Sarasin F P, Giostra E, Mentha G, Hadengue A
Medical Clinics, Hopital Cantonal, University of Geneva Medical School, Switzerland.
Hepatology. 1998 Aug;28(2):436-42. doi: 10.1002/hep.510280222.
The treatment of patients with compensated liver cirrhosis and small hepatocarcinomas remains controversial. Whereas partial hepatectomy (PH) is currently recommended, the role of orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) has become progressively accepted. We used the techniques of decision analysis to measure the clinical benefits and the economic consequences of immediate resection versus transplantation in patients with compensated cirrhosis and who were diagnosed with small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We restricted our analysis to patients with resectable carcinomas, which is either solitary tumor (< or = 5 cm in diameter), or multiple tumors (up to 3), none being > 3 cm in diameter and, in both cases, no tumor invasion of blood vessels. We took into account the risks of tumor spreading and dissemination and/or development of decompensated cirrhosis while waiting for donor organs because organ shortage is presented as the main obstacle to transplantation in these patients. Our analysis suggests that orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) offers a substantial survival benefit compared with resection, ranging from a minimum of 1 year to a maximum of 4.7 years depending on treatment-related survival rates. However, the magnitude of this benefit relies on the availability of an organ donor; therefore, if the waiting period exceeds 6 to 10 months, depending on tumor growth pattern, the increase in life expectancy provided by transplantation is overwhelmed by the risks that patients face while waiting for transplantation. Consequently, partial resection becomes the preferred strategy. The predicted marginal cost-effectiveness ratios of transplantation compared with resection would range between $44,454 and $183,840 per additional year gained mainly influenced by the time delay before getting a transplant. We conclude that compared with partial hepatectomy (PH), OLT for resectable hepatocarcinoma(s) offers substantial survival benefit among well-targeted subgroups of patients as long as an organ donor is available within a maximal 6 to 10 months time delay, which is a plausible scenario in most centers with a liver transplant program. However, the marginal cost-effectiveness ratios incurred by this strategy are higher than that of many other current medical interventions.
对于代偿期肝硬化合并小肝癌患者的治疗仍存在争议。虽然目前推荐行肝部分切除术(PH),但原位肝移植(OLT)的作用已逐渐得到认可。我们运用决策分析技术来衡量代偿期肝硬化且诊断为小肝细胞癌(HCC)患者立即行切除术与移植术的临床获益及经济后果。我们将分析局限于可切除癌患者,即要么是单个肿瘤(直径≤5 cm),要么是多个肿瘤(最多3个),且直径均不超过3 cm,两种情况均无肿瘤侵犯血管。我们考虑了等待供体器官期间肿瘤扩散、播散和/或失代偿期肝硬化进展的风险,因为器官短缺是这些患者进行移植的主要障碍。我们的分析表明,与切除术相比,原位肝移植(OLT)可带来显著的生存获益,根据与治疗相关的生存率,最低为1年,最高可达4.7年。然而,这种获益的程度取决于器官供体的可获得性;因此,如果等待期超过6至10个月,取决于肿瘤生长模式,移植所带来的预期寿命增加会被患者等待移植期间面临的风险所抵消。因此,肝部分切除术成为首选策略。与切除术相比,移植的预测边际成本效益比在每增加一年寿命介于44,454美元至183,840美元之间,主要受获得移植前的时间延迟影响。我们得出结论,与肝部分切除术(PH)相比,对于可切除肝癌患者,只要在最长6至10个月的时间延迟内有器官供体,原位肝移植(OLT)在目标明确的亚组患者中可带来显著的生存获益,这在大多数有肝移植项目的中心是一个合理的情况。然而,该策略产生的边际成本效益比高于许多其他当前的医疗干预措施。