的1年、3年和5年OS率均无显著差异。我们的荟萃分析纳入了最多数量的比较SLT和PLT的研究,发现SLT的OS和DFS明显更好。此外,这项荟萃分析表明,SLT的术后并发症与PLT相当,因此,考虑到严重的器官限制和SLT的安全性,只要可行,SLT可能是复发HCC患者和肝功能代偿患者更好的治疗策略。然而,PLT可作为肝硬化和肝功能失代偿HCC患者的治疗策略。

相似文献

4
Salvage liver transplantation for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma within UCSF criteria after liver resection.
PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e48932. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048932. Epub 2012 Nov 8.
6
Salvage liver transplantation in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis.
World J Gastroenterol. 2012 May 21;18(19):2415-22. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i19.2415.
7
Results of salvage liver transplantation.
Liver Int. 2014 Jul;34(6):e96-e104. doi: 10.1111/liv.12497. Epub 2014 Mar 12.

引用本文的文献

2
Survival impact of pre-transplant local treatments in liver transplant recipients with BCLC stage A hepatocellular carcinoma.
Am J Cancer Res. 2024 Jul 15;14(7):3555-3564. doi: 10.62347/BXDX8100. eCollection 2024.
4
Surgical treatment for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: Current status and challenges.
World J Gastrointest Surg. 2023 Apr 27;15(4):544-552. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v15.i4.544.
5
MTM-HCC at Previous Liver Resection as a Predictor of Overall Survival in Salvage Liver Transplantation.
Dig Dis Sci. 2023 Jun;68(6):2768-2777. doi: 10.1007/s10620-023-07857-w. Epub 2023 Feb 15.
7
Impact of Time to Recurrence on Survival Outcome of Salvage Liver Transplantation.
J Gastrointest Surg. 2022 Apr;26(4):813-821. doi: 10.1007/s11605-021-05146-3. Epub 2021 Oct 7.
9
Hepatocellular Carcinoma-How to Determine Therapeutic Options.
Hepatol Commun. 2020 Jan 22;4(3):342-354. doi: 10.1002/hep4.1481. eCollection 2020 Mar.

本文引用的文献

2
Evaluation of surgical anti-adhesion products to reduce postsurgical intra-abdominal adhesion formation in a rat model.
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 16;12(2):e0172088. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172088. eCollection 2017.
4
Alpha-fetoprotein Level Predicts Recurrence After Transplantation in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Jan;95(3):e2478. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002478.
6
Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012.
Int J Cancer. 2015 Mar 1;136(5):E359-86. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29210. Epub 2014 Oct 9.
8
Epidemiology of hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States: where are we? Where do we go?
Hepatology. 2014 Nov;60(5):1767-75. doi: 10.1002/hep.27222. Epub 2014 Aug 25.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验