Modern surgical approach to hepatocellular carcinoma

We are glad to contribute with an editorial on the important topic of therapeutic opportunities for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The increasing diffusion of minimally invasive approaches to the liver and the growing experience worldwide have progressively changed our curative strategies for patients affected by primary and metastatic liver tumors (1). The pillars of this evolution in the field of surgical treatment for liver neoplasms are technical, anatomical and physiological. From a technical standpoint, minimally invasive approaches to the liver have switched the visualization of the organ from the anterior to the caudal view (2), modifying the resection planes, the transection technique and the vascular control. This is closely linked to the anatomical aspect of the innovation: in fact, thanks to the magnified vision and the different surgical perspective, novel techniques like Glissonian pedicle-based resections are currently spreading as part of a parenchyma-sparing concept. Lastly, we reached a deeper knowledge of liver function with specific regard to the future liver remnant (FLR) after major liver resection, including the functional reserve of cirrhotic patients and the role of portal pressure, affecting post-operative outcomes and risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure. In other words, the attention is currently mostly focused on the remaining liver rather than on the disease to treat. Consistently, the latest Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system update in 2022 opened to a comprehensive evaluation of the liver function, including the role of portal hypertension and functionality of the FLR in the therapeutic algorithm (3). Minimally invasive surgery, either laparoscopic or robotic, has a relevant role in this specific setting thanks to the preservation of porto-systemic shunts, reduction of liver decompensation and lower impact on the abdominal wall (4).

Zhu and colleagues recently reported a prospective study with propensity score matched (PSM) analysis comparing patients that underwent either minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robotic) or open liver resection in patients affected by HCC stage 0–A according to BCLC (5). In an 18-month interval, 369 HCC patients were enrolled and after PSM, 168 patients were matched, accounting for 56 patients in each group. Patients aged 14 to 75 years, with no history of other malignant diseases, and no previous treatment for HCC before liver resection were included. It is interesting to mention that the choice of the surgical technique (open or minimally invasive) was based on the patient’s wish after discussion with the operating surgeon. Short-terms results confirmed the trend in literature of slightly but significantly longer operative time in the minimally invasive groups compared to open surgery, nonetheless post-operative stay was significantly shorter in the robotic and laparoscopic group. Of note, 5 patients in the robotic group were converted to open due to uncontrollable bleeding in three cases, intraoperative tumor rupture in one case, and inability to proceed the last one. Regarding oncological accuracy of the minimally invasive approach, Authors reported 5-year overall survival (OS) rates of 78.6%, 76.8%, and 74.4% for open liver resection (OLR), laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), and robot-assisted liver resection (RALR), respectively, and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates of 57.9%, 51.3%, and 51.8%, respectively, with no statistically significant differences. Interestingly, they reported that tumor diameter (≥5 cm), clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), α-fetoprotein (AFP) level (≥400 ng/mL), and Edmondson-Steiner grading (III + IV) have a negative effect on 5-year OS on univariate analysis, while CSPH, AFP level >400 ng/mL and tumor grading are independent risk factors of poor long-term survival. Actually, this is consistent with the observations coming from the field of liver transplantation, showing that biological criteria as AFP fluctuations, response to locoregional treatments and tumor grading can accurately predict the risk of recurrence (6).

This study confirms the importance of expanding the indications to laparoscopic and robotic approaches, that convey not only the well-known advantages of minimally invasive surgery, but also equal oncological success and potential advantages in patients with CSPH. Nonetheless we believe that the need for randomized controlled trials can be actually mitigated since the evidence on the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive liver resections are so solid that we cannot ethically consider an open resection whenever a minimally invasive approach is available. The use of difficulty scales may help centers to stratify the procedures according to the proficiency of each surgeon in the team, in order to offer to all patients the best outcome possible (7). We are nowadays experiencing a growth of laparoscopic and robotic experience worldwide, leading to more and more complex cases performed with a minimally invasive approach, including donor hepatectomy, reconstructive surgery, and liver transplantation as well (8-10). Moreover, robotic surgery proved his effectiveness also as a bridging strategy in patients candidate to liver transplantation, compared to other strategies (11,12). HCC presents with specific challenges due to the natural history of the disease and the frequent association with liver cirrhosis. Both Eastern and Western series have demonstrated the non-inferiority of robotic approach compared to open controls in terms of both short- and long-term outcomes (13,14). Thanks to those evidence is now clear that robotic and laparoscopic resections for HCC are as safe as the standard open approach when performed in expert and high volume centers, where surgeons completed the learning curve of both open and minimally invasive procedures. The community of hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgeons should contribute to a collective effort to offer patients the best treatment, improving surgical education programs and referring patients to high volume centers.

Given the equipoise of the technical approaches, it remains the issues of indication, timing and benefit between liver resection and liver transplantation under the light of modern transplant oncology conception (15). A tumor biology-guided approach should be pursued including a multidimensional evaluation of each case, balancing all the available strategies, including advanced downstaging with combined surgery, radiology and check-point inhibitors agents, and considering living donation as a valuable tool to match the perfect timing for liver transplantation.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Modena Academy for Robotic and Transplant Surgery Foundation for support of clinical research.

Funding: None.

Footnote

Provenance and Peer Review: This article was commissioned by the editorial office, Hepatobiliary Surgery and Nutrition. The article did not undergo external peer review.

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://hbsn.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/hbsn-23-535/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are 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.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Abu Hilal M, Aldrighetti L, Dagher I, et al. The Southampton Consensus Guidelines for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery: From Indication to Implementation. Ann Surg 2018;268:11-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Ogiso S, Nomi T, Araki K, et al. Laparoscopy-Specific Surgical Concepts for Hepatectomy Based on the Laparoscopic Caudal View: A Key to Reboot Surgeons' Minds. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:S327-33. [Crossref] [PubMed]
3. Reig M, Forner A, Rimola J, et al. BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update. J Hepatol 2022;76:681-93. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Coelho FF, Herman P, Kruger JAP, et al. Impact of liver cirrhosis, the severity of cirrhosis, and portal hypertension on the outcomes of minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies for primary liver malignancies. Surgery 2023;174:581-92. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Zhu P, Liao W, Zhang WG, et al. A Prospective Study Using Propensity Score Matching to Compare Long-term Survival Outcomes After Robotic-assisted, Laparoscopic, or Open Liver Resection for Patients With BCLC Stage 0-A Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Ann Surg 2023;277:e103-11. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Notarpaolo A, Layese R, Magistri P, et al. Validation of the AFP model as a predictor of HCC recurrence in patients with viral hepatitis-related cirrhosis who had received a liver transplant for HCC. J Hepatol 2017;66:552-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Luberice K, Sucandy I, Modasi A, et al. Applying IWATE criteria to robotic hepatectomy: is there a "robotic effect"? HPB (Oxford) 2021;23:899-906. [Crossref] [PubMed]
8. Magistri P, Pang NQ, Guidetti C, et al. Robotic approach for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: from Bismuth 1 to vascular resection. Eur J Surg Oncol 2023;49:107002. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Cherqui D, Ciria R, Kwon CHD, et al. Expert Consensus Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Donor Hepatectomy for Living Donor Liver Transplantation From Innovation to Implementation: A Joint Initiative From the International Laparoscopic Liver Society (ILLS) and the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (A-PHPBA). Ann Surg 2021;273:96-108. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Lee KW, Choi Y, Hong SK, et al. Laparoscopic donor and recipient hepatectomy followed by robot-assisted liver graft implantation in living donor liver transplantation. Am J Transplant 2022;22:1230-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Magistri P, Olivieri T, Assirati G, et al. Robotic Liver Resection Expands the Opportunities of Bridging Before Liver Transplantation. Liver Transpl 2019;25:1110-2. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Magistri P, Catellani B, Frassoni S, et al. Robotic Liver Resection Versus Percutaneous Ablation for Early HCC: Short- and Long-Term Results. Cancers (Basel) 2020;12:3578. [Crossref] [PubMed]
13. Chen PD, Wu CY, Hu RH, et al. Robotic Versus Open Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Matched Comparison. Ann Surg Oncol 2017;24:1021-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
14. Di Benedetto F, Magistri P, Di Sandro S, et al. Safety and Efficacy of Robotic vs Open Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. JAMA Surg 2023;158:46-54. [Crossref] [PubMed]
15. Di Sandro S, Sposito C, Ravaioli M, et al. Surgical Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Multicenter Competing-risk Analysis of Tumor-related Death Following Liver Resection and Transplantation Under an Intention-to-treat Perspective. Transplantation 2023;107:1965-75. [Crossref] [PubMed]