Format

Send to

Choose Destination
PLoS One. 2016 May 13;11(5):e0155588. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155588. eCollection 2016.

Solitary Large Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Staging and Treatment Strategy.

Liu PH1,2, Su CW1,2, Hsu CY2,3, Hsia CY4,2, Lee YH1,2, Huang YH1,5, Lee RC6,2, Lin HC1,2, Huo TI1,2,7.

Author information

1
Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
2
Faculty of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University School of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan.
3
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Nevada School of Medicine, Reno, Nevada, United States of America.
4
Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
5
Institute of Clinical Medicine, National Yang-Ming University School of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan.
6
Department of Radiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
7
Institute of Pharmacology, National Yang-Ming University School of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan.

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS:

Controversies exist on staging and management of solitary large (>5 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aims to evaluate the impact of tumor size on Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging and treatment strategy.

METHODS:

BCLC stage A and B patients were included and re-classified as single tumor 2-5 cm or up to 3 tumors ≤3 cm (group A; n = 657), single tumor >5 cm (group SL; n = 224), and multiple tumors >3 cm (group B; n = 351). Alternatively, 240 and 229 patients with solitary large HCC regardless of tumor stage received surgical resection (SR) and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), respectively. The propensity score analysis identified 156 pairs of patients from each treatment arm for survival comparison.

RESULTS:

The survival was significantly higher for group A but was comparable between group SL and group B patients. Of patients with solitary large HCC, the 1-, 3- and 5-year survival rates were 88% versus 74%, 76% versus 44%, and 63% versus 35% between SR and TACE group, respectively (p<0.001). When baseline demographics were adjusted in the propensity model, the respective 1-, 3- and 5-year survival rates were 87% versus 79%, 76% versus 46%, and 61% versus 36% (p<0.001). The Cox proportional hazards model identified TACE with a 2.765-fold increased risk of mortality compared with SR (95% confidence interval: 1.853-4.127, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS:

Patients with solitary large HCC should be classified at least as intermediate stage HCC. SR provides significantly better survival than TACE for solitary large HCC regardless of tumor stage. Further amendment to the BCLC classification is mandatory.

PMID:
27176037
PMCID:
PMC4866714
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0155588
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Public Library of Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center