Table 4.

Differences between local treatment performed by the local surgeon versus the proposed plan by the panel chair

		N = 141
Different strategies of local resection/ablation		26 (18.4%)
Different strategies of local resection/ablation + HH		9 (6.4%)
Different strategies of two-stage local resection/ablation + HH		18 (12.8%)
Performed by local surgeon	Proposed by panel chair
HH ± local resection/ablation	Local resection/ablation	9 (6.4%)
Local resection/ablation	HH ± local resection/ablation	31 (22.0%)
Two-stage local resection/ablation + HH	Local resection/ablation	8 (5.7%)
Local resection/ablation	Two-stage local resection/ablation + HH	18 (12.8%)
Two-stage local resection/ablation + HH	HH ± local resection/ablation	13 (9.2%)
HH ± local resection/ablation	Two-stage local resection/ablation + HH	4 (2.8%)
Three-stage	Two-stage	2 (1.4%)
Two-stage local resection/ablation	Local resection/ablation	1 (0.7%)
Two-stage local resection/ablation	HH ± local resection/ablation	1 (0.7%)
Two-stage local resection/ablation	Two-stage local resection/ablation + HH	1 (0.7%)

‘Different strategies of local resection/ablation’ includes all possible combinations of wedge resections, segmental resections, and ablation (e.g., the panel proposed a wedge resection and the local surgeon performed a segmental resection). The second and third categories are similar to the first category, but these also include a (two-stage) hemihepatecomy. HH = hemihepatectomy; Local resection = wedge resection and/or segmental resection