Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
In Vivo
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
In Vivo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit iiar on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Prognostic Significance of Treatment Strategies for the Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinomas After Radical Resection

RYO SAITO, HIDETAKE AMEMIYA, NAOHIRO HOSOMURA, HIROMICHI KAWAIDA, SUGURU MARUYAMA, HIROKI SHIMIZU, SHINJI FURUYA, HIDENORI AKAIKE, YOSHIHIKO KAWAGUCHI, MAKOTO SUDO, SHINGO INOUE, HIROSHI KONO and DAIDUKE ICHIKAWA
In Vivo May 2020, 34 (3) 1265-1270; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.11900
RYO SAITO
First Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HIDETAKE AMEMIYA
First Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
NAOHIRO HOSOMURA
First Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HIROMICHI KAWAIDA
First Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SUGURU MARUYAMA
First Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HIROKI SHIMIZU
First Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SHINJI FURUYA
First Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HIDENORI AKAIKE
First Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
YOSHIHIKO KAWAGUCHI
First Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MAKOTO SUDO
First Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SHINGO INOUE
First Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HIROSHI KONO
First Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DAIDUKE ICHIKAWA
First Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Yamanashi, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: dichikawa{at}yamanashi.ac.jp
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: The high rate of recurrence and repetitive features of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) require specific treatment strategies. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of recurrent HCC focusing on clinicopathological factors. Patients and Methods: A total of 104 patients who were treated with re-hepatectomy, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for recurrent HCC were analyzed. Post-recurrent prognoses were compared between each treatment group based on the presence of adverse prognostic factors (APFs) identified. Results: In the hepatectomy group, the prognosis of patients with APFs was significantly worse compared to those without APFs. By contrast, the survival rate of patients who underwent RFA was not significantly different from those with and without APFs. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate the heterogeneity that exists in terms of the long-term survival of patients with recurrent HCC. The treatment strategy for recurrent HCC should be based on the assessment of presence of APFs to improve long-term prognosis.

  • Hepatocellular carcinoma
  • recurrence
  • hepatectomy

The development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is often associated with a background of chronic inflammation and fibrosis of the liver. The pathophysiological features of carcinogenesis result in a high recurrence rate of HCC after hepatectomy (1, 2), and most of these recurrent episodes occur in the liver (3). These characteristics of HCC mean that treatment strategies must be considered for the possibility of recurrence and for minimizing its invasiveness to maintain a liver function reserve. Given the high curability of HCC, such treatment strategies can improve the long-term prognosis of the condition (4). Direct-action antiviral agents have been developed recently; these agents induce a highly sustained virologic response ratio in patients with hepatitis C virus infection (5, 6), and contribute to the suppression of hepatitis in many cases. However, many reports have demonstrated that intrahepatic recurrences are still common in patients with a history of both HCV treatment and hepatectomy for primary HCC (7), and the pathophysiological features remain to be elucidated for patients with recurrent HCC.

Various treatments have been developed for HCC, with the selection of appropriate regimens usually based on specific patient factors, such as liver function reserve, and tumor factors, such as tumor diameter and number of intrahepatic tumors (8, 9). In the HCC treatment algorithm described in the current Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines (10), hepatectomy and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are recognized as two of the most radical treatments (11).

Despite the existence of treatment guidelines, the optimal treatment approach, especially in recurrent cases, and the influence of treatment on the long-term prognosis of patients with intrahepatic recurrences are yet unclear (12, 13). Thus, this retrospective study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of recurrent HCC, considering the clinicopathological factors of recurrence to propose appropriate treatment strategies for specific cases of recurrent HCC.

Patients and Methods

Patients and treatments. Between 2007 and 2014, 180 patients underwent radical resection for primary HCC at the University of Yamanashi Hospital, Japan. Of these, 109 patients developed only intrahepatic recurrence. Five patients who received supporting care and/or systemic chemotherapy were excluded from the study. Finally, 104 patients receiving treatment with re-hepatectomy, RFA, or transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) for recurrent HCC were included in this study. Our treatment strategies for patients with intrahepatic recurrence were principally based on the current Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines. These strategies were: i) hepatectomy or RFA, performed for patients with three or fewer intrahepatic recurrent tumors, and ii) TACE, performed in the case of four or more tumors. All study participants provided an informed written consent prior to their study enrollment. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Yamanashi (approved number: 2037) and was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments (14).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

DFSAR and OSAR in each treatment group. The hepatectomy and RFA groups show significantly better prognoses compared to the TACE group in both DFSAR and OSAR (p<0.001, respectively). Significant differences are indicated as p<0.05. DFSAR: Disease-free survival after recurrence; OSAR: overall survival after recurrence; RFA: radio frequency ablation; TACE: transcatheter arterial chemoembolization.

Prognosis after radical hepatectomy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma. According to the treatment algorithm, patients with a Child-Pugh classification C are not suitable for aggressive treatment except for liver transplantation (15, 16). Patients with a Child-Pugh classification A or B are equivalently treated, according to the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines. In the present study, Child-Pugh classification A or B was considered and evaluated as a variable in univariate and multivariate prognostic analyses along with various other clinicopathological factors. The survival rates were compared between each treatment group as values of overall survival after recurrence (OSAR) and disease-free survival after recurrence (DFSAR). Additionally, the potential stratification of patients with intrahepatic recurrence was examined based on the prognostic factors in each treatment group.

Statistical analysis. Five-year survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and analyzed using the log-rank test. Differences were considered statistically significant when p<0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted using EZR (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan), which is a graphical user interface for R (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) (17).

Results

Post-recurrent prognosis for each treatment group. Of the 104 patients treated for intrahepatic recurrence in this study, 17, 26, and 61 underwent hepatectomy, RFA, and TACE, respectively. Patients who underwent hepatectomy or RFA had significantly better long-term prognoses in terms of both OSAR and DFSAR, respectively, compared to those who underwent TACE (p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively) (Figure 1). This may be attributable to the fact that TACE was principally indicated for patients with a greater number of intrahepatic tumors. However, the prognosis was similar and not significantly different in terms of DFSAR (p=0.336) or OSAR (p=0.265) between patients who underwent hepatectomy and those who underwent RFA.

Prognostic analysis based on adverse prognostic factors. Child-Pugh classification A or B at the time of recurrence was found to be a prognostic factor along with other clinicopathological factors that have been reported in a previous study by our group (18). Multivariate analysis revealed that a Child-Pugh classification B was a significant independent adverse prognostic factor (APF), similarly to early recurrence (<1 year after the primary hepatectomy) and the presence of three or more tumors (Table I). According to the status of APFs in each treatment group, stratified survival analysis clearly demonstrated that the prognosis of patients who underwent hepatectomy was significantly worse in terms of both DFSAR (p=0.019) and OSAR (p<0.001) in those with APFs compared to those without APFs (Figure 2 and Table II). In contrast, the survival rates of patients who underwent RFA did not differ significantly between those with APFs and those without APFs in terms of DFSAR or OSAR (p=0.847 and p=0.899, respectively) (Figure 3).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Comparison of post-recurrent prognoses between cases with and without APFs in the hepatectomy group. In the hepatectomy group as recurrence treatment, patients without APFs had significantly better prognoses in both DFSAR and OSAR. Significant differences are indicated as p<0.05. APF: Adverse prognostic factor; DFSAR: disease-free survival after recurrence; OSAR: overall survival after recurrence; RFA: radio frequency ablation; TACE: transcatheter arterial chemoembolization.

Discussion

The current Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines (10) apply the same treatment algorithm for both primary and recurrent HCC. However, the clinicopathological features of recurrent HCC are considerably different from those of primary HCC, as highlighted in our previous report. In addition to the tumor factors, liver function reserve varies, and the classification as Child-Pugh B is more frequently seen in recurrent HCC compared to primary HCC. Furthermore, the timing of recurrence has not yet been considered as a determining factor in decision making for recurrent HCC treatment.

The long-term results of various treatment strategies for HCC remain controversial, even in the case of primary HCC (19-22). Recently, a multicenter randomized phase III-controlled trial (SURF trial) evaluated the efficacy of surgery versus RFA for primary and small-cell HCC in Japan (23). The results have been analyzed and are yet unpublished, however, an interim report was presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (24), which revealed that there was no significant difference between hepatectomy and RFA in terms of the 3-year recurrence-free survival, which was one of the primary endpoints. This suggests that RFA is equivalent to hepatectomy in terms of curability and long-term prognosis in some conditions, such as a tumor diameter of ≤3 cm, three or fewer tumors, and seven or fewer points on the Child-Pugh classification. However, currently, there are no definitive criteria for treatment decisions.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Post-recurrent prognostic analyses.

We hypothesized that hepatectomy and RFA are not equivalent radical treatments and considered that a treatment should be selected on the basis of various factors in each case. In the present study, we identified Child-Pugh classification B, early recurrence of HCC, and the presence of three or more tumors to be APFs for recurrent HCC. Our results demonstrate that there was some heterogeneity in the long-term survival rates of patients treated with recurrent HCC and there are particular profiles of patient and tumor factors that create either hepatectomy- or RFA-preferable conditions. Specifically, recurrent HCC without APFs was associated with a significantly better survival rate compared to recurrent HCC with APFs among patients undergoing hepatectomy. This suggests that hepatectomy should be discouraged in patients presenting with any of the APFs identified in this study. In such cases, RFA would be preferable. Overall, the long-term prognosis of patients with APFs was better in the RFA group, although there were no significant differences between the RFA and hepatectomy groups, due of small sample size (p=0.201 for OSAR, Figure 4).

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Comparison of post-recurrent prognoses between cases with and without APFs in the RFA group. In the RFA group as recurrence treatment, patients without and without APFs had no significant differences in prognoses in both DFSAR and OSAR. Significant differences are indicated as p<0.05. APF: Adverse prognostic factor; DFSAR: disease-free survival after recurrence; OSAR: overall survival after recurrence; RFA: radio frequency ablation; TACE: transcatheter arterial chemoembolization.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Post-recurrent prognoses based on each treatment and adverse prognostic factors.

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the sample size was small, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. Second, due to the retrospective nature of this analysis, the treatment regimens were not always selected according to the treatment algorithm and were instead based on patients' wishes and considerations of medical stuff. Therefore, large-scale prospective studies focusing on the prognostic factors and long-term prognosis following application of the treatment algorithm for recurrent HCC are necessary to confirm the results of the present study.

In Conclusion, recurrence of HCC is a common and unavoidable issue in most cases. Therefore, to improve the long-term prognosis of HCC even after its recurrence, it is important to select a treatment strategy that will maintain the liver function reserve, minimize invasive procedures, and optimize the curability. The results of the present study suggest that selecting a treatment strategy for recurrent HCC on the basis of APFs with regards to Child-Pugh classification B, early recurrence of HCC, and the presence of three or more tumors can improve the long-term prognosis for recurrent HCC. This can have considerable benefits for patients with recurrent HCC.

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

Comparison of OSAR between hepatectomy and RFA group in patients with any of APFs. The long-term prognosis of patients with APFs was better in the RFA group compared to the hepatectomy group although there were no significant differences between the RFA and hepatectomy groups. Significant differences are indicated as p<0.05. OSAR: Overall survival after recurrence; RFA: radio frequency ablation.

Acknowledgements

The Authors would like to thank Enago (www.enago.jp) for the English language review.

Footnotes

  • Authors' Contributions

    RS designed the study, and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. DI and HA contributed to analysis and interpretation of data, and assisted in the preparation of the manuscript. All other Authors have contributed to data collection and interpretation, and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

  • This article is freely accessible online.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    None to be declared.

  • Received December 11, 2019.
  • Revision received January 21, 2020.
  • Accepted January 24, 2020.
  • Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by the International Institute of Anticancer Research.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Bruix J,
    2. Llovet JM
    : Major achievements in hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet 373(9664): 614-616, 2009. PMID: 19231618. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60381-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. El-Serag HB
    : Hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 365(12): 1118-1127, 2011. PMID: 21992124. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1001683
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Lacaze L,
    2. Scotte M
    : Surgical treatment of intra hepatic recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Hepatol 7(13): 1755-1760, 2015. PMID: 26167248. DOI: 10.4254/wjh.v7.i13.1755
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Matsuda M,
    2. Fujii H,
    3. Kono H,
    4. Matsumoto Y
    : Surgical treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma based on the mode of recurrence: Repeat hepatic resection or ablation are good choices for patients with recurrent multicentric cancer. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 8(4): 353-359, 2001. PMID: 11521181. DOI: 10.1007/s0053410080353
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Mizokami M,
    2. Yokosuka O,
    3. Takehara T,
    4. Sakamoto N,
    5. Korenaga M,
    6. Mochizuki H,
    7. Nakane K,
    8. Enomoto H,
    9. Ikeda F,
    10. Yanase M,
    11. Toyoda H,
    12. Genda T,
    13. Umemura T,
    14. Yatsuhashi H,
    15. Ide T,
    16. Toda N,
    17. Nirei K,
    18. Ueno Y,
    19. Nishigaki Y,
    20. Betular J,
    21. Gao B,
    22. Ishizaki A,
    23. Omote M,
    24. Mo H,
    25. Garrison K,
    26. Pang PS,
    27. Knox SJ,
    28. Symonds WT,
    29. McHutchison JG,
    30. Izumi N,
    31. Omata M
    : Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir fixed-dose combination with and without ribavirin for 12 weeks in treatment-naive and previously treated japanese patients with genotype 1 hepatitis c: An open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Infect Dis 15(6): 645-653, 2015. PMID: 25863559. DOI: 10.1016/s1473-3099(15)70099-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Omata M,
    2. Nishiguchi S,
    3. Ueno Y,
    4. Mochizuki H,
    5. Izumi N,
    6. Ikeda F,
    7. Toyoda H,
    8. Yokosuka O,
    9. Nirei K,
    10. Genda T,
    11. Umemura T,
    12. Takehara T,
    13. Sakamoto N,
    14. Nishigaki Y,
    15. Nakane K,
    16. Toda N,
    17. Ide T,
    18. Yanase M,
    19. Hino K,
    20. Gao B,
    21. Garrison KL,
    22. Dvory-Sobol H,
    23. Ishizaki A,
    24. Omote M,
    25. Brainard D,
    26. Knox S,
    27. Symonds WT,
    28. McHutchison JG,
    29. Yatsuhashi H,
    30. Mizokami M
    : Sofosbuvir plus ribavirin in japanese patients with chronic genotype 2 hcv infection: An open-label, phase 3 trial. J Viral Hepat 21(11): 762-768, 2014. PMID: 25196837. DOI: 10.1111/jvh.12312
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Roche B,
    2. Coilly A,
    3. Duclos-Vallee JC,
    4. Samuel D
    : The impact of treatment of hepatitis c with daas on the occurrence of hcc. Liver Int 38 Suppl 1: 139-145, 2018. PMID: 29427487. DOI: 10.1111/liv.13659
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Crocetti L,
    2. Bargellini I,
    3. Cioni R
    : Loco-regional treatment of hcc: Current status. Clin Radiol 72(8): 626-635, 2017. PMID: 28258743. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2017.01.013
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Yamao T,
    2. Imai K,
    3. Yamashita YI,
    4. Kaida T,
    5. Nakagawa S,
    6. Mima K,
    7. Hashimoto D,
    8. Chikamoto A,
    9. Ishiko T,
    10. Baba H
    : Surgical treatment strategy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with impaired liver function: Hepatic resection or radiofrequency ablation? HPB (Oxford) 20(3): 244-250, 2018. PMID: 28988913. DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2017.08.031
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Kokudo N,
    2. Hasegawa K,
    3. Akahane M,
    4. Igaki H,
    5. Izumi N,
    6. Ichida T,
    7. Uemoto S,
    8. Kaneko S,
    9. Kawasaki S,
    10. Ku Y,
    11. Kudo M,
    12. Kubo S,
    13. Takayama T,
    14. Tateishi R,
    15. Fukuda T,
    16. Matsui O,
    17. Matsuyama Y,
    18. Murakami T,
    19. Arii S,
    20. Okazaki M,
    21. Makuuchi M
    : Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma: The japan society of hepatology 2013 update (3rd jsh-hcc guidelines). Hepatol Res 45(2), 2015. PMID: 25625806. DOI: 10.1111/hepr.12464
  11. ↵
    1. Feng K,
    2. Yan J,
    3. Li X,
    4. Xia F,
    5. Ma K,
    6. Wang S,
    7. Bie P,
    8. Dong J
    : A randomized controlled trial of radiofrequency ablation and surgical resection in the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 57(4): 794-802, 2012. PMID: 22634125. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2012.05.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Erridge S,
    2. Pucher PH,
    3. Markar SR,
    4. Malietzis G,
    5. Athanasiou T,
    6. Darzi A,
    7. Sodergren MH,
    8. Jiao LR
    : Meta-analysis of determinants of survival following treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Surg 104(11): 1433-1442, 2017. PMID: 28628947. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10597
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Tabrizian P,
    2. Jibara G,
    3. Shrager B,
    4. Schwartz M,
    5. Roayaie S
    : Recurrence of hepatocellular cancer after resection: Patterns, treatments, and prognosis. Ann Surg 261(5): 947-955, 2015. PMID: 25010665. DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000000710
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    World medical association declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 310(20): 2191-2194, 2013. PMID: 24141714. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Mazzaferro V,
    2. Regalia E,
    3. Doci R,
    4. Andreola S,
    5. Pulvirenti A,
    6. Bozzetti F,
    7. Montalto F,
    8. Ammatuna M,
    9. Morabito A,
    10. Gennari L
    : Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med 334(11): 693-699, 1996. PMID: 8594428. DOI: 10.1056/nejm199603 143341104
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Todo S,
    2. Furukawa H
    : Living donor liver transplantation for adult patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Experience in japan. Ann Surg 240(3): 451-459; discussion 459-461, 2004. PMID: 15319716. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000137129.98894.42
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Kanda Y
    : Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant 48(3): 452-458, 2013. PMID: 23208313. DOI: 10.1038/bmt. 2012.244
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Saito R,
    2. Amemiya H,
    3. Hosomura N,
    4. Kawaida H,
    5. Maruyama S,
    6. Shimizu H,
    7. Furuya S,
    8. Akaike H,
    9. Kawaguchi Y,
    10. Sudo M,
    11. Inoue S,
    12. Kono H,
    13. Ichikawa D
    : Prognostic factors for post-recurrent survival in hepatocellular carcinoma after curative resection. Anticancer Res 39(6): 3033-3038, 2019. PMID: 31177145. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13436
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Xu XL,
    2. Liu XD,
    3. Liang M,
    4. Luo BM
    : Radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for small hepatocellular carcinoma: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Radiology 287(2): 461-472, 2018. PMID: 29135366. DOI: 10.1148/radiol. 2017162756
    OpenUrl
    1. Ng KKC,
    2. Chok KSH,
    3. Chan ACY,
    4. Cheung TT,
    5. Wong TCL,
    6. Fung JYY,
    7. Yuen J,
    8. Poon RTP,
    9. Fan ST,
    10. Lo CM
    : Randomized clinical trial of hepatic resection versus radiofrequency ablation for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Surg 104(13): 1775-1784, 2017. PMID: 29091283. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10677
    OpenUrl
    1. Yang DJ,
    2. Luo KL,
    3. Liu H,
    4. Cai B,
    5. Tao GQ,
    6. Su XF,
    7. Hou XJ,
    8. Ye F,
    9. Li XY,
    10. Tian ZQ
    : Meta-analysis of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization plus radiofrequency ablation versus transcatheter arterial chemoembolization alone for hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncotarget 8(2): 2960-2970, 2017. PMID: 27936465. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.13813
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Hasegawa K,
    2. Kokudo N,
    3. Makuuchi M,
    4. Izumi N,
    5. Ichida T,
    6. Kudo M,
    7. Ku Y,
    8. Sakamoto M,
    9. Nakashima O,
    10. Matsui O,
    11. Matsuyama Y
    : Comparison of resection and ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: A cohort study based on a japanese nationwide survey. J Hepatol 58(4): 724-729, 2013. PMID: 23178708. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2012.11.009
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Hasegawa K,
    2. Kokudo N,
    3. Shiina S,
    4. Tateishi R,
    5. Makuuchi M
    : Surgery versus radiofrequency ablation for small hepatocellular carcinoma: Start of a randomized controlled trial (surf trial). Hepatol Res 40(8): 851-852, 2010. PMID: 20649823. DOI: 10.1111/j.1872-034X.2010.00696.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Izumi N,
    2. Hasegawa K,
    3. Nishioka Y,
    4. Takayama T,
    5. Yamanaka N,
    6. Kudo M,
    7. Shimada M,
    8. Inomata M,
    9. Kaneko S,
    10. Baba H,
    11. Koike K,
    12. Omata M,
    13. Makuuchi M,
    14. Matsuyama Y,
    15. Kokudo N
    : A multicenter randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of surgery vs. radiofrequency ablation for small hepatocellular carcinoma (SURF trial). J Clin Oncol 37(15): 4002, 2019. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.4002
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

In Vivo
Vol. 34, Issue 3
May-June 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on In Vivo.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Prognostic Significance of Treatment Strategies for the Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinomas After Radical Resection
(Your Name) has sent you a message from In Vivo
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the In Vivo web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 1 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Prognostic Significance of Treatment Strategies for the Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinomas After Radical Resection
RYO SAITO, HIDETAKE AMEMIYA, NAOHIRO HOSOMURA, HIROMICHI KAWAIDA, SUGURU MARUYAMA, HIROKI SHIMIZU, SHINJI FURUYA, HIDENORI AKAIKE, YOSHIHIKO KAWAGUCHI, MAKOTO SUDO, SHINGO INOUE, HIROSHI KONO, DAIDUKE ICHIKAWA
In Vivo May 2020, 34 (3) 1265-1270; DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11900

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Prognostic Significance of Treatment Strategies for the Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinomas After Radical Resection
RYO SAITO, HIDETAKE AMEMIYA, NAOHIRO HOSOMURA, HIROMICHI KAWAIDA, SUGURU MARUYAMA, HIROKI SHIMIZU, SHINJI FURUYA, HIDENORI AKAIKE, YOSHIHIKO KAWAGUCHI, MAKOTO SUDO, SHINGO INOUE, HIROSHI KONO, DAIDUKE ICHIKAWA
In Vivo May 2020, 34 (3) 1265-1270; DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11900
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

  • Outcomes and Prognostic Analysis of Surgical Resection for Oligometastasis from Hepatocellular Carcinoma
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Observational Study on the Effectiveness of L-Arginine Plus Vitamin C in the Management of Cancer-related Fatigue
  • Signal Detection Analysis of Hypnotic-induced Respiratory Depression
  • Development and Validation of an EHR-based Algorithm for Identifying Pneumocystis jirovecii Pneumonia
Show more Clinical Studies

Keywords

  • hepatocellular carcinoma
  • recurrence
  • hepatectomy
In Vivo

© 2026 In Vivo

Powered by HighWire