Average treatment effect of hepatic resection versus locoregional therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma. BJS 2017; 104: 1704-1712.
Published: 26th July 2017
Authors: A. Cucchetti, V. Mazzaferro, A. D. Pinna, C. Sposito, R. Golfieri, C. Serra et al.
When comparing the efficacy of surgical and non‐surgical therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a major limitation is the causal inference problem. This concerns the impossibility of seeing both outcomes of two different treatments for the same individual at the same time because one is inevitably missing. This aspect can be addressed methodologically by estimating the so‐called average treatment effect (ATE).
To estimate the ATE of hepatic resection over locoregional therapies for HCC, data from patients treated in two tertiary care settings between August 2000 and December 2014 were used to obtain counterfactual outcomes using an inverse probability weight survival adjustment.
A total of 1585 patients were enrolled: 815 underwent hepatic resection, 337 radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and 433 transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). The option of operating on all patients who had tumour ablation returned an ATE of +9·8 months for resection (effect size 0·111; adjusted
ATE estimation suggests that hepatic resection is a better treatment option than ablation and TACE in patients with HCC.Full text
You may also be interested in
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy response influences outcomes in non‐colorectal, non‐neuroendocrine liver metastases.
Authors: A. M. Lucchese, A. N. Kalil, A. Ruiz, V. Karam, O. Ciacio, G. Pittau et al.
Notes: Multimodal therapy works
Authors: B. Groot Koerkamp, W. R. Jarnagin
Development and validation of a difficulty score to predict intraoperative complications during laparoscopic liver resection. BJS 2018; 105: 1182-1191.
Authors: M. C. Halls, G. Berardi, F. Cipriani, L. Barkhatov, P. Lainas, S. Harris et al.
Notes: Helps improve selection for laparoscopic liver resection
Validation of at least 1 mm as cut‐off for resection margins for pancreatic adenocarcinoma of the body and tail. BJS 2018; 105: 1171-1181.
Authors: T. Hank, U. Hinz, I. Tarantino, J. Kaiser, W. Niesen, F. Bergmann et al.
Notes: Validated for R0
Meta‐analysis comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 946-958.
Authors: E. Versteijne, J. A. Vogel, M. G. Besselink, O. R. C. Busch, J. W. Wilmink, J. G. Daams et al.
Notes: Improved survival with neoadjuvant treatment
Genetic And Morphological Evaluation (GAME) score for patients with colorectal liver metastases. BJS 2018; 105: 1210-1220.
Authors: G. A. Margonis, K. Sasaki, S. Gholami, Y. Kim, N. Andreatos, N. Rezaee et al.
Notes: Predicts survival
Reappraisal of classification of distal cholangiocarcinoma based on tumour depth. BJS 2018; 105: 867-875.
Authors: H. Aoyama, T. Ebata, M. Hattori, M. Takano, H. Yamamoto, M. Inoue et al.
Notes: Better for T staging
Prediction of major complications after hepatectomy using liver stiffness values determined by magnetic resonance elastography. BJS 2018; 105: 1192-1199.
Authors: N. Sato, A. Kenjo, T. Kimura, R. Okada, T. Ishigame, Y. Kofunato et al.
Notes: liver stiffness predicts complications
Prognostic impact of perihepatic lymph node metastases in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases. BJS 2018; 105: 1200-1209.
Authors: M. Okuno, C. Goumard, T. Mizuno, S. Kopetz, K. Omichi, C.‐W. D. Tzeng et al.
Notes: Bad sign of advanced disease
Randomized clinical trial
Randomized clinical trial of the effect of a fibrin sealant patch on pancreatic fistula formation after pancreatoduodenectomy. BJS 2018; 105: 811-819.
Authors: M. Schindl, R. Függer, P. Götzinger, F. Längle, M. Zitt, S. Stättner et al.
Notes: Not effective in reducing complications
Trends in use of lymphadenectomy in surgery with curative intent for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. BJS 2018; 105: 857-866.
Authors: X.‐F. Zhang, J. Chakedis, F. Bagante, Q. Chen, E. W. Beal, Y. Lv et al.
Notes: Lymphadenectomy is important
Meta‐analysis of an artery‐first approach versus standard pancreatoduodenectomy on perioperative outcomes and survival. BJS 2018; 105: 628-636.
Authors: N. Ironside, S. G. Barreto, B. Loveday, S. V. Shrikhande, J. A. Windsor, S. Pandanaboyana et al.
Notes: Benefits to artery‐first approach