Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Surg Endosc ; 37(2): 967-976, 2023 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36076103

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has now been established as a safe and minimally invasive technique that is deemed feasible for treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). However, the role of LLR in treating combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC) patients has been rarely reported. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of LLR when compared with open liver resection (OLR) procedure for patients with cHCC-CC. METHODS: A total of 229 cHCC-CC patients who underwent hepatic resection (34 LLR and 195 OLR patients) from January 2014 to December 2018 in Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University were enrolled and underwent a 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis between the LLR and OLR groups to compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) parameters were assessed by the log-rank test and the sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: A total of 34 LLR and 68 OLR patients were included after PSM analysis. The LLR group displayed a shorter postoperative hospital stay (6.61 vs. 8.26 days; p value < 0.001) when compared with the OLR group. No significant differences were observed in the postoperative complications' incidence or a negative surgical margin rate between the two groups (p value = 0.409 and p value = 1.000, respectively). The aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and inflammatory indicators in the LLR group were significantly lower than those in the OLR group on the first and third postoperative days. Additionally, OS and RFS were comparable in both the LLR and OLR groups (p value = 0.700 and p value = 0.780, respectively), and similar results were obtained by conducting a sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: LLR can impart less liver function damage, better inflammatory response attenuation contributing to a faster recovery, and parallel oncologic outcomes when compared with OLR. Therefore, LLR can be recommended as a safe and effective therapeutic modality for treating selected cHCC-CC patients, especially for those with small tumors in favorable location.


Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Hepatocellular , Laparoscopy , Liver Neoplasms , Humans , Carcinoma, Hepatocellular/surgery , Liver Neoplasms/surgery , Propensity Score , Retrospective Studies , Hepatectomy/methods , Laparoscopy/methods , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Length of Stay
2.
Diagnostics (Basel) ; 11(4)2021 Mar 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33805513

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is a highly malignant cancer. More than 70% of patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of plasma miR-21, miR-122, and CA19-9, hoping to establish a novel model to improve the accuracy for diagnosing iCCA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Plasma miR-21 and miR-122 were detected in 359 iCCA patients and 642 controls (healthy, benign liver lesions, other malignant liver tumors). All 1001 samples were allocated to training cohort (n = 668) and validation cohort (n = 333) in a chronological order. A logistic regression model was applied to combine these markers. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used as an accuracy index to evaluate the diagnostic performance. RESULTS: Plasma miR-21 and miR-122 were significantly higher in iCCA patients than those in controls. Higher plasma miR-21 level was significantly correlated with larger tumor size (p = 0.030). A three-marker model was constructed by using miR-21, miR-122 and CA19-9, which showed an AUC of 0.853 (95% CI: 0.824-0.879; sensitivity: 73.0%, specificity: 87.4%) to differentiate iCCA from controls. These results were subsequently confirmed in the validation cohort with an AUC of 0.866 (0.825-0.901). The results were similar for diagnosing early (stages 0-I) iCCA patients (AUC: 0.848) and CA19-9negative iCCA patients (AUC: 0.795). CONCLUSIONS: We established a novel three-marker model with a high accuracy based on a large number of participants to differentiate iCCA from controls. This model showed a great clinical value especially for the diagnosis of early iCCA and CA19-9negative iCCA.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...