• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Combined hepatectomy and radiofrequency ablation versus TACE in improving survival of patients with unresectable BCLC stage B HCC

    2016-08-26 08:13:07YiFuHouYongGangWeiJiaYinYangTianFuWenMingQingXuLuNanYanandBoLiChengduChina

    Yi-Fu Hou, Yong-Gang Wei, Jia-Yin Yang, Tian-Fu Wen, Ming-Qing Xu, Lu-Nan Yan and Bo LiChengdu, China

    ?

    Combined hepatectomy and radiofrequency ablation versus TACE in improving survival of patients with unresectable BCLC stage B HCC

    Yi-Fu Hou, Yong-Gang Wei, Jia-Yin Yang, Tian-Fu Wen, Ming-Qing Xu, Lu-Nan Yan and Bo Li
    Chengdu, China

    BACKGROUND: Combined hepatectomy and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) provides an additional treatment for patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are conventionally deemed unresectable. This study aimed to analyze the outcome of this combination therapy by comparing it with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE).

    METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 51 patients with unresectable BCLC stage B HCC who had received the combination therapy. We compared the survival of these patients with that of 102 patients in the TACE group (control). Prognostic factors associated with worse survival in the combination group were analyzed.

    RESULTS: No differences in tumor status and liver function were observed between the TACE group and combination group. The median survival time for the combination group and TACE group was 38 (6-54) and 17 (3-48) months, respectively (P<0.001). The combination group required longer hospitalization than the TACE group [8 (5-14) days vs 4 (2-9) days,P<0.001]. More than two ablations decreased the survival rate in the combination group.

    CONCLUSIONS: Combined hepatectomy and RFA yielded a better long-term outcome than TACE in patients with unresectable BCLC stage B HCC. Patients with a limited ablated size (≤2 cm), a limited number of ablations (≤2), and adequate surgical margin should be considered candidates for combination therapy.

    (Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2016;15:378-385)

    hepatocellular carcinoma;

    hepatectomy;

    radiofrequency ablation;

    transarterial chemoembolization;

    Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer system

    Introduction

    Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary hepatoma in the world.[1]In Asia,hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is the major risk factor of HCC.[2]According to recent data, there are 400 million people infected with HBV worldwide.[3]Liver resection and liver transplantation are the curative treatments for early-stage HCC.[4-6]However, the treatment for multifocal HCC is controversial. According to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) system,liver resection is no longer suitable for multifocal HCC exceeding the Milan criteria (stage B), and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is recommended.[3]However, tumor status in stage B HCC varies substantially, and researchers believe that some patients can still benefit from an aggressive surgical approach. Retrospective studies[7-9]have demonstrated that curative resection provides better survival than TACE and recently, a randomized clinical trial[10]showed consistent results that resection improves survival compared with TACE.

    Nevertheless, a considerable number of patients with BCLC stage B HCC do not have the option of hepatectomy.[11, 12]For these patients, the non-curative therapeutic TACE is the only option. To increase curative chances for patients with multifocal HCC who on one hand can potentially benefit from surgery but on the other hand, resection is not feasible, the combination of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and partial hepatectomy (PH) was introduced.[13]These patients presented with a resectable dominant tumor along with some other HCC nodules. RFA is a common locoregional therapy, and ac-cording to previous studies, RFA can achieve complete necrosis of HCC lesions less than 2 cm in diameter.[3]The combination of PH and RFA may possibly eradicate all HCC lesions and preserve more hepatic tissue without injury to the major vessels.[14, 15]

    This study was undertaken to compare the survival of patients treated with combined PH and RFA with that of those treated with conventional TACE in patients with unresectable BCLC stage B HCC. Furthermore, we analyzed the prognostic factors related to the survival of patients with HCC receiving the combination therapy and attempted to choose the suitable candidates for the treatment.

    Methods

    Patients

    Patients who had been diagnosed with HCC in West China Hospital of Sichuan University from January 2008 to June 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. We enrolled HCC patients who had received the combination therapy. The inclusion criteria were: (1) adult male or female between the age of 18 and 70 years; (2) unresectable BCLC stage B HCC; (3) preoperative liver function corresponding to Child-Pugh A with normal total bilirubin (TB)levels; (4) no evidence of extrahepatic metastasis on preoperative 3-phase enhanced computed tomography (CT)or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); (5) pathological confirmation of HCC; (6) indocyanine green (ICG) retention rate at 15 minutes ≤15% for major liver resection(≥3 segmentectomy) and ≤20% for minor liver resection(<3 segmentectomy or non-anatomic resection); (7) a non-invasive diagnosis of HCC as per the American Association of the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD) criteria[16]in patients with a diagnosis of liver cirrhosis: two rounds of radical imaging showed typical features of HCC (contrast uptake in the arterial phase followed by rapid washout in venous phase) confirming the clinical diagnosis of HCC. Percutaneous liver biopsy was not performed in our center. For some cases of small HCC with atypical imaging features, we followed the patients and reevaluated them three months later according to the guidelines; (8) at least 1 cm of margin was required for hepatectomy. Our exclusion criteria were as follows:(1) recurrent HCC; (2) residual tumor tissue found on the cutting edge; (3) performance status (PS) >0; and (4) other locoregional or systemic treatment carried out simultaneously with hepatectomy and RFA.

    In the TACE group, liver function and tumor status were similar to those in the combination group. Preoperative TB, albumin (ALB), ALT, and AST levels were used to match the liver function of the patients. Tumor status was classified into four subgroups. Group Ia: tumor number ≤3, the dominant tumor >3 cm and ≤5 cm; group Ib:tumor number ≤3, the dominant tumor >5 cm; group IIa: tumor number >3, the dominant tumor ≤5 cm; and group IIb: tumor number >3, the dominant tumor >5 cm. Matching up was performed according to the subgroup of tumor status. For patients in the TACE group, at least 2 sessions of TACE were required. In this study, the definition of unresectable HCC in BCLC stage B was based on collective decision-making. Five liver surgery experts and one experienced radiologist determined the surgical options by evaluating liver function, ICG results, remnant liver volume on preoperative imaging scans, and other accompanying diseases.

    We compared baseline demographic data and data on hospitalization, postoperative complications and survival outcomes between the two groups. The primary endpoint was the overall survival rate (OS); the secondary endpoint was the postoperative complication rate. The study was approved by our institutional review board.

    Surgical combination therapy

    For all patients, open surgery was performed by a single surgical team. Liver resection involved one dominant tumor within two liver segments or one lobe. A Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator (CUSA) was used to dissect the parenchyma under ultrasound guidance. According to tumor location, discontinuous selective hepatic occlusion was applied to control surgical blood loss. RFA was also performed under ultrasound guidance after hepatic resection. Before ablation, we scanned every inch of the remnant liver to locate and evaluate residual tumors. Every detected lesion was ablated using an internally cooled system manufactured by Valleylab (Boulder, CO, USA). A single-needle electrode with an exposed tip was inserted to the tumor bottom under ultrasound guidance. The process of ablation required at least 2 cycles, each lasting 5 to 10 minutes. Afterward, we rescanned the lesion to find out whether the ablative region had already covered the whole tumor. Therefore, a second or a third ablation would be carried out until a satisfying ablative area was covered. A final ultrasound examination was performed to confirm the absence of residual tumor tissue and complete necrosis after resection and ablation. No specimens were taken during the operation; suspicious nodules detected by ultrasound were all ablated, but only those larger than 1 cm in diameter were recorded as additional tumors. When HCC recurrence occurred, re-resection, RFA, TACE,or sorafenib was recommended to the patients according to the location of recurrence and health conditions.[17]

    TACE

    TACE was carried out under local anesthesia usingthe Seldinger technique, in which a 4F-5F French catheter was inserted to the abdominal aorta through the superficial femoral artery. Subsequently we performed hepatic arterial angiography, introducing the catheter tip into the superior mesenteric and celiac arteries under fluoroscopy guidance. After staining of tumors we identified the vascular anatomy around the tumors, selectively inserted the cathether tip into the tumor pathological arteries and infused with an emulsion of lipiodol of up to 30 mL, 5-fluorouracil 500-1000 mg, and adriamycin of up to 10 mg into the target arteries. Afterwards, a gelfoam fragment was injected to embolize the target arteries. After the procedure, the patients were requested to put pressure on the entry site for half an hour to ensure hemostasis. Imaging evaluation was performed one month after each session according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1).[18]Each session was carried out with an interval of 1-2 months.

    Hospitalization and follow-up

    Total hospital and ICU stay was recorded by the hospital digital health care system. In assessment of postoperative complications, we used the Clavien-Dindo classification to characterize the severity.[19]All patients were followed up at our outpatient clinic once a month in the first year after surgery and once every 1-3 months afterwards. Blood routine tests, liver function tests, serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) tests, and abdominal ultrasonography were carried out at each follow-up. When a suspicious nodule was found on ultrasonography or persistent elevated AFP levels were observed, enhanced CT scan or MRI was performed for confirmation. Once HCC recurrence was diagnosed, radical treatment such as resection and RFA was our first choice for patients with sufficient hepatic reserve. TACE and sorafenib were palliative therapeutic options for HCC. For patients with uncontrollable HCC or a general performance status >2 or Child-Pugh C liver function, best supportive care was given. We followed the same strategy for treating recurrence after the second hepatectomy.

    Statistical analysis

    Baseline comparison between the two groups was analyzed using Student's t test for continuous variables,the Mann-Whitney U test for non-parametric variables,and the Chi-square test for categorical variables. Fisher' s exact test was applied to compare data on postoperative complications. Differences in cumulative OS rates between the two groups were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier survival curves and tested using the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify the prognostic risk factors affecting patient survival in the combination group. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed with SPSS version 21.0 (IBM SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

    Results

    Patient demographics

    Strictly adhering to the inclusion and exclusion criteria,we included in this study 51 patients with BCLC stage B HCC who had received the combination therapy. In the TACE group, 102 HCC patients who had received TACE during the same period were included. According to the match-up results, 19.6% of the patients belonged to group Ia, 39.2% to group Ib and 13.7% to group IIa, and the remaining 27.5% belonged to group IIb in the combination therapy group and TACE group (Table 1).

    Table 1. Baseline characteristics between the combination group and TACE group

    Patient demographics are summarized in Table 1. Incontrast to the TACE group, the combination group was characterized by a comparable age (50.7±11.2 vs 53.4 ± 11.6, P=0.85), male ratio (86.3% vs 91.2%, P=0.35), and body mass index (21.2±2.2 vs 23.1±2.7, P=0.47). The TB,ALB, ALT and AST of the TACE group was not different from that of the combination group (P=0.38, P=0.89,P=0.36 and P=0.91, respectively; Table 1). The HBV DNA positive ratios in the combination group and the TACE group were 27.5% (14/51) and 34.3% (35/102), respectively (P=0.39). Analysis of tumor status in the two groups showed that tumor size and tumor number in the combination group were similar to those in the TACE group (P=0.88 and P=1.00, respectively). With regard to tumor distribution, 51.0% (26/51) of the patients in the combination group and 49.0% (50/102) in the TACE group had bilobar HCC (P=0.82). In the combination group, the median ablation size was 2.0 (1.0-2.5) cm. The number of ablated HCC lesions in the combination group ranged from 1 to 4; 11 patients had one solitary ablated HCC lesion, 19 had 2 ablated HCC lesions, 12 had 3 ablated HCC lesions, and 9 had 4 ablated HCC lesions.

    Postoperative outcomes

    In the combination group, 21 (41.2%) of the patients received major liver resection and 30 (58.8%) received minor liver resection. The median hospital stay was 8 days (range 5-14) in the combination group and 4 days (range 2-9) in the TACE group (P<0.001). The median ICU stay in the combination group and the TACE group was 0 day (range 0-2) and 0 day (range 0-1), respectively (P<0.001; Table 2). There was no hospital-associated mortality in both groups. The combination group had a significant higher postoperative complication rate than did the TACE group (36 vs 27, P<0.001). According to the Clavien-Dindo classification, the combination group exhibited significantly severer results. Fifteen patients in the combination group and 75 in the TACE group showed no obvious complications. Thirty-three patients in the combination group and 25 in the TACE group had grade I complications. Three patients in the combination group and 2 in the TACE group had grade II complications (Table 2).

    Table 2. Comparison of postoperative outcomes between the combination group and TACE group

    Fig. 1. Comparison of overall survival between the combination group and TACE group.

    Survival outcomes

    The median survival was 38 months (range 6-54) in the combination group and 17 months (range 3-48) in the TACE group (P<0.001; Fig. 1). The estimated 1-, 2-,and 3-year OS rates for the combination group and the TACE group were 88.2% vs 76.5% (P=0.84), 66.7% vs 20.6% (P<0.001), and 52.9% vs 9.8% (P<0.001), respectively. In the subgroup analysis, we re-compared the survival rates between the combination group and the TACE group stratified by tumor burden (Fig. 2). The results of the combination group were significantly better than those of the TACE group with regard to group Ia, group Ib, and group IIa; 40 (30-42) vs 15 (11-41) months, 42 (18-54) vs 17 (10-48) months, 30 (13-40) vs 15 (7-33)months (P<0.01, P<0.01, and P=0.01, respectively). In group IIb of the combination group, the outcome was comparable to that of the TACE group: 13 (6-29) vs 10 (3-20) months (P=0.20). In the combination group, the median disease-free survival time was 12 months (range 2-54). A total of 54.9% (28/51) of the patients experienced HCC recurrence within 1 year. The estimated 1-, 2-,and 3-year disease-free survival rates were 45.1%, 19.6%,and 11.8%, respectively. In the combination group, 21 (45.7%) of the patients had recurrence close to the surgical margin; 17 (37.0%) had tumors localized at the RFA sites, and the remaining 8 (17.4%) had tumors at bothsites. With regard to the time of recurrence, patterns were categorized into two types: type A, recurrence within 2 years and type B, recurrence after 2 years. In total,there were 46 patients with HCC recurrence, whereas 5 patients remained recurrence-free by the end of the study. About 10.9% (5/46) of the patients with intrahepatic recurrence belonged to type B. In the TACE group, after two sessions of treatment, no patients achieved complete response, 29.4% (30/102) of the patients had partial response, 36.3% (37/102) had stable disease, and 34.3% (35/102) had progressive disease. In the combination group, there were 32 deaths during follow-up, of which 96.9% (31/32) were cancer-related deaths. One patient died in six months after surgery following an accident. In the TACE group, there were 97 deaths during followup and all of them were cancer-related. No patients were lost to follow-up.

    Univariate analysis revealed that factors significantly associated with low survival in the combination group included a total tumor diameter >10 cm [hazard ratio (HR)=3.49, P=0.001] and a number of ablated tumors >2 (HR=7.65, P<0.001). Factors with a P value <0.05 together with selected clinical significant variables, such as dominant tumor size, ablated tumor size, and AFP levels, were selected for multivariate analysis. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model showed that a number of ablated tumors >2 (HR=5.39, 95% confidence interval, 2.16-13.45, P<0.001) was a significant risk factor for survival (Table 3).

    Table 3. Univariate and multivariate analyses of prognostic factors in the combination group

    Fig. 2. Subgroup comparisons of overall survival between the combination group and TACE group.

    Discussion

    Despite the fact that the BCLC system recommends TACE for multifocal HCC beyond the Milan criteria, a series of retrospective studies have shown that liver resection provides a better survival outcome than conventional TACE.[7-9, 20]A randomized clinical trial showed a 3-year OS rate of 51.5% vs 18.1% for PH and TACE, respectively, in resectable multiple HCC beyond the Milan criteria.[10]The Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver recommended resection as the optimal treatment for resectable BCLC stage B HCC as long as there is adequate functional hepatic reserve.[21]However, there are still a great number of patients who are not candidates for hepatectomy. To increase the number of patients who could benefit from complete surgical intervention, RFA simultaneous with hepatectomy was introduced.[13, 22]This combination therapy was designed to eradicate all macroscopic lesions by resection of the dominant lesion and ablation of the residual nodules. For patients with BCLC stage B HCC who are deemed unresectable using hepatectomy only, the combination therapy provides them with an additional treatment option, augmenting the chances of curative treatment.

    Our study showed for the first time that combined PH with RFA provided better survival than conventional TACE for patients with unresectable BCLC stage B HCC with Child-Pugh A liver function. A study[13]discussed the efficiency and safety of this combination strategy,showing intriguing the 3- and 5-year OS rates of 83% and 68%, respectively. In our study, the 1-year survival rates in the two groups were comparable. However, there was a sharp decrease in survival rate over the second year in the TACE group. The ultimate 3-year survival rate was almost four times higher in the combination group. This phenomenon showed that palliative intervention could not provide a satisfying long-term outcome in patients with a relatively large tumor burden. In China, HCC patients are usually younger and present with more severe tumor status because of maternal-neonatal transmission of HBV. This radical approach could provide these patients with a longer survival time. Moreover, in our subgroup analyses, we compared the survival results stratified by tumor burden and showed that the combination therapy had a significantly better outcome as compared with TACE, except in group IIb. This might imply that as the tumor burden gets more severe, radical treatment may fail to provide any additional improvement in survival. Therefore, not all cases of stage B HCC should be considered suitable for resection or combination therapy. Despite the longer OS, this combination therapy did not prevent a relatively high recurrence rate. Almost 50% of the patients had developed recurrent disease by the first year after surgery. The estimated disease-free survival rate of patients receiving the combination therapy was much lower than that of patients receiving hepatectomy for solitary tumors.[23, 24]The possibility of micro-intrahepatic metastasis missed by surgery cannot be ruled out and analysis of recurrence patterns supported our concerns. Type A was considered to include intrahepatic metastasis, representing early recurrence, and type B was considered to represent multi-centric occurrence, arising de novo in preneoplastic cirrhotic liver tissue. According to a study by Llovet et al, type B had better survival.[25]Only 10.9% of the patients belonged to type B and the majority of them were still at high risk of recurrence. However, we did not find any obvious pattern of recurrence sites in the combination group. Both surgical margin and RFA sites were considered void of residual tumor tissue by pathological examination and intraoperative ultrasound. Although we expected patients with multifocal HCC to have a poor prognosis, we still found the survival benefit entailed by surgical treatment.

    Due to variability in tumor status in patients with BCLC stage B HCC, our original intention was to provide a chance of curative treatment for at least some of the patients. Therefore, suitable candidates should be carefully chosen for this combination therapy. The Cox proportional regression analysis indicated that a number of ablated tumors >2 was an independent risk factor related to OS. This result was consistent with early findings.[21, 26]Tumor number indicated the degree of intrahepatic spread, limited ablated number implied that the tumor has better biological behavior.[27, 28]As the number of ablated tumors increase, prognosis gets poorer because of intrahepatic metastases. Moreover, damage to the liver parenchyma caused by the ablation procedure became obvious. Besides the number of ablated tumors,the size of the ablated tumor should also be considered when matching the expected effect of RFA. Based on previous observations, RFA provides an outcome similar to that of resection in cases of HCC lesions less than 2 cm in diameter.[3, 13, 14]In our study, the largest nodule ablated was 2.5 cm, with 84.3% (43/51) of the lesions being smaller than 2 cm. Therefore, we still suggest an area corresponding to 2 cm to be the optimal upper size limit of the ablated area. Moreover, as described in the methods section, the dominant lesion should be void of vascular invasion and the ample surgical margin is critical. From our experience, we suggest that hepatectomy is restricted to one lobe with at least 1 cm of margin. This could both ensure preservation of sufficient hepatic reserve and at the same time lead to an optimal surgical result.

    In terms of postoperative complication and hospitalization settings, patients underwent TACE treatment hadshorter hospitalization and fewer, milder complications than those treated with the combination therapy. No lifethreatening events occurred in any of the two groups, indicating that the combination therapy for patients with unresectable BCLC stage B HCC is safe.

    Our study has some limitations. The retrospective nature and small sample size limit its validity. However as previously mentioned, BCLC stage B HCC patients differ substantially in tumor status. The combination therapy provided a proportion of patients with the option of surgical curative treatment. Further studies are required to confirm our results.

    In conclusion, combined PH with RFA should be considered as a safe and practical option for patients with unresectable BCLC stage B HCC with Child-Pugh A liver function. However, not all of these patients would benefit from this combination therapy. Suitable candidates should have resectable dominant HCC restricted to one lobe, a number of ablations ≤2, and an ablated area measuring ≤2 cm (the West China Criteria). It is reasonable to suggest this combination therapy as a treatment option for a certain group of BCLC stage B HCC patients.

    Contributors: HYF, WYG and LB designed the research, HYF analyzed the data, HYF and LB wrote the paper. WYG, YJY, WTF,XMQ, YLN and LB contributed to the operations. All authors contributed to the design and interpretation of the study and to further drafts. LB is the guarantor.

    Funding: None.

    Ethical approval: The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of West China Hospital.

    Competing interest: No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

    References

    1 de Lope CR, Tremosini S, Forner A, Reig M, Bruix J. Management of HCC. J Hepatol 2012;56:S75-87.

    2 Hussain SA, Ferry DR, El-Gazzaz G, Mirza DF, James ND, Mc-Master P, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Oncol 2001;12:161-172.

    3 European Association for Study of Liver; European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2012;56:908-943.

    4 Jarnagin WR. Management of small hepatocellular carcinoma:a review of transplantation, resection, and ablation. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17:1226-1233.

    5 Truty MJ, Vauthey JN. Surgical resection of high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma: patient selection, preoperative considerations,and operative technique. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17:1219-1225.

    6 Mazzaferro V, Regalia E, Doci R, Andreola S, Pulvirenti A, Bozzetti F, et al. Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med 1996;334:693-699.

    7 Nagashima J, Okuda K, Tanaka M, Sata M, Aoyagi S. Prognostic benefit in cytoreductive surgery for curatively unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma - comparison to transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. Int J Oncol 1999;15:1117-1123.

    8 Inoue K, Nakamura T, Kinoshita T, Konishi M, Nakagohri T,Oda T, et al. Volume reduction surgery for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2004;130:362-366.

    9 Hsu CY, Hsia CY, Huang YH, Su CW, Lin HC, Pai JT, et al. Comparison of surgical resection and transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria: a propensity score analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2012;19:842-849.

    10 Yin L, Li H, Li AJ, Lau WY, Pan ZY, Lai EC, et al. Partial hepatectomy vs. transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for resectable multiple hepatocellular carcinoma beyond Milan Criteria: a RCT. J Hepatol 2014;61:82-88.

    11 Ng KK, Vauthey JN, Pawlik TM, Lauwers GY, Regimbeau JM,Belghiti J, et al. Is hepatic resection for large or multinodular hepatocellular carcinoma justified? results from a multi-institutional database. Ann Surg Oncol 2005;12:364-373.

    12 Llovet JM. Updated treatment approach to hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastroenterol 2005;40:225-235.

    13 Choi D, Lim HK, Joh JW, Kim SJ, Kim MJ, Rhim H, et al. Combined hepatectomy and radiofrequency ablation for multifocal hepatocellular carcinomas: long-term follow-up results and prognostic factors. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14:3510-3518.

    14 Takayama T, Makuuchi M, Hasegawa K. Single HCC smaller than 2 cm: surgery or ablation?: surgeon's perspective. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2010;17:422-424.

    15 Wang JH, Wang CC, Hung CH, Chen CL, Lu SN. Survival comparison between surgical resection and radiofrequency ablation for patients in BCLC very early/early stage hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2012;56:412-418.

    16 Bruix J, Sherman M; American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 2011;53:1020-1022.

    17 Ishizawa T, Hasegawa K, Aoki T, Takahashi M, Inoue Y, Sano K, et al. Neither multiple tumors nor portal hypertension are surgical contraindications for hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2008;134:1908-1916.

    18 Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45:228-247.

    19 Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-213.

    20 Lin CT, Hsu KF, Chen TW, Yu JC, Chan DC, Yu CY, et al. Comparing hepatic resection and transarterial chemoembolization for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B hepatocellular carcinoma: change for treatment of choice? World J Surg 2010;34:2155-2161.

    21 Omata M, Lesmana LA, Tateishi R, Chen PJ, Lin SM, Yoshida H, et al. Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver consensus recommendations on hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Int 2010;4:439-474.

    22 Pawlik TM, Izzo F, Cohen DS, Morris JS, Curley SA. Combined resection and radiofrequency ablation for advanced hepatic malignancies: results in 172 patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10:1059-1069.

    23 Chen MF, Hwang TL, Jeng LB, Jan YY, Wang CS, Chou FF. Hepatic resection in 120 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Arch Surg 1989;124:1025-1028.

    24 Chen MF, Tsai HP, Jeng LB, Lee WC, Yeh CN, Yu MC, et al. Prognostic factors after resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in noncirrhotic livers: univariate and multivariate analysis. World J Surg 2003;27:443-447.

    25 Llovet JM, Di Bisceglie AM, Bruix J, Kramer BS, Lencioni R,Zhu AX, et al. Design and endpoints of clinical trials in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:698-711.

    26 Cucchetti A, Djulbegovic B, Tsalatsanis A, Vitale A, Hozo I, Piscaglia F, et al. When to perform hepatic resection for intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2015;61:905-914.

    27 Zhao WC, Fan LF, Yang N, Zhang HB, Chen BD, Yang GS. Preoperative predictors of microvascular invasion in multinodular hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2013;39:858-864.

    28 Zhong JH, Xiang BD, Gong WF, Ke Y, Mo QG, Ma L, et al. Comparison of long-term survival of patients with BCLC stage B hepatocellular carcinoma after liver resection or transarterial chemoembolization. PLoS One 2013;8:e68193.

    Accepted after revision December 22, 2015

    Author Affiliations: Department of Hepatic Surgery, West China Hospital,Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China (Hou YF, Wei YG, Yang JY,Wen TF, Xu MQ, Yan LN and Li B)

    Bo Li, MD, PhD, Department of Hepatic Surgery,West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China (Tel/ Fax: +86-28-85422867; Email: cdlibo@medmail.com.cn)
    ? 2016, Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. All rights reserved.

    10.1016/S1499-3872(16)60089-9
    Published online April 20, 2016.

    July 28, 2015

    激情视频va一区二区三区| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频 | 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 咕卡用的链子| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 天堂8中文在线网| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 美女主播在线视频| 五月开心婷婷网| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 韩国av在线不卡| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 中文字幕制服av| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 插逼视频在线观看| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕 | 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 精品少妇内射三级| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 久久久精品区二区三区| 久久久久久人妻| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| h视频一区二区三区| 午夜免费观看性视频| 91精品三级在线观看| 国产av精品麻豆| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 在线观看三级黄色| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 各种免费的搞黄视频| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 91精品三级在线观看| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 丁香六月天网| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 伦精品一区二区三区| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 香蕉丝袜av| 在线天堂最新版资源| 亚洲精品视频女| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 一级爰片在线观看| 国产毛片在线视频| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 亚洲精品aⅴ在线观看| 婷婷色麻豆天堂久久| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 国产精品三级大全| av在线播放精品| 下体分泌物呈黄色| 亚洲图色成人| 考比视频在线观看| 五月开心婷婷网| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 午夜日本视频在线| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 国产麻豆69| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类| 日本91视频免费播放| 国产不卡av网站在线观看| 少妇高潮的动态图| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 亚洲综合色惰| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 亚洲伊人色综图| 尾随美女入室| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 久久久久国产精品人妻一区二区| 国内精品宾馆在线| 三级国产精品片| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| av有码第一页| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 亚洲av.av天堂| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| a级毛片黄视频| 97在线人人人人妻| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 亚洲成人av在线免费| av免费观看日本| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 久久热在线av| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 午夜影院在线不卡| 深夜精品福利| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 香蕉国产在线看| 久久久精品94久久精品| 久久久久精品性色| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| xxx大片免费视频| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 精品国产一区二区久久| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 色吧在线观看| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 成人国产麻豆网| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 赤兔流量卡办理| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 好男人视频免费观看在线| 老女人水多毛片| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站| 中国国产av一级| 飞空精品影院首页| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 欧美精品av麻豆av| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 18禁观看日本| 国产成人精品久久久久久| av一本久久久久| 久久久久久人人人人人| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 青青草视频在线视频观看| av线在线观看网站| 亚洲精品aⅴ在线观看| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 一个人免费看片子| 街头女战士在线观看网站| 美女福利国产在线| 热99久久久久精品小说推荐| 视频区图区小说| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频 | 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 免费av不卡在线播放| 亚洲av福利一区| 99热全是精品| 日本黄大片高清| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 国产爽快片一区二区三区| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 中国国产av一级| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 99久久综合免费| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕 | 水蜜桃什么品种好| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 看免费av毛片| 考比视频在线观看| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 在线天堂最新版资源| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 精品酒店卫生间| 街头女战士在线观看网站| 久久热在线av| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 免费观看在线日韩| 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 久久青草综合色| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 熟女电影av网| 亚洲国产av新网站| 精品少妇内射三级| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 夫妻午夜视频| 丝袜脚勾引网站| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 捣出白浆h1v1| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 色哟哟·www| 51国产日韩欧美| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕 | 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 精品第一国产精品| 久热这里只有精品99| 视频区图区小说| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 老司机影院毛片| 制服人妻中文乱码| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 亚洲国产色片| 免费av不卡在线播放| 在线观看国产h片| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 国产精品一国产av| 少妇 在线观看| 老司机影院毛片| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 天天影视国产精品| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 51国产日韩欧美| 熟女电影av网| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看 | 亚洲国产精品一区三区| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 日本av免费视频播放| 亚洲国产色片| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 国产男女内射视频| 一级黄片播放器| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 免费看光身美女| 少妇人妻 视频| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| av一本久久久久| 人妻系列 视频| 老司机影院毛片| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| 蜜桃在线观看..| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 久久久久久久久久成人| 中国三级夫妇交换| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 国产不卡av网站在线观看| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 一级毛片我不卡| 97超碰精品成人国产| 亚洲国产av新网站| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件| videossex国产| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 又大又黄又爽视频免费| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| 日韩成人伦理影院| 日本色播在线视频| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 亚洲av.av天堂| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 午夜日本视频在线| 永久免费av网站大全| 国产成人精品婷婷| 久久人人爽人人片av| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区| 精品国产一区二区久久| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频 | 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| 伊人亚洲综合成人网| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 亚洲伊人色综图| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区| 熟妇人妻不卡中文字幕| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 人人澡人人妻人| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 另类精品久久| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 99香蕉大伊视频| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区 | 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 一本久久精品| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 亚洲国产av影院在线观看| 26uuu在线亚洲综合色| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 老女人水多毛片| 大香蕉久久成人网| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 亚洲第一av免费看| 国产精品成人在线| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 午夜视频国产福利| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 五月天丁香电影| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 精品久久久久久电影网| 国产成人aa在线观看| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区 | 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 亚洲av欧美aⅴ国产| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 香蕉国产在线看| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 亚洲国产日韩一区二区| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 一个人免费看片子| 高清av免费在线| 日韩电影二区| 97在线视频观看| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 夫妻午夜视频| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 国产成人一区二区在线| 久久青草综合色| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区| 免费观看性生交大片5| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 午夜免费鲁丝| 免费大片黄手机在线观看| 免费观看无遮挡的男女| 大陆偷拍与自拍| 国语对白做爰xxxⅹ性视频网站| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 亚洲av欧美aⅴ国产| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 久久精品夜色国产| 中文欧美无线码| 免费看av在线观看网站| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 97在线人人人人妻| 国产成人精品婷婷| 久久久欧美国产精品| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 欧美+日韩+精品| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 久久青草综合色| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 久久午夜福利片| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 美女中出高潮动态图| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看 | 十八禁网站网址无遮挡| 少妇人妻久久综合中文| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 日韩成人伦理影院| 国产亚洲最大av| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 777米奇影视久久| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 99热6这里只有精品| 成年美女黄网站色视频大全免费| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 9色porny在线观看| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 伦理电影免费视频| 精品亚洲成国产av| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 成人手机av| 欧美成人午夜精品| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 亚洲国产看品久久| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 成人无遮挡网站| 国产探花极品一区二区| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 18+在线观看网站| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 看免费成人av毛片| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 少妇精品久久久久久久| av网站免费在线观看视频| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| 久久久久国产网址| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区| 欧美97在线视频| 国产成人91sexporn| 亚洲成人一二三区av| 午夜日本视频在线| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆| 卡戴珊不雅视频在线播放| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 午夜久久久在线观看| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 成人国语在线视频| 天天影视国产精品| 久久热在线av| 老司机影院毛片| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 超色免费av| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 精品一区二区免费观看| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 黄片播放在线免费| 久久女婷五月综合色啪小说| 免费日韩欧美在线观看| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 国产精品三级大全| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 亚洲av欧美aⅴ国产| 9热在线视频观看99| 成人毛片60女人毛片免费| 免费日韩欧美在线观看| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 国产探花极品一区二区| 美女福利国产在线| 国产探花极品一区二区| 在线观看国产h片| 色5月婷婷丁香| 9色porny在线观看| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 男女高潮啪啪啪动态图| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 一级毛片 在线播放| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| 国产极品天堂在线| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 美女福利国产在线| 考比视频在线观看| 色吧在线观看| 高清在线视频一区二区三区| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| 成年动漫av网址| 黑人高潮一二区| 久久人人97超碰香蕉20202| 午夜日本视频在线| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 少妇的逼水好多| 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 如何舔出高潮| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| kizo精华| 咕卡用的链子| 超色免费av| 十八禁高潮呻吟视频| 精品一区在线观看国产| 国产免费现黄频在线看| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| av福利片在线| 久久狼人影院| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频 | 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 人妻系列 视频| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 久久午夜福利片| 亚洲精品视频女| 乱人伦中国视频| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 午夜福利视频精品| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 丝袜脚勾引网站| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 久久97久久精品| 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 午夜久久久在线观看| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 精品久久久久久电影网| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 午夜福利视频在线观看免费| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 人妻系列 视频| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 亚洲综合色惰| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 中国三级夫妇交换| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 免费播放大片免费观看视频在线观看| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡 | 久久精品夜色国产| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 欧美3d第一页| 午夜av观看不卡| 成年av动漫网址| 色吧在线观看| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕 | 国产在线一区二区三区精| 成人国产av品久久久| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 视频区图区小说| 国产成人精品一,二区| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 国产探花极品一区二区| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 丝袜脚勾引网站| 国产 一区精品| av黄色大香蕉| 高清av免费在线| 免费在线观看完整版高清| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看| 久久久久国产精品人妻一区二区| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡 | 久久这里有精品视频免费| 久久影院123| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| 国产成人精品无人区| 丝袜脚勾引网站| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 国产又爽黄色视频| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 卡戴珊不雅视频在线播放| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 中文字幕人妻熟女乱码| 丁香六月天网| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 久久久久精品人妻al黑|