Abstract
Background and Aims
Conflicting results are often observed in the prognosis of patients with ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC), and there are currently very few studies on the long-term postoperative outcomes of ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma patients. This study aimed to distinguish between the postoperative prognosis of rHCC patients with cirrhosis (rHCC-C) and those without cirrhosis (rHCC-NC) using some serum markers.
Methods
We collected the data of 151 rHCC patients treated at our centers from January 2010 to March 2021. 62 had no cirrhosis, and 89 had cirrhosis. The prognosis of rHCC-C and rHCC-NC groups was compared using the Kaplan-Meier method. We used multivariate Cox regression to analyze prognostic factors in rHCC patients, and subgroup analysis was performed on the two groups of patients.
Results
The long-term prognosis of rHCC-NC patients was better than that of rHCC-C patients. Tumor diameter, Barcelona clinic liver cancer (BCLC) stage, HBsAg, positive Hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibodies, elevated creatinine, and elevated T-bilirubin were prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) in rHCC-C patients. However, only alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) > 92 ng/mL was a prognostic factor for OS in rHCC-NC patients. In noncirrhotic patients, HBsAg positivity was only associated with OS. Similarly, the presence or absence of microvascular invasion (MVI) also had different results in the two groups.
Conclusions
There are differences in serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels, the presence of microvascular invasion (MVI), and HBsAg positivity between rHCC-C and rHCC-NC patients, indicating that the analysis of these prognostic factors may help improve the management of rHCC patients and provide a direction for future treatment options.
1. Introduction
The annual number of new cases of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) worldwide is approximately 800,000, and it is the third most common cause of cancer death. Simultaneous rupture is a complication of HCC, and its prognosis is poor [1–3]. The proportion of spontaneous rupture of HCC varies among regions and is higher in Asia and Africa. In Asia, 10% of annual deaths because of HCC are in patients with ruptured HCC. According to certain studies, the acute phase of rHCC leads to a mortality rate as high as 25% to 75% [4, 5].
Cirrhosis is the basis of HCC in 70% to 80% of the cases worldwide [6, 7]. Almost all patients who develop liver cancer from cirrhosis have chronic necrosis, which shows that chronic necrotizing inflammation plays a vital role in the development of HCC. The currently known etiologies of HCC are mainly HBV or HCV infection, and a history of alcohol consumption. In the Western world, it has been found that almost all HCC patients have a history of HBV, HCV, or alcohol consumption [8–10]. In Asian countries, it is mainly associated with HBV infection. However, the proportion of HBsAg positivity in cirrhotic and noncirrhotic rHCC patients is not clear.
It is essential to identify some tumor-related factors and markers to predict the postoperative prognosis of patients with rHCC. Among the reported factors associated with postoperative prognosis of rHCC, tumor length ≥10 cm and lack of tumor encapsulation were the only independent prognostic factors for poor OS and recurrence-free survival (RFS). However, the role of other factors, such as age, gender, and preoperative serum alpha-fetoprotein has not been discussed in previous studies [11–13]. Unfortunately, although many studies have shown that cirrhosis is an important factor in the process of tumorigenesis, we found that in previous prognostic studies, investigators only studied rHCC patients with cirrhosis alone [14–17] or rHCC patients without cirrhosis alone [18] after comprehensively searching the available literature. In our study, we first grouped the patients with rHCC according to the presence or absence of cirrhosis and then performed a subgroup analysis of patients with or without cirrhosis.
Usually, researchers will select certain disease biomarkers or pathological factors to predict the prognosis of patients with rHCC. Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) is a glycoprotein that belongs to the albumin family. It is a significant tumor marker. At present, AFP is mainly used as a serum marker for the diagnosis and treatment efficacy monitoring of primary liver cancer in clinical practice [19, 20]. High AFP is associated with poor prognosis in patients with many solid tumors. However, the cutoff point and the prognostic value of AFP in patients with rHCC are uncertain [21, 22]. Microvascular invasion (MVI) status has been reported to help clinicians determine treatment plans. The presence or absence of MVI is usually reported in postoperative pathology, and when MVI is positive, it indicates that the patient's prognosis may be poor and there is a risk of recurrence [23]. Some investigators use certain indicators to predict MVI preoperatively to manage the patient better [24–26]. In patients with rHCC, it is also an important factor in predicting prognosis, however, no study has analyzed the predictive value of MVI between cirrhosis and noncirrhosis groups [23, 26–28]. There are contradictions in the reported effect of positive or negative HBsAg on HCC, with most studies suggesting that positive HBsAg is an independent factor for a poor prognosis of HCC. In contrast, some studies suggest that HBsAg positivity has no significant impact on the prognosis of HCC patients [29–32]. According to some recent guidelines, antiviral therapy is still necessary for HBsAg-positive patients [33]. At present, it is still controversial whether positive serum HBsAg affects the prognosis of HCC patients.
This study assessed clinicopathological and prognostic differences in ruptured HCC patients with or without cirrhosis. We retrospectively collected the information of 151 patients who had hepatectomy for rHCC at our institution during a period of 11 years. All postoperative rHCC patients were divided into cirrhosis and noncirrhosis groups, and the prognoses of the two groups were analyzed. The effects of AFP, MVI, and HBsAg on rHCC recurrence-free survival and overall survival were assessed in rHCC-C and rHCC-NC. Our present hypothesis is that there is a difference between these two groups.
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Patients
Data for 151 patients who had hepatectomy in our hospital from January 2010 to March 2021 because of the spontaneous rupture of hepatocellular carcinoma were extracted from the Department of Hepatic Surgery, Tongji Hospital, Wuhan (Figure 1). Experienced liver surgeons performed all liver procedures. The variables obtained included patient gender, age, longest tumor diameter, the number of tumors, the presence of portal hypertension, the presence of tumor microvascular invasion, BCLC stage of the tumor, the pathological differentiation of tumor, preoperative AFP, preoperative ALP, preoperative AST, preoperative ALT, and presence of necrosis. Experienced radiologists determined tumor rupture using enhanced CT scanning and abdominal MRI. Experienced pathologists confirmed the HCC diagnosis in our hospital. We defined the inclusion criteria for patients as follows: [1] pathologically confirmed hepatocellular carcinoma [2], single tumor, and [3] Child-Pugh grade A or B. The exclusion criteria were as follows: [1] the pathological diagnosis was not HCC [2], positive surgical margins [3], presence of lymph node metastasis [4], macrovascular invasion [5], patients with recurrence and reresection, and [7] incomplete follow-up information and clinical data. Our research was authorized by the Ethics Committee of Wuhan Tongji Hospital (TJ-IRB20210205), and patients who signed the informed consent form were included in the study (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Flow chart about patients' selection.
2.2. Definitions
Cirrhosis is a common chronic progressive liver disease formed by the repeated action of one or more etiologies on the liver. Preoperative abdominal ultrasonography was performed to assess the presence of cirrhosis in the patients included in this study, and two experienced pathologists determined the presence of cirrhosis based on the pathological characteristics of postoperative liver specimens. Ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma surgery is generally completed one week after admission, and the levels of various serum parameters are measured at admission. For the optimal cutoff value of AFP, the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) curve for predicting recurrence after hepatectomy was drawn, and the sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Finally, the Youden index was calculated to find the corresponding value with the largest Youden index, AFP = 92 ng/mL(Figure 2).
Figure 2.
(a) Distribution of patients based on different AFP cut-offs, presented as a histogram. AFP: alpha-fetoprotein. (b) Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for predicting HCC recurrence after ruptured liver cancer surgery based on various AFP cut-off values. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of (c). AFP for predicting HCC recurrence after ruptured liver cancer surgery.
2.3. Follow-Up
According to the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) guidelines (33), we administer antiviral therapy (antiviral therapy mainly includes two types: subcutaneous PegIFNα, or oral entecavir (ETV), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)). All patients with rHCC had follow-up visits every quarter in the first year and every half year in the second year after the operation. During each follow-up, the liver and kidney functions, routine blood tests, blood biochemistry, and medical imaging, including abdominal enhanced CT, were performed to determine tumor recurrence. If the possibility of recurrence was suspected, further abdominal MRI, and sometimes, PET-CT would be performed. For patients with recurrence, retreatment options include surgical reresection, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE), and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). The overall survival (OS) was defined as the time interval from the first day after surgery to the date of death or last follow-up. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was defined as the time interval from the first day after surgery to the discovery of a neoplasm in the liver or other sites, or the date of the last follow-up for those without recurrence.
2.4. Data Analysis and Expression
Continuous data satisfying a normal distribution were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (M ± SD) and compared using the independent sample t-test. Continuous data that were not normally distributed were expressed using the median sum (25% and 75%) (Q1–Q3) and compared by the Mann–Whitney test. Categorical data were expressed as numbers and proportions and compared by the chi-squared test, Yates correction, or Fisher's exact test. Cumulative OS and RFS rates were estimated by plotting survival curves using the Kaplan–Meier method. OS/RFS (overall survival or recurrence-free rate), expressed as S (tk), refers to the probability of survival or nonrecurrence after tk unit time. If there is no deletion data, it refers to the number of cases still alive at Tk moment/the total number of cases at the beginning of observation. If there is missing data, the denominator needs to be corrected on time, and the K-M method for survival rate at this time is calculated as S (tk) = P (T > tk) = p1 ∗ p2 ∗ … pk, and the curves were compared using the log-rank test. Multivariate cox regression models were performed to identify the predictors of OS and RFS using the forward method. Significant variables (p < 0.1) in the univariate analysis were included in the Cox model. In this study, ROC was used to compare different variables' predictive discrimination and clinical utility.
Kaplan–Meier or multivariate analyses were performed using SPSS 25.0 software (IBM, Armonk, New York, USA) and R software (version 4.0.5, version 4.0.5, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). P values <0.05 (both sides) were considered statistically significant. The calculation of sample size had been performed by PASS (Version: 11.0) before the study was conducted.
3. Results
3.1. Patient Characteristics
151 patients with ruptured HCC were included in our study (Figure 1). The demographic and essential characteristics of the patients are shown in Table 1. Among them, 62 patients (41.1%) did not have cirrhosis, and 59 patients (58.9%) had cirrhosis. There were 133 males (88.1%) and 18 females (11.9%), and the mean age was 46.4 ± 11.7 years. Among all patients, 129 (85.4%) had no MVI, and 22 (14.6%) had MVI. 125 (82.8%) were HBsAg-positive, and 26 (17.2%) were negative. Among the patients with liver cirrhosis, 72 (80.9%) had no MVI, and 17 (19.1%) had MVI. 87 (97.8%) were HBsAg-positive, and 2 (2.2%) were HBsAg-negative. Among the patients without liver cirrhosis, 57 (91.1%) had no MVI, and 5 (8.1%) had MVI. 38 (61.3%) were HBsAg-positive, and 24 (38.7%) were HBsAg-negative. The average tumor diameter for the entire cohort was 7.8 cm (5.2–10.2) (Table 1).
Table 1.
The clinical data of ruptured HCC patients with cirrhosis or without cirrhosis.
| Total | Without cirrhosis | With cirrhosis | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables (%) | n = 151 | n = 62 (41.1) | n = 89 (58.9) | |
| gender (%) | 0.756 | |||
| Male | 133 (88.1) | 54 (87.1) | 79 (88.8) | |
| Female | 18 (11.9) | 8 (12.9) | 10 (11.2) | |
| Age (y) | 46.4 ± 11.7 | 47.0 ± 1.5 | 45.9 ± 1.2 | 0.516 |
| Length (cm) | 7.8 (5.2–10.2) | 7.0 (5.0–10.2) | 7.9 (5.9–10.2) | 0.295 |
| Number (%) | 0.857 | |||
| Single | 118 (78.1) | 48 (77.4) | 70 (78.7) | |
| Multiple | 33 (21.9) | 14 (22.6) | 19 (21.3) | |
| MVI (%) | 0.049 | |||
| No | 129 (85.4) | 57 (91.1) | 72 (80.9) | |
| Yes | 22 (14.6) | 5 (8.1) | 17 (19.1) | |
| Regular excision (%) | 0.17 | |||
| No | 113 (74.8) | 50 (80.6) | 63 (70.8) | |
| Yes | 38 (25.2) | 12 (19.4) | 26 (29.2) | |
| BCLC (%) | 0.055 | |||
| A | 88 (58.3) | 39 (62.9) | 49 (55.1) | |
| B | 31 (20.5) | 16 (25.8) | 15 (16.9) | |
| C | 32 (21.1) | 7 (11.3) | 25 (28.1) | |
| Edmondson-Steiner (%) | 0.001 | |||
| 1 | 17 (11.3) | 13 (21.0) | 4 (4.5) | |
| 2 | 69 (45.7) | 32 (51.6) | 37 (41.6) | |
| 3 | 38 (25.2) | 9 (14.5) | 29 (32.6) | |
| 4 | 27 (17.9) | 8 (12.9) | 19 (21.3) | |
| AFP (ng/ml) | 0.309 | |||
| ≤92 | 49 (32.5) | 23 (37.1) | 26 (29.2) | |
| >92 | 102 (67.5) | 39 (62.9) | 63 (70.8) | |
| HBV-DNA (copies/ml) | 7665.0 (578.5–284250.0) | 3300.0 (100.0–32325.0) | 15275.0 (1565.0–343157.5) | 0.04 |
| Necrosis (%) | 0.702 | |||
| No | 112 (74.2) | 47 (75.8) | 65 (73.0) | |
| Yes | 39 (25.8) | 15 (24.2) | 24 (27.0) | |
| Local invasion (%) | 0.085 | |||
| No | 75 (49.7) | 36 (58.1) | 39 (43.8) | |
| Yes | 76 (50.3) | 26 (41.9) | 50 (56.2) | |
| HBsAg (%) | <0.001 | |||
| No | 26 (17.2) | 24 (38.7) | 2 (2.2) | |
| Yes | 125 (82.8) | 38 (61.3) | 87 (97.8) | |
| HCV (%) | 0.362 | |||
| No | 142 (94.0) | 57 (91.1) | 85 (95.5) | |
| Yes | 9 (6.0) | 5 (8.1) | 4 (4.5) | |
| Alcohol history (%) | 0.143 | |||
| No | 114 (75.5) | 43 (69.4) | 71 (79.8) | |
| Yes | 37 (24.5) | 19 (30.6) | 18 (20.2) | |
| ALB (g/L) | 35.2 ± 5.5 | 34.64 ± 6.43 | 35.58 ± 4.72 | 0.303 |
| ALT (U/L) | 29 (21–44) | 25.8 (19.8–41.0) | 31.0 (24.0–51.0) | 0.065 |
| AST (U/L) | 37 (25–65) | 35.5 (22.8–61.3) | 38.0 (29.0–66.0) | 0.095 |
| ALP (U/L) | 80 (61–91) | 80.0 (53.8–53.2) | 80.2 (65.0–95.5) | 0.078 |
| GGT (U/L) | 62 (34.4–91.0) | 61.5 (27.5–73.2) | 62.0 (109.0–36.0) | 0.029 |
| Creatinine (μmol/L) | 68.8 (61.0–78.0) | 66.5 (58.9–76.0) | 70.4 (64.0–79.0) | 0.044 |
| Pre-ALB (g/L) | 141.1 (129.0–172.0) | 144.1 (131.7–180.3) | 135.8 (128.3–168.5) | 0.159 |
| Dbilirubin (μmol/L) | 4.7 (3.5–6.9) | 4.4 (3.3–6.9) | 5.0 (3.6–6.9) | 0.434 |
| Tbilirubin (μmol/L) | 14.9 (11.0–20.0) | 14.9 (11.0–19.8) | 14.7 (11.1–20.7) | 0.89 |
| T-cholesterol (mmol/L) | 3.5 (3.0–4.2) | 3.5 (2.8–4.2) | 3.5 (3.0–4.1) | 0.959 |
AFP: alpha-fetoprotein; MVI: microvascular invasion; BCLC: Barcelona clinic liver cancer; HCV: hepatitis C virus; ALB: albumin; ALT: alanine aminotransferase; AST: aspartate aminotransferase; ALP: alkaline phosphatase; GGT: glutamyl transpeptidase; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma.
3.2. Liver Cirrhosis Affected the Long-Term HCC Patient Prognosis
Cirrhosis affected the long-term prognosis in patients with rHCC, and the median (interquartile range [IQR] (25%–75%)) and mean (interquartile range [IQR] (25%–75%)) RFS at follow-up were 10 (3.46–16.54) months and 44.42 (33.50–55.34) months, respectively, in all patients. The median and mean RFS times were 26.0 and 57.2 months in rHCC-NC patients and 7.0 and 31.7 months in rHCC-C patients (P = 0.015) (Figure 3(a)). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS rates were 51.0%, 46.8%, and 21.3% for HCC-NC patients and 33.0%, 28.1%, 11.1% for rHCC-C patients, respectively (P < 0.05, Figure 3(a)). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 34.0%, 19.2%, and 10.1% for HCC-C patients and 59.0%, 51.2%, and 20.2% for rHCC-NC patients, respectively. The median and mean OS times were 49.0 and 62.9 months for rHCC-NC patients and 14.0 and 30.7 months for rHCC-C patients. In summary, our results indicate that cirrhosis is one of the prognostic factors for poor long-term outcomes after hepatectomy in patients with rHCC (Figure 3(b)).
Figure 3.
RFS (a) and OS (b) in all patients with or without cirrhosis.
Patients without cirrhosis had a hazard ratio of 2.08 (95% confidence interval 1.42–3.33; P < 0.001) for OS and 1.64 (95% confidence interval 1.10–2.50; P = 0.017) for RFS (Figures 3(a) and 3(b)).
3.3. Prognostic Factors for Survival in rHCC Patients
Multivariate regression showed that MVI and AFP were independent predictors of RFS, and tumor length, BCLC stage, HBsAg, and HCV were independent predictors of OS in all rHCC patients with cirrhosis. AFP and D-bilirubin were independent predictors of RFS, and AFP was an independent predictor of OS in all rHCC patients without cirrhosis.
Multivariate analysis was performed for rHCC-C and rHCC-NC. MVI and AFP >92 ng/mL were associated with poor RFS in rHCC-C patients, and AFP >92 ng/mL and high Dbilirubin were associated with poor RFS in rHCC-NC. Long tumor diameter, poor BCLC stage, positive HBsAg, HCV, elevated creatinine, and high T-bilirubin were associated with poor OS in rHCC-C, and AFP >92 ng/mL was associated with poor OS in rHCC-C. In addition, we observed that the HBV-DNA load was much more significant in the cirrhotic group than in the noncirrhotic group (Tables 2–5).
Table 2.
Univariate and multivariate analysis for RFS in rHCC-C.
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P | HR | 95% confidence interval | P | HR | 95% confidence interval | |
| Gender | 0.317 | 0.427 | 0.081–2.260 | |||
| Female/Male | ||||||
| Age (per y) | 0.249 | 0.981 | 0.949–1.014 | |||
| Length (per cm) | 0.118 | 1.102 | 0.976–1.245 | |||
| Number | 0.021 | 2.909 | 1.178–7.184 | |||
| Multiple/single | ||||||
| MVI | 0.057 | 3.128 | 0.967–10.116 | 0.022 | 2.077 | 1.110–3.887 |
| Yes/No | ||||||
| BCLC | 0.357 | 0.754 | 0.413–1.375 | |||
| C/B/A | ||||||
| Edmondson | 0.110 | 1.417 | 0.924–2.175 | |||
| IV/III/II/I | ||||||
| AFP | 0.004 | 4.331 | 1.617–11.601 | <0.001 | 4.957 | 2.090–11.758 |
| >92 ng/ml/≤92 ng/ml | ||||||
| HBV-DNA (per 1) | 0.562 | 1 | 1.000–1.000 | |||
| Necrosis | 0.209 | 0.607 | 0.278–1.323 | |||
| No/Yes | ||||||
| Local invasion | 0.287 | 1.569 | 0.685–3.593 | |||
| Yes/No | ||||||
| HbsAg | 0.459 | 0.363 | 0.025–5.305 | |||
| No/Yes | ||||||
| HCV | 0.476 | 0.51 | 0.080–3.248 | |||
| No/Yes | ||||||
| Alcohol history | 0.948 | 0.974 | 0.437–2.170 | |||
| No/Yes | ||||||
| ALB (per g) | 0.831 | 0.99 | 0.899–1.090 | |||
| ALT (per U) | 0.229 | 1.007 | 0.996–1.017 | |||
| AST (per U) | 0.322 | 0.997 | 0.990–1.003 | |||
| ALP (per U) | 0.917 | 1 | 0.994–1.007 | |||
| GGT (per U) | 0.105 | 1.004 | 0.999–1.008 | |||
| Creatinine (per μmol) | 0.678 | 1.006 | 0.978–1.034 | |||
| Pre-ALB (per g) | 0.365 | 1.004 | 0.995–1.014 | |||
| Dbilirubin (per μmol) | 0.411 | 0.909 | 0.724–1.141 | |||
| Tbilirubin (per μmol) | 0.727 | 1.017 | 0.924–1.120 | |||
| Tcholesterol (per mmol) | 0.745 | 0.945 | 0.670–1.331 | |||
AFP: alpha fetoprotein; MVI: microvascular invasion; BCLC: Barcelona clinic liver cancer; HCV: hepatitis C virus; ALB: albumin; ALT: alanine aminotransferase; AST: aspartate aminotransferase; ALP: alkaline phosphatase; GGT: glutamyl transpeptidase; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma.
Table 3.
Univariate and multivariate analysis for RFS in rHCC-NC.
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P | HR | 95% confidence interval | P | HR | 95% confidence interval | |
| Gender | 0.657 | 1.447 | 0.283–7.401 | |||
| Female/Male | ||||||
| Age (per y) | 0.135 | 1.037 | 0.989–1.088 | |||
| Length (per cm) | 0.368 | 1.086 | 0.908–1.298 | |||
| Number | 0.441 | 1.650 | 0.461–5.901 | |||
| Multiple/Single | ||||||
| MVI | 0.227 | 0.233 | 0.022–2.481 | |||
| Yes/No | ||||||
| BCLC | 0.420 | 1.432 | 0.599–3.425 | |||
| C/B/A | ||||||
| Edmondson | 0.398 | 0.805 | 0.488–1.330 | |||
| IV/III/II/I | ||||||
| AFP | 0.003 | 5.097 | 1.709–15.204 | <0.001 | 4.122 | 1.857–9.146 |
| > 92 ng/ml/≤92 ng/ml | ||||||
| HBV-DNA (per 1) | 0.034 | 1.000 | 1.000–1.000 | |||
| Necrosis | 0.499 | 0.670 | 0.210–2.140 | |||
| No/Yes | ||||||
| Local invasion | 0.412 | 0.607 | 0.184–2.001 | |||
| Yes/No | ||||||
| HbsAg | 0.891 | 0.931 | 0.336–2.583 | |||
| No/Yes | ||||||
| HCV | 0.019 | 11.018 | 1.479–82.099 | |||
| No/Yes | ||||||
| Alcohol history | 0.389 | 1.644 | 0.530–5.102 | |||
| No/Yes | ||||||
| ALB (per g) | 0.360 | 0.967 | 0.899–1.039 | |||
| ALT (per U) | 0.145 | 0.982 | 0.959–1.006 | |||
| AST (per U) | 0.998 | 1.000 | 0.987–1.013 | |||
| ALP (per U) | 0.906 | 0.999 | 0.980–1.018 | |||
| GGT (per U) | 0.918 | 1.001 | 0.984–1.018 | |||
| Creatinine (per μmol) | 0.301 | 0.983 | 0.952–1.015 | |||
| Pre-ALB (per g) | 0.078 | 0.990 | 0.980–1.001 | |||
| Dbilirubin (per μmol) | 0.053 | 1.307 | 0.996–1.715 | 0.035 | 1.132 | 1.009–1.271 |
| Tbilirubin (per μmol) | 0.812 | 0.985 | 0.872–1.114 | |||
| Tcholesterol (per mmol) | 0.134 | 1.097 | 0.972–1.239 | |||
AFP: alpha fetoprotein; MVI: microvascular invasion; BCLC: Barcelona clinic liver cancer; HCV: hepatitis C virus; ALB: albumin; ALT: alanine aminotransferase; AST: aspartate aminotransferase; ALP: alkaline phosphatase; GGT: glutamyl transpeptidase; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma.
Table 4.
Univariate and multivariate analysis for OS in rHCC-C.
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P | HR | 95% confidence interval | P | HR | 95% confidence interval | |
| Gender | 0.652 | 1.260 | 0.462–3.435 | |||
| Female/Male | ||||||
| Age (per y) | 0.206 | 1.018 | 0.990–1.048 | |||
| Length (per cm) | 0.004 | 1.147 | 1.045–1.259 | <0.001 | 1.145 | 1.061–1.236 |
| Number | 0.114 | 1.879 | 0.859–4.112 | |||
| Multiple/Single | ||||||
| MVI | 0.661 | 1.200 | 0.531–2.716 | |||
| Yes/No | ||||||
| BCLC | 0.077 | 1.443 | 0.961–2.168 | <0.001 | 1.515 | 1.188–1.932 |
| C/B/A | ||||||
| Edmondson | 0.507 | 1.133 | 0.784–1.638 | |||
| IV/III/II/I | ||||||
| AFP | 0.253 | 1.430 | 0.774–2.639 | |||
| >92 ng/ml/≤92 ng/ml | ||||||
| HBV-DNA (per 1) | 0.546 | 1.000 | 1.000–1.000 | |||
| Necrosis | 0.019 | 0.426 | 0.209–0.868 | |||
| No/Yes | ||||||
| Local invasion | 0.128 | 1.662 | 0.864–3.199 | |||
| Yes/No | ||||||
| HbsAg | 0.002 | 0.034 | 0.004–0.293 | 0.006 | 0.103 | 0.020–0.529 |
| No/Yes | ||||||
| HCV | 0.018 | 0.145 | 0.029–0.722 | 0.024 | 0.182 | 0.042–0.795 |
| No/Yes | ||||||
| Alcohol history | 0.848 | 1.077 | 0.504–2.302 | |||
| No/Yes | ||||||
| ALB (per g) | 0.120 | 1.060 | 0.985–1.141 | |||
| ALT (per U) | 0.315 | 0.995 | 0.985–1.005 | . | ||
| AST (per U) | 0.230 | 1.004 | 0.998–1.009 | |||
| ALP (per U) | 0.255 | 1.002 | 0.999–1.005 | |||
| GGT (per U) | 0.071 | 0.996 | 0.992–1.000 | |||
| Creatinine (per μmol) | 0.039 | 0.972 | 0.947–0.999 | 0.007 | 0.976 | 0.958–0.993 |
| Pre-ALB (per g) | 0.349 | 0.996 | 0.987–1.005 | |||
| Dbilirubin (per μmol) | 0.244 | 0.883 | 0.716–1.089 | |||
| Tbilirubin (per μmol) | 0.085 | 1.085 | 0.989–1.190 | 0.017 | 1.031 | 1.005–1.058 |
| Tcholesterol (per mmol) | 0.934 | 0.986 | 0.710–1.370 | |||
AFP: alpha fetoprotein; MVI: microvascular invasion; BCLC: Barcelona clinic liver cancer; HCV: hepatitis C virus; ALB: albumin; ALT: alanine aminotransferase; AST: aspartate aminotransferase; ALP: alkaline phosphatase; GGT: glutamyl transpeptidase; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma.
Table 5.
Univariate and multivariate analysis for OS in rHCC-NC.
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P | HR | 95% confidence interval | P | HR | 95% confidence interval | |
| Gender | 0.651 | 1.422 | 0.309–6.536 | |||
| Female/Male | ||||||
| Age (per y) | 0.761 | 1.006 | 0.967–1.047 | |||
| Length (per cm) | 0.577 | 1.041 | 0.904–1.198 | |||
| Number | 0.604 | 1.358 | 0.427–4.316 | |||
| Multiple/Single | ||||||
| MVI | 0.442 | 1.786 | 0.407–7.843 | |||
| Yes/No | ||||||
| BCLC | 0.208 | 1.632 | 0.761–3.499 | |||
| C/B/A | ||||||
| Edmondson | 0.448 | 0.843 | 0.542–1.310 | |||
| IV/III/II/I | ||||||
| AFP | 0.014 | 3.306 | 1.269–8.609 | 0.034 | 1.724 | 1.041–2.855 |
| >92 ng/ml/≤92 ng/ml | ||||||
| HBV-DNA (per 1) | 0.798 | 1.000 | 1.000–1.000 | |||
| Necrosis | 0.725 | 0.817 | 0.264–2.524 | |||
| No/Yes | ||||||
| Local invasion | 0.775 | 1.148 | 0.447–2.949 | |||
| Yes/No | ||||||
| HbsAg | 0.132 | 2.213 | 0.787–6.223 | |||
| No/Yes | ||||||
| HCV | 0.418 | 2.029 | 0.366–11.235 | |||
| No/Yes | ||||||
| Alcohol history | 0.994 | 1.004 | 0.346–2.911 | |||
| No/Yes | ||||||
| ALB (per g) | 0.145 | 0.954 | 0.895–1.016 | |||
| ALT (per U) | 0.026 | 0.974 | 0.952–0.997 | |||
| AST (per U) | 0.006 | 1.019 | 1.005–1.033 | |||
| ALP (per U) | 0.873 | 0.998 | 0.979–1.018 | |||
| GGT (per U) | 0.504 | 0.995 | 0.979–1.010 | |||
| Creatinine (per μmol) | 0.529 | 0.990 | 0.959–1.022 | |||
| Pre-ALB (per g) | 0.164 | 1.006 | 0.997–1.015 | |||
| Dbilirubin (per μmol) | 0.111 | 1.211 | 0.957–1.532 | |||
| Tbilirubin (per μmol) | 0.522 | 0.967 | 0.871–1.073 | |||
| Tcholesterol (per mmol) | 0.715 | 0.972 | 0.836–1.131 | |||
AFP: alpha fetoprotein; MVI: microvascular invasion; BCLC: Barcelona clinic liver cancer; HCV: hepatitis C virus; ALB: albumin; ALT: alanine aminotransferase; AST: aspartate aminotransferase; ALP: alkaline phosphatase; GGT: glutamyl transpeptidase; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma.
3.4. Disease Markers and Prognosis in rHCC Patients
We also compared the clinical value of AFP, MVI, and HBsAg in predicting the prognosis of the rHCC-NC group. We found that all three were linked to RFS and OS in rHCC patients (Figures 4(a) and 4(b); Figures 5(a) and 5(b); Figures 6(a) and 6(b)). To further analyze the value of AFP in rHCC-C and rHCC-NC, we compared AFP >92 ng/ml with AFP <92 ng/ml, and the AFP value was associated with RFS and OS in both groups (Figures 4(c), 4(d), 4(e), and 4(f)).
Figure 4.
(a, b) RFS and OS of all rHCC patients with different AFP levels, (c, d) RFS and OS of rHCC-C patients with different AFP levels, and (e, f) RFS and OS of rHCC-NC with different AFP levels.
Figure 5.
(a, b) RFS and OS of all rHCC patients with or without Microvascular invasion (MVI), (c, d) RFS and OS of rHCC-C patients with or without MVI, and (e, f) RFS and OS of rHCC-NC patients with or without MVI.
Figure 6.
(a, b) RFS and OS of all patients with HbsAg(±), (c, d) RFS and OS of rHCC-NC patients with HbsAg(±).
In all patients, the median and mean RFS were 14.0 and 98.6 months for patients with AFP ≤92 ng/mL. They were 5.0 and 23.1 months for patients with AFP >92 ng/mL, 55.0 and 70.1 months for patients with AFP ≤92 ng/mL, and 13.0 and 31.0 months for patients with AFP >92 ng/mL. For patients with rHCC-C, the median and mean RFS were 10.0 and 88.2 months for patients with AFP ≤92 ng/ml, 4.0 and 17.1 months for patients with AFP >92 ng/ml, 18.0 and 44.5 months for patients with AFP ≤92 ng/ml, and 9.0 and 21.9 months for patients with AFP >92 ng/ml.
For patients with rHCC-NC, the median and mean RFS were 40.0 and 100.6 months for patients with AFP ≤92 ng/ml, 7.0 and 31.4 months for patients with AFP >92 ng/ml, 98.0 and 97.7 months for patients with AFP ≤92 ng/ml, and 18.0 and 40.4 months for patients with AFP >92 ng/ml.(Figures 4(a)–4(f)).
All tumor samples were pathologically examined after the operations. A total of 22 tumor samples were found to have MVI, 17 (19.1%) in tumor samples with cirrhosis, and 5 (8.1%) in tumor samples without cirrhosis. From figures 5(a)–5(d), it can be seen that MVI was correlated with RFS and OS in all patients and patients with cirrhosis. From figures 5(e), 5(f), it can be seen that MVI was not correlated with RFS and OS in rHCC patients without cirrhosis (P = 0.717, P = 0.145) (Figure 5).
A total of 125 patients had positive serum HBsAg after hepatitis B surface antigen confirmatory testing, of which 87 patients had liver cirrhosis, making up 97.8% of the cirrhotic group. 38 did not have liver cirrhosis, making up 61.3% of the noncirrhotic group. Since only two (2.2%) were HBsAg-negative in rHCC-C patients, RFS and OS could not be analyzed in rHCC-C patients.
In the analysis of all patients, HBsAg positivity did not correlate with the RFS of patients (P = 0.242), however, it was associated with a worse prognosis (P = 0.006) in terms of the OS (figures 6(a) and 6(b)). In patients without cirrhosis, HBsAg positivity and negativity were similarly not correlated with the patients' RFS (P = 0.235) but correlated with the patients' OS (P = 0.003). Positive HBsAg indicated a worse prognosis (figures 6(c) and 6(d)).
4. Discussion
Rupture is a severe complication of liver tumors, and it generally has an inferior prognosis. The proportion of ruptured HCC has been increasing yearly, reaching 10% to 15% in some parts of Asia. With a reported mortality rate as high as 32% once rupture occurs [4], it deserves our attention. At present, the surveillance of rHCC has been greatly improved, and tumor rupture can be detected very early from the symptoms and imaging studies. It is important to identify markers for predicting the prognosis of patients with resectable rHCC after tumor resection. Among the previously reported related factors of rHCC or HCC, the characteristics of the tumor itself, such as tumor size, tumor number, etc., are commonly used to determine OS and RFS, and some other factors, such as pathological factors, tumor markers, etc., are also considered to affect the prognosis of patients. Unfortunately, although cirrhosis is a commonly known cause of liver tumorigenesis, in previous studies, the investigators only discussed rHCC with cirrhosis or rHCC without cirrhosis [14–17] and did not categorize patients into rHCC-C and rHCC-NC for subgroup prognosis analysis. Our study evaluated the effects of tumor markers, pathological factors, and hepatitis B antigen on the survival and recurrence of rHCC in both groups.
In the Asian region, almost all cases of HCC developed from cirrhosis are caused by chronic hepatitis B virus infections. According to existing studies, most HCC is gradually developed in patients with cirrhosis, however, if HCC patients do not have cirrhosis, it is considered to be de novo [6]. In the published literature, the prognostic value of HBsAg is different in different studies. Janssen et al. and Hu L [34, 35] believed that HBsAg has little effect on the prognosis, while Sohn et al. [32] believed that both HBsAg and HBV DNA are important risk factors for early and late recurrence in HBV-related HCC patients after surgery. This article is the first such one in which the prognostic value of HBsAg has been analyzed in rHCC patients, stratified based on cirrhosis, and we got different results in different subgroups. It can be seen from our baseline data table that in patients with cirrhosis, up to 97.8% of patients were HBsAg positive, while in patients without cirrhosis, only 61.3% were HBsAg positive. In our study, HBsAg positivity did not affect the postoperative RFS in rHCC patients without cirrhosis, however, it affected the postoperative OS. Hence, antiviral therapy was also necessary for patients, and the recent EASL guidelines [33] also recommend antiviral therapy for HBV-related HCC patients. Notably, we found that only in noncirrhotic patients, multivariate analysis revealed that a higher hepatitis B viral load was associated with worse recurrence-free survival. At the same time, we observed that the viral load was much higher in patients with postoperative recurrence. Therefore, antiviral therapy may have a role in preventing the recurrence of rHCC after surgery [32, 36–39]. Furthermore, it is necessary to discuss the effect of HBV-DNA viral load on OS and RFS. Previous studies have shown that antiviral therapy can inhibit viral load elevation and inhibit viral replication in hepatocytes, which can give patients an opportunity to receive further treatment, and inhibiting viral load elevation can improve prognosis. Sohn et al. [32] found that the viral load was associated with early recurrence, which was somewhat different from the results of our study. Qu et al. [40] further defined the viral load, and they believed that HBsAg >250 IU/mL at the time of tumor resection was an independent risk factor for late recurrence. Yan et al. [41] believed that serum HBV DNA levels should be measured at multiple time points, and viral suppression to low levels was beneficial to patients.
At present, certain tumor markers are being used by researchers to predict the prognosis of rHCC patients after surgery. AFP is the most classical tumor marker, and 400 ng/mL is often used as the cutoff value in patients with nonruptured HCC. However, different studies have a different selection of the cut-off value of AFP in rHCC [42–45]. Hence, we chose to use an ROC curve to determine the cutoff value, and we evaluated the relationship between AFP and the OS and RFS in rHCC patients with or without cirrhosis. This study found that high preoperative serum AFP levels were associated with a worse prognosis regardless of the presence or absence of cirrhosis in patients with rHCC. It is consistent with the conclusions of other studies. Zhang et al. [13] suggested that AFP ≥1000 ng/mL is an independent risk factor affecting 30-day mortality and a prognostic factor for OS in rHCC. Kerdsuknirun et al. [44] set the cut-off to 20 and 200 ng/ml, and they found that AFP levels >200 ng/ml were more common in patients with ruptured HCC. Our study also found that patients with high AFP accounted for more rHCC patients.
MVI has been a hot topic in recent years and a key determinant of early recurrence and survival [23]. However, the presence of MVI is difficult to determine based on preoperative images alone. Yang et al. [26] constructed an MVI prediction model using imaging and radionics, and Lei et al. [46–48] constructed a model for predicting MVI based on some preoperative serological markers. In summary, according to the preoperative prediction, different surgical options and treatment measures are taken, including expanding the extent of resection or stratified management of different risk groups. However, there is no model to predict MVI in rHCC patients. Therefore, further analysis of MVI is necessary, and in this study, we found that among all patients with rHCC, patients with MVI had worse OS or RFS. Among patients with cirrhosis, those who also had MVI had worse OS or RFS performance. However, it should be noted that the presence or absence of MVI did not affect the OS or RFS in patients without cirrhosis. Previous studies concluded that the OS and RFS are worse whenever the postoperative pathology analysis reports the presence of MVI [23, 28, 49, 50]. It may also guide future work on whether there is a greater need to focus on the situation of MVI in rHCC patients with cirrhosis.
This study has several limitations. RHCC cases are rare, and multiple factors influence the prognosis. However, we still set strict inclusion criteria and tried to exclude some confounding factors to better evaluate the prognosis of the cirrhotic and the noncirrhotic groups. The stringent criteria described in our methods significantly reduced the number of qualified rHCC cases to be included in our study. Although the study included 151 patients with HBV-related HCC, the sample size was still not large enough, which reduced the power of the statistical analysis.
In conclusion, this research demonstrates that rHCC-C and rHCC-NC patients differ in their histopathological and clinical characteristics, prognosis, and outcome. Patients with rHCC are in an urgent situation at admission, and they need to be managed promptly. The long-term prognosis of noncirrhotic patients was better than that of cirrhotic patients. AFP >92 ng/mL and positive MVI were associated with a worse prognosis, regardless of whether the patient has cirrhosis, while HBsAg positivity was associated with a poorer prognosis in rHCC patients with cirrhosis, and it did not affect the prognosis of rHCC patients without cirrhosis. Hence, it is essential to group rHCC patients based on whether they have cirrhosis. Stratified analyses based on the presence of cirrhosis can reduce conflicting conclusions regarding the prognosis of patients with rHCC and help guide clinicians to manage patients with rHCC better.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by (1) Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province (2019CFB433), (2) Hengrui Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Malignant Tumor Research Fund-Youth Research Fund (CXPJJH11800001-2018306), (3) Sources of Funding: Key Project of Science and Technology in Hubei Province (2018ACA137), and (4) General Project of Health Commission of Hubei Province (WJ2021M108).
Abbreviations
- HCC:
Hepatocellular carcinoma
- rHCC:
Ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma
- rHCC-C:
Ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma with cirrhosis
- rHCC-NC:
Ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma without cirrhosis
- HbsAg:
Hepatitis B surface antigen
- AFP:
Alpha-fetoprotein
- MVI:
Microvascular invasion
- BCLC:
Barcelona clinic liver cancer
- HCV:
Hepatitis C virus
- ALB:
Albumin
- ALT:
Alanine aminotransferase
- AST:
Aspartate aminotransferase
- ALP:
Alkaline phosphatase
- GGT:
Glutamyl transpeptidase
- DCA:
Decision curve analysis
- CT:
Computed tomography
- MRI:
Magnetic resonance imaging
- RFA:
Radiofrequency ablation
- TACE:
Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization
- OS:
Overall survival
- RFS:
Recurrence-free survival.
Data Availability
The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Consent
The patients provided informed consent, which was registered in the medical record.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors' Contributions
FX wrote the paper. PZ provided the ideas. BXZ provided pathological reports and interpretation of the data. PZ, XPC, and MYZ reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript.
References
- 1.Forner A., Reig M., Bruix J. Hepatocellular carcinoma. The Lancet . 2018;391(10127):1301–1314. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30010-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Hartke J., Johnson M., Ghabril M. The diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Seminars in Diagnostic Pathology . 2017;34(2):153–159. doi: 10.1053/j.semdp.2016.12.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Villanueva A. Hepatocellular carcinoma. New England Journal of Medicine . 2019;380(15):1450–1462. doi: 10.1056/nejmra1713263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Sahu S. K., Chawla Y. K., Dhiman R. K., et al. Rupture of hepatocellular carcinoma: a review of literature. Journal of clinical and experimental hepatology . 2019;9(2):245–256. doi: 10.1016/j.jceh.2018.04.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Yoshida H., Mamada Y., Taniai N., Uchida E. Spontaneous ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology Research . 2016;46(1):13–21. doi: 10.1111/hepr.12498. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Fattovich G., Stroffolini T., Zagni I., Donato F. Hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: incidence and risk factors. Gastroenterology . 2004;127(5 Suppl 1):S35–S50. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2004.09.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Roehlen N., Crouchet E., Baumert T. F. Liver fibrosis: mechanistic concepts and therapeutic perspectives. Cells . 2020;9(4) doi: 10.3390/cells9040875. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Kanda T., Lau G. K. K., Wei L., et al. APASL HCV guidelines of virus-eradicated patients by DAA on how to monitor HCC occurrence and HBV reactivation. Hepatology international . 2019;13(6):649–661. doi: 10.1007/s12072-019-09988-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Petruzziello A. Epidemiology of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) related hepatocellular carcinoma. The Open Virology Journal . 2018;12(1):26–32. doi: 10.2174/1874357901812010026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Sagnelli E., Macera M., Russo A., Coppola N., Sagnelli C. Epidemiological and etiological variations in hepatocellular carcinoma. Infection . 2020;48(1):7–17. doi: 10.1007/s15010-019-01345-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Hiraoka A., Kawamura T., Aibiki T., et al. Prognosis and therapy for ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma: problems with staging and treatment strategy. European Journal of Radiology . 2015;84(3):366–371. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.11.038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Matsumoto T., Chung H., Suginoshita Y., Ito K., Inokuma T. Outcomes and prognostic factors in patients with spontaneously ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepato-Gastroenterology . 2015;62(140):942–946. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Zhang W., Zhang Z.-W., Zhang B.-X., et al. Outcomes and prognostic factors of spontaneously ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery . 2019;23(9):1788–1800. doi: 10.1007/s11605-018-3930-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Cherqui D., Panis Y., Rotman N., Fagniez P. L. Emergency liver resection for spontaneous rupture of hepatocellular carcinoma complicating cirrhosis. British Journal of Surgery . 1993;80(6):747–749. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800800631. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Chiappa A., Zbar A., Audisio R. A., Paties C., Bertani E., Staudacher C. Emergency liver resection for ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma complicating cirrhosis. Hepato-Gastroenterology . 1999;46(26):1145–1150. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Fan W.-Z., Zhang Y.-Q., Yao W., et al. Is emergency transcatheter hepatic arterial embolization suitable for spontaneously ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma in child-pugh C cirrhosis? Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology . 2018;29(3):404–412. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2017.09.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Tarantino L., Sordelli I., Calise F., Ripa C., Perrotta M., Sperlongano P. Prognosis of patients with spontaneous rupture of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis. Updates in Surgery . 2011;63(1):25–30. doi: 10.1007/s13304-010-0041-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Tartaglia N., Di Lascia A., Cianci P., et al. Hemoperitoneum caused by spontaneous rupture of hepatocellular carcinoma in noncirrhotic liver. A case report and systematic review. Open Medicine . 2020;15(1):739–744. doi: 10.1515/med-2020-0202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Silsirivanit A. Glycosylation markers in cancer. Advances in Clinical Chemistry . 2019;89:189–213. doi: 10.1016/bs.acc.2018.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Trevisani F., Garuti F., Neri A. Alpha-fetoprotein for diagnosis, prognosis, and transplant selection. Seminars in Liver Disease . 2019;39(2):163–177. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1677768. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Han X.-J., Su H. Y., Shao H. B., Xu K. Prognostic factors of spontaneously ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma. World Journal of Gastroenterology . 2015;21(24):7488–7494. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i24.7488. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Tanaka S., Kaibori M., Ueno M., et al. Surgical outcomes for the ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma: multicenter analysis with a case-controlled study. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery . 2016;20(12):2021–2034. doi: 10.1007/s11605-016-3280-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Erstad D. J., Tanabe K. K. Prognostic and therapeutic implications of microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma. Annals of Surgical Oncology . 2019;26(5):1474–1493. doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07227-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Li Y., Zhang Y., Fang Q., et al. Radiomics analysis of [18F]FDG PET/CT for microvascular invasion and prognosis prediction in very-early- and early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging . 2021;48(8):2599–2614. doi: 10.1007/s00259-020-05119-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Ma X., Wei J., Gu D., et al. Preoperative radiomics nomogram for microvascular invasion prediction in hepatocellular carcinoma using contrast-enhanced CT. European Radiology . 2019;29(7):3595–3605. doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5985-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Yang L., Gu D., Wei J., et al. A radiomics nomogram for preoperative prediction of microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver cancer . 2019;8(5):373–386. doi: 10.1159/000494099. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Xu X., Zhang H.-L., Liu Q.-P., et al. Radiomic analysis of contrast-enhanced CT predicts microvascular invasion and outcome in hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of Hepatology . 2019;70(6):1133–1144. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2019.02.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Zhang X., Li J., Shen F., Lau W. Y. Significance of presence of microvascular invasion in specimens obtained after surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology . 2018;33(2):347–354. doi: 10.1111/jgh.13843. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Chen L., Zhao H., Yang X., Gao J. Y., Cheng J. HBsAg-negative hepatitis B virus infection and hepatocellular carcinoma. Discovery Medicine . 2014;18(99):189–193. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Hu L., Xue F., Li Y., Shao M., Sun Y., Wei G. A long-term follow-up and comprehensive observation of risk and prognosis factors of recurrence and survival after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics . 2014;69(3):421–431. doi: 10.1007/s12013-013-9813-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Qiu J.-F., Ye J.-Z., Feng X.-Z., et al. Pre- and post-operative HBsAg levels may predict recurrence and survival after curative resection in patients with HBV-associated hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of Surgical Oncology . 2017;116(2):140–148. doi: 10.1002/jso.24628. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Sohn W., Paik Y.-H., Kim J. M., et al. HBV DNA and HBsAg levels as risk predictors of early and late recurrence after curative resection of HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma. Annals of Surgical Oncology . 2014;21(7):2429–2435. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3621-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Lampertico P., Agarwal K., Berg T., et al. EASL 2017 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of hepatitis B virus infection. Journal of Hepatology . 2017;67(2):370–398. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2017.03.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Janssen H. L. A., Sonneveld M. J., Brunetto M. R. Quantification of serum hepatitis B surface antigen: is it useful for the management of chronic hepatitis B? Gut . 2012;61(5):641–645. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Huang J., Tang W., Hernandez-Alejandro R., et al. Intermittent hepatic inflow occlusion during partial hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma does not shorten overall survival or increase the likelihood of tumor recurrence. Medicine . 2014;93(28):p. e288. doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000000288. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Li L., Li B., Zhang M. HBV DNA levels impact the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma patients with microvascular invasion. Medicine . 2019;98(27) doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000016308.e16308 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Osawa M., Akuta N., Suzuki F., et al. Prognosis and predictors of hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients infected with hepatitis B virus. Journal of Medical Virology . 2017;89(12):2144–2148. doi: 10.1002/jmv.24890. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Vlachogiannakos J., Papatheodoridis G. V. Hepatitis B: who and when to treat? Liver international. Liver International . 2018;38(Suppl 1):71–78. doi: 10.1111/liv.13631. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Yu L.-H., Li N., Shi J., Guo W.-X., Wu M.-C., Cheng S.-Q. Does anti-HBV therapy benefit the prognosis of HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma following hepatectomy? Annals of Surgical Oncology . 2014;21(3):1010–1015. doi: 10.1245/s10434-013-3320-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Qu L.-S., Liu J.-X., Zhu J., Lu C.-H. Risk factors for prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma after curative resection in patients with low hepatitis B viral load. Annals of Hepatology . 2017;16(3):412–420. doi: 10.5604/01.3001.0009.8596. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Yan P.-G., Wang R.-Y., Zhang J., et al. Impact of preoperative hepatitis B virus levels on prognosis after primary and repeat hepatectomies for hepatocellular carcinoma patients-a retrospective study. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery . 2018;22(5):872–883. doi: 10.1007/s11605-017-3638-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Huang H.-f., Jin P.-p., Yang H.-j., et al. Primary hepatic neuroendocrine tumor mimicking ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma with AFP elevation: a case report and literature review. OncoTargets and Therapy . 2020;13:975–979. doi: 10.2147/ott.s236728. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Joliat G.-R., Labgaa I., Uldry E., Demartines N., Halkic N. Recurrence rate and overall survival of operated ruptured hepatocellular carcinomas. European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology . 2018;30(7):792–796. doi: 10.1097/meg.0000000000001115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Kerdsuknirun J., Vilaichone V., Vilaichone R.-K. Risk factors and prognosis of spontaneously ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma in Thailand. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention . 2018;19(12):3629–3634. doi: 10.31557/apjcp.2018.19.12.3629. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Park U. J., Kim Y. H., Kang K. J., Lim T. J. Risk factors for early recurrence after surgical resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. The Korean Journal of Hepatology . 2008;14(3):371–380. doi: 10.3350/kjhep.2008.14.3.371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Lei Z., Li J., Wu D., et al. Nomogram for preoperative estimation of microvascular invasion risk in hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma within the milan criteria. JAMA Surgery . 2016;151(4):356–363. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2015.4257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Li H., Li T., Hu J., Liu J. A nomogram to predict microvascular invasion in early hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics . 2021;17(3):652–657. doi: 10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_1714_20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Wang H., Lu Y., Liu R., Wang L., Liu Q., Han S. A non-invasive nomogram for preoperative prediction of microvascular invasion risk in hepatocellular carcinoma. Frontiers in Oncology . 2021;11 doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.745085.745085 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Zhang E.-l., Cheng Q., Huang Z.-Y., Dong W. Revisiting surgical strategies for hepatocellular carcinoma with microvascular invasion. Frontiers in Oncology . 2021;11 doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.691354.691354 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Xia F., Ndhlovu E., Zhang M., Chen X., Zhang B., Zhu P. Ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma: current status of research. Frontiers in Oncology . 2022;12 doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.848903.848903 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.