Skip to main content
Download PDF

Safety and feasibility of liver resection including major hepatectomy for geriatric patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective observational study

BMC Cancer volume 24, Article number: 765 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

It is unclear whether hepatectomy, which ranges in invasiveness from partial to major hepatectomy, is safe and feasible for older adult patients. Therefore, we compared its postoperative complications and long-term outcomes between younger and older adult patients.

Methods

Patients who underwent hepatectomies for hepatocellular carcinoma (N = 883) were evaluated. Patients were divided into two groups: aged < 75 years (N = 593) and ≥ 75 years (N = 290). Short-term outcomes and prognoses were compared between the groups in the entire cohort. The same analyses were performed for the major hepatectomy cohort.

Results

In the entire cohort, no significant differences were found in complications between patients aged < 75 and ≥ 75 years, and the multivariate analysis did not reveal age as a prognostic factor for postoperative complications. However, overall survival was significantly worse in older patients, although no significant differences were noted in time to recurrence or cancer-specific survival. In the multivariate analyses of time to recurrence, overall survival, and cancer-specific survival, although older age was an independent poor prognostic factor for overall survival, it was not a prognostic factor for time to recurrence and cancer-specific survival. In the major hepatectomy subgroup, short- and long-term outcomes, including time to recurrence, overall survival, and cancer-specific survival, did not differ significantly between the age groups. In the multivariate analysis, age was not a significant prognostic factor for complications, time to recurrence, overall survival, or cancer-specific survival.

Conclusion

Hepatectomy, including minor and major hepatectomy, may be safe and oncologically feasible options for selected older adult patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Peer Review reports

Background

The average life expectancy has increased owing to advances in medical techniques and innovations. This trend is particularly noticeable in Japan and Hong Kong, where the average life expectancy has been reported to be 81.6 years in men and 87.7 years in women, and 83.2 years in men and 87.9 years in women, respectively [1, 2]. Aging will become a future problem in other regions [3,4,5]. In general, geriatric patients tend to have more comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and renal disorders, than younger patients [6, 7]. Thus, older patients are often considered to have contraindications for surgery because of their age. However, various studies have reported that the short- and long-term postoperative outcomes of geriatric patients are comparable with those of younger patients [8,9,10,11].

Hepatectomy is a potentially curative treatment of choice for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but it has higher morbidity and mortality rates than other abdominal surgeries [12,13,14,15]. Thus, surgical indications and methods of liver resection should be thoroughly discussed and strictly followed to avoid unnecessary complications and mortality. However, hepatectomy ranges in invasiveness from partial to major hepatectomy [16, 17]. We speculate that partial hepatectomy for geriatric patients is permissible because it is less invasive; however, whether major hepatectomies, such as bi- or trisectionectomy, are safe and feasible for older adult patients is unclear. In the future, more geriatric patients will require hepatectomies owing to improved life expectancy, regardless of the extent of liver resection.

Therefore, we compared the postoperative complications and long-term outcomes between younger and older adult patients with HCC who underwent hepatectomies. Additionally, we evaluated patients in the major hepatectomy cohort in a subgroup analysis.

Methods

Patients

The data of consecutive patients who underwent hepatectomies for HCC at Kurume University between January 2006 and December 2020 (N = 813) and St. Mary’s Hospital between January 2006 and December 2020 (N = 98) were retrospectively analyzed. The inclusion criteria were as follows: treatment-naïve HCC, initial hepatectomy, performance status ≤ 2, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification ≤ 3, and histopathological confirmation of HCC. Conversely, the exclusion criteria were as follows: curative resection not achieved (N = 13) and insufficient data (N = 15). In total, 883 patients were enrolled in this study. Patients were divided into two groups: < 75 years (N = 593) and ≥ 75 years (N = 290); the short-term outcomes and prognoses were compared between the groups in the entire cohort. Additionally, the same analyses were performed in the major hepatectomy cohort as a subgroup analysis.

The protocol for this research project has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Kurume University (no. 22294) and it conforms to the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki. The need for informed consent was waived owing to the retrospective design of the study. We declare that we have ensured protection of the confidentiality of patient data.

Data collection

Clinical and pathological data were obtained from the patient’s medical records. Blood samples and physical data were obtained within 1 week before surgery. Histopathological diagnoses were performed by at least two pathologists in accordance with the Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan guidelines.

Treatment plan

In principle, we treated patients in accordance with the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hepatocellular Carcinoma 2021 [18]. We diagnosed patients with underlying liver diseases, tumor markers, and imaging findings. A tumor biopsy was performed for patients with atypical imaging findings. We held weekly discussions with physicians, particularly for difficult cases. The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hepatocellular Carcinoma indicate that the candidates for liver transplantation are limited to patients with Child–Pugh (CP) scores C. Therefore, none of the patients in the present study were eligible for transplantations.

Preoperative therapy

Preoperative therapies, such as transcatheter arterial (chemo)embolizations and transhepatic arterial infusions, were performed in patients expected to be at high risk of recurrence. We conducted portal vein embolizations (PVEs) in patients with a risk of postoperative liver failure, such as those with a future remnant liver volume of < 40%. After confirming that the future liver remnant had increased by approximately 10% using CT volumetry according to PVE, radical resection was performed. Cases in which ascites appeared after PVE, portal venous pressure was high during PVE, and sufficient residual liver enlargement was not achieved after PVE were excluded. No patients underwent associated liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomies.

Surgical procedure

The surgical plan was carefully discussed and comprehensively chosen based on patients’ liver function (CP score, liver damage, platelet count, extent of cirrhosis, presence of esophageal varices, and splenomegaly), tumor factors (size, number, location, and distance to the major vessels), and comorbidities. Major hepatectomy was defined as hepatectomy with three or more Couinaud’s liver segments, and minor hepatectomy was defined as involving less than three segments according to the Brisbane 2000 terminology [19]. Surgical procedures are briefly described as follows. Liver mobilization was performed before liver transection if needed. The Pringle maneuver was conducted in principle. Parenchymal transection was performed using an ultrasonic surgical aspirator, ultrasonic coagulation dissector, or clamp crushing methods, according to the surgeon’s preferences.

Postoperative follow-up

During postoperative follow-up, routine blood tests and tumor markers (alpha-fetoprotein [AFP] and protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonist-II) were examined at least every 3 months. Additionally, imaging, such as ultrasonography or computed tomography, was performed every 3 months. If any recurrent findings were confirmed, gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging or contrast-enhanced ultrasonography was performed. Time to recurrence (TTR) was defined as the time from surgery to recurrence. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from surgery to death. Cancer-specific survival (CSS) was defined as the time from surgery to HCC-related death.

Statistical analyses

Categorical variables are presented as numbers and percentages and were compared using Pearson’s chi-squared test. Continuous variables are presented as medians and ranges or interquartile ranges and were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Covariates associated with postoperative complications and International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS) liver failure were evaluated using a logistic regression model for univariate and multivariate analyses, and odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated. Statistically significant covariates found in univariate analysis were included in multivariate analysis. Survival curves were created using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. A Cox proportional hazards model was used for univariate and multivariate analyses to identify the risk factors for prognosis, and hazard ratios and 95% CIs were calculated. Statistically significant covariates in the univariate analysis were included in the multivariate analysis. All statistical analyses were performed using JMP Pro, version 15 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Statistical significance was set at a p-value of < 0.05.

Results

Patient characteristics in the entire cohort

The clinical and pathological characteristics of patients aged < 75 and ≥ 75 years in the entire cohort are summarized in Table 1. Body mass index, American Society of. Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS), underlying liver disease, total bilirubin level, serum albumin level, prothrombin time, serum AFP level, CP score, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) score, ALBI grade, surgical method, operation time, estimated blood loss, and histological fibrosis grade were significantly different between the two groups (all p < 0.05). Less-invasive surgery may have been performed for the patients aged ≥ 75 years.

Table 1 Clinicopathological characteristics of patients aged < 75 and ≥ 75 years in the entire cohort
Full size table

Postoperative complications and ISGLS liver failure in the entire cohort

Clavien–Dindo (CD) postoperative complications, ISGLS liver failure, and in-hospital days were not significantly different between the two groups (Supplementary Table 1). ALBI grade, operation time, estimated blood loss, and fibrosis grade were predictive factors for complications in the univariate analysis (all p < 0.05). In the multivariate analysis, ALBI grade, operation time, and fibrosis grade were independent predictors of complications (all p < 0.05) (Supplementary Table 2).

For ISGLS liver failure, sex, ALBI grade, CP score, surgical method, operation time, and estimated blood loss were predictive factors in the univariate analysis (all p < 0.05). In the multivariate analysis, sex, ALBI grade, CP score, and estimated blood loss were independent predictors of ISGLS liver failure (all p < 0.05).

Comparison of recurrence and survival between the two groups in the entire cohort

Although TTR and CSS were similar between the two groups, patients aged ≥ 75 years had significantly worse OS compared with patients aged < 75 years (p = 0.2783, p = 0.2981, and p < 0.0001, respectively) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

TTR, OS, and CSS curves of < 75 and ≥ 75-year-old patients in the entire cohort. Although the TTR and CSS were not significantly different between the groups, OS was significantly worse in patients aged ≥ 75 years. TTR, time to recurrence; OS, overall survival; CSS, cancer-specific survival

Full size image

Univariate and multivariate analyses of TTR, OS, and CSS

The results of univariate and multivariate analyses of TTR, OS, and CSS are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Univariate and multivariate analyses of TTR, OS, and CSS in the entire cohort
Full size table

Univariate analysis of TTR demonstrated that ALBI grade, CP score (A vs. B), AFP level (< 20 vs. ≥ 20 ng/mL), tumor diameter (≤ 20 vs. > 20 mm), tumor number (solitary vs. multiple), tumor differentiation (well/moderately defined vs. poorly defined), vascular invasion (- vs. +), histological fibrosis grade (F0-2 vs. F3-4), and ISGLS liver failure (0-A vs. B-C) were prognostic factors. In multivariate analysis, ALBI grade, tumor diameter (≤ 20 vs. > 20 mm), tumor number (solitary vs. multiple), vascular invasion (- vs. +), and histological fibrosis grade (F0-2 vs. F3-4) were independent prognostic factors.

Regarding OS, univariate analysis showed that age (< 75 vs. ≥ 75 years), ASA-PS (1–2 vs. 3), underlying liver disease (viral vs. non-viral), ALBI grade (1 vs. 2–3), AFP (< 20 vs. ≥ 20 ng/mL), surgical method (minor vs. major), estimated blood loss (< 500 vs. ≥ 500 mL), tumor diameter (≤ 20 vs. > 20 mm), tumor number (solitary vs. multiple), tumor differentiation (well/moderately differentiated vs. poorly differentiated), vascular invasion (- vs. +), and ISGLS liver failure (0-A vs. B-C) were prognostic factors. In multivariate analysis, age (< 75 vs. ≥ 75 years), ASA-PS (1–2 vs. 3), ALBI grade (1 vs. 2–3), AFP (< 20 vs. ≥ 20 ng/mL), and tumor number (solitary vs. multiple) were independent prognostic factors.

In terms of CSS, univariate analysis showed that ALBI grade (1 vs. 2–3), AFP level (< 20 vs. ≥ 20 ng/mL), operation time (< 300 vs. ≥ 300 min), estimated blood loss (< 500 vs. ≥ 500 mL), tumor diameter (≤ 20 vs. > 20 mm), tumor number (solitary vs. multiple), tumor differentiation (well/moderately differentiated vs. poorly differentiated), vascular invasion (- vs. +), and ISGLS liver failure (0-A vs. B-C) were prognostic factors. In multivariate analysis, ALBI grade (1 vs. 2–3), tumor diameter (≤ 20 vs. > 20 mm), and vascular invasion (- vs. +) were independent prognostic factors.

Patient characteristics in the major hepatectomy cohort

The clinicopathological features of patients aged < 75 and ≥ 75 years in the major hepatectomy cohort are summarized in Table 3. Underlying liver disease, serum albumin level, serum AFP level, ALBI score, ALBI grade, operation time, and Inuyama fibrosis grade were significantly different between the two groups (all p < 0.05).

Table 3 Clinicopathological characteristics of patients aged < 75 and ≥ 75 years in the major hepatectomy cohort
Full size table

Postoperative complications and ISGLS liver failure in the major hepatectomy cohort

CD postoperative complications, ISGLS liver failure, and in-hospital days were not significantly different between the two age groups (Supplementary Table 3). Univariate and multivariate analyses of the CD postoperative complications and ISGLS liver failure are shown in Supplementary Table 4. No significant differences were found between the groups for postoperative complications.

For ISGLS liver failure, estimated blood loss (< 500 vs. ≥ 500 mL) was a predictive factor in the univariate and multivariate analyses.

Comparison of recurrence and survival between the two age groups in the major hepatectomy cohort

TTR, OS, and CSS were not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.7956, p = 0.6103, and p = 0.6755, respectively; Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

TTR, OS, and CSS curves of < 75 and ≥ 75-year-old patients in the major hepatectomy cohort. No significant differences were observed in all the curves between the groups. TTR, time to recurrence; OS, overall survival; CSS, cancer-specific survival

Full size image

Univariate and multivariate analyses of TTR, OS, and CSS in the major hepatectomy cohort

The results of the univariate and multivariate analyses of TTR, OS, and CSS are shown in Table 4. Univariate analysis of TTR demonstrated that sex (male vs. female), ALBI grade (1 vs. 2–3), tumor diameter (≤ 20 vs. > 20 mm), tumor number (solitary vs. multiple), tumor differentiation (well/moderately differentiated vs. poorly differentiated), vascular invasion (- vs. +), and ISGLS liver failure (0-A vs. B-C) were prognostic factors. In multivariate analysis, tumor number (solitary vs. multiple) and ISGLS liver failure (0-A vs. B-C) were independent prognostic factors.

Table 4 Univariate and multivariate analyses of TTR, OS, and CSS in the major hepatectomy cohort
Full size table

For OS, univariate analysis showed that ALBI grade (1 vs. 2–3), AFP (< 20 vs. ≥ 20 ng/mL), estimated blood loss (< 500 vs. ≥ 500 mL), tumor diameter (≤ 20 vs. > 20 mm), tumor number (solitary vs. multiple), and ISGLS liver failure (0-A vs. B-C) were prognostic factors. On multivariate analysis, AFP (< 20 vs. ≥ 20 ng/mL), estimated blood loss (< 500 vs. ≥ 500 mL), and tumor number (solitary vs. multiple) were independent prognostic factors.

Regarding CSS, univariate analysis showed that AFP (< 20 vs. ≥ 20 ng/mL), tumor diameter (≤ 20 vs. > 20 mm), tumor number (solitary vs. multiple), tumor differentiation (well/moderately differentiated vs. poorly differentiated), vascular invasion (- vs. +), and ISGLS liver failure (0-A vs. B-C) were prognostic factors. In multivariate analysis, there were no significant differences between the groups.

Discussion

A nationwide study from the Netherlands has demonstrated that the incidence of liver-specific complications was not different between patients aged < 70 and ≥ 70 years; however, other complications, such as cardiac complications, pneumonia, and thromboembolism, occurred more frequently in older patients [20]. Similarly, a Japanese study based on a national clinical database has revealed that the occurrence of surgery-related complications did not differ between younger and older patients [21]. Additionally, Shimada et al. have shown that there were no significant differences among the three age groups (65 ≥ vs. 65–80 vs. ≥ 80 years) regarding postoperative complications [9]. These studies suggest that age alone is not a contraindication for surgery owing to postoperative complications. However, liver resection ranges in invasiveness from partial hepatectomy for small tumors at the liver edge to major hepatectomy for tumors located in the center of the liver or tumors attached to major vessels. In the present study, we evaluated the major hepatectomy cohort in a subgroup analysis and found no significant difference in postoperative complications between the two age groups. Therefore, not only minor liver resection but also major hepatectomy could be safely performed in geriatric patients.

The etiology of the underlying liver disease differed between the groups both in the entire and major hepatectomy cohorts (Tables 1 and 3). Tanaka et al. estimated that 1.7–2.2 million patients had chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) in 2000 in Japan. The number of patients gradually reduced to 0.88–1.30 million in 2015 and are expected to be 0.21–0.48 million in 2030. However, the number of patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) was estimated at 1.3–1.5 million in 2000 and then slowly reduced to 1.03–1.19 million in 2015. In 2030, it will be expected to reach 0.71–0.83 million [22]. Compared with that of HBV, the incidence of HCV has radically decreased; this may be owing to the use of direct-acting antivirals. It can achieve sustained viral response almost completely. The incidence of non-B non-C hepatitis-related HCC has been increasing, and the age of these patients is higher than that of those with HCV- and HBV-related HCC. These data are almost in line with those of the present study [23]. Therefore, our data may be a typical example of the trend of HCC occurrence in Japan.

Although a significant difference was found in OS between the two age groups in the entire cohort, TTR and CSS were not significantly different. Additionally, age was a prognostic factor for OS in the multivariate analysis. In contrast, in the major hepatectomy cohort, no significant differences were noted in TTR, OS, or CSS. This finding is partially consistent with the results of other studies. In a study by Liu et al., which included 1004 patients with HCC who underwent both minor and major hepatectomy, patients aged ≥ 75 years had significantly worse OS, whereas recurrence-free survival was similar between the age groups [24]. Chen et al. have reported that OS and recurrence-free survival after major hepatectomy for large HCC were comparable between patients aged ≥ 65 years (N = 92) and < 65 years N = 738) [25]. The worse OS outcomes for elderly patients in the entire cohort may be attributed to comorbidity. Patients aged ≥ 75 years have a higher prevalence of comorbidities than patients aged < 75 years: cardiac, 10.3% vs. 3.9%; pulmonary, 2.1% vs. 1.9%; and renal, 3.1% vs. 1.5% (Supplementary Table 5). In contrast, patients aged ≥ 75 years in the major hepatectomy cohort had a lower prevalence of comorbidities: cardiac, 3.1%; pulmonary, 0%; and renal, 1.0%. Overall, only patients with few comorbidities may be selected as candidates for major hepatectomy.

Regarding patient characteristics in the entire cohort, minor hepatectomy, shorter operation time, and less blood loss were observed in the older group, which is consistent with the results of other studies [8, 21]. Similar findings were observed in the major hepatectomy cohort. These findings suggest that there are stricter criteria for older patients and that challenging cases may potentially be avoided by surgeons. At present, although there are various tools to assess immunonutritional status, such as the prognostic nutritional index, Controlling Nutritional Status score, and Glasgow prognostic score, as well as examining sarcopenia and the area of the iliopsoas muscle at the third lumbar vertebra level on computed tomography [26,27,28,29,30], there is no objective indicator for older patients who can tolerate highly invasive surgery. Further studies are warranted to identify the risks and benefits for each patient regardless of age.

Minimally invasive surgery, including laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery, has been widely accepted in many fields, and a similar trend has been found with respect to liver surgery. Kim et al. revealed that the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver surgery for older adult patients were comparable with those of open liver surgery. Additionally, in-hospital days in the laparoscopic liver surgery group were significantly lesser than that in the open liver surgery group [31]. Yoshino et al. demonstrated that surgical outcomes and postoperative complications were comparable between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic major hepatectomy for geriatric patients. Moreover, robotic-assisted hepatectomy showed a lower open conversion rate, shorter length of hospital stay, and shorter intensive care unit stay [32]. Several reports exist on the safety and oncological feasibility of minimally invasive surgery. It is expected that its application for liver surgery will be more widespread in the near future, including in older adults.

The present study had some limitations. First, there is a potential risk of selection bias owing to the retrospective design of the study. Second, the follow-up protocol was not standardized, which could have reduced the power of the TTR data. Third, elderly patients with advanced cirrhosis may have been excluded as surgical candidates preoperatively because of their limited prognoses. Finally, the evaluation of resectability and preselection of suitable candidates for surgery are complex. Even if liver function is not well-preserved, surgery is performed in some cases where the tumor is located near the liver surface. In contrast, if the tumor is located around the hepatic hilum or the root of the hepatic veins, surgeons sometimes hesitate to perform surgery, even in cases of preserved liver function.

Conclusion

Age alone is not a contraindication for hepatectomy. Hepatectomy, including minor and major hepatectomy, may be safe and oncologically feasible in older patients with HCC who have few comorbidities, good liver function reserve, and good performance status.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

AFP:

Alpha-fetoprotein

ALBI:

Albumin-bilirubin

ASA-PS:

American society of. anesthesiologists physical status

CD:

Clavien–Dindo

CI:

Confidence interval

CP:

Child–Pugh

CSS:

Cancer-specific survival

HBV:

Hepatitis B virus

HCC:

Hepatocellular carcinoma

HCV:

Hepatitis C virus

ISGLS:

International study group of liver surgery

OS:

Overall survival

PVE:

Portal vein embolization

TTR:

Time to recurrence

References

  1. Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The life tables. Available from: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/. Accessed 27 Mar 2022.

  2. Centre for Health Protection, Department of Health, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Available from: https://www.chp.gov.hk/en/statistics/data/10/27/111.html. Accessed 14 Jul 2023.

  3. The European Commission, the Economic Policy Committee (AWG). The 2012 Ageing Report: economic and budgetary projections for the EU27 Member States (2010–2060). Brussels: European Union; 2012. p. 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  4. US Department of Health and Human Services. Administration on Ageing. A profile of older Americans: Administration for Community Living; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Smith BD, Smith GL, Hurria A, Hortobagyi GN, Buchholz TA. Future of cancer incidence in the United States: burdens upon an aging, changing nation. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2758–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Phillip JM, Aifuwa I, Walston J, Wirtz D. The mechanobiology of aging. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2015;17:113–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Andert A, Lodewick T, Ulmer TF, Schmeding M, Schöning W, Neumann U, et al. Liver resection in the elderly: a retrospective cohort study of 460 patients – feasible and safe. Int J Surg. 2016;28:126–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kaibori M, Yoshii K, Yokota I, Hasegawa K, Nagashima F, Kubo S, et al. Impact of advanced age on survival in patients undergoing resection of hepatocellular carcinoma: report of a Japanese nationwide survey. Ann Surg. 2019;269:692–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Shimada S, Kamiyama T, Orimo T, Nagatsu A, Asahi Y, Sakamoto Y, et al. Prognoses, outcomes, and clinicopathological characteristics of very elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent hepatectomy. World J Surg Oncol. 2020;18:122.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Ogata T, Yoshida N, Sadakari Y, Iwanaga A, Nakane H, Okawara K, et al. Colorectal cancer surgery in elderly patients 80 years and older: a comparison with younger age groups. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2022;13:137–48.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Xing H, Liang L, Wang H, Zhou YH, Pei YL, Li C, et al. Multicenter analysis of long-term oncologic outcomes of hepatectomy for elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. HPB (Oxford). 2020;22:1314–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yokoo H, Miyata H, Konno H, Taketomi A, Kakisaka T, Hirahara N, et al. Models predicting the risks of six life-threatening morbidities and bile leakage in 14,970 hepatectomy patients registered in the National Clinical Database of Japan. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e5466.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kenjo A, Miyata H, Gotoh M, Kitagawa Y, Shimada M, Baba H, et al. Risk stratification of 7,732 hepatectomy cases in 2011 from the National Clinical Database for Japan. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218:412–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Matsubara N, Miyata H, Gotoh M, Tomita N, Baba H, Kimura W, et al. Mortality after common rectal surgery in Japan: a study on low anterior resection from a newly established nationwide large-scale clinical database. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:1075–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Takeuchi H, Miyata H, Gotoh M, Kitagawa Y, Baba H, Kimura W, et al. A risk model for esophagectomy using data of 5354 patients included in a Japanese nationwide web-based database. Ann Surg. 2014;260:259–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wong TC, Cheung TT, Chok KS, Chan AC, Dai WC, Chan SC, et al. Treatment strategy to improve long-term survival for hepatocellular carcinoma smaller than 5 cm: major hepatectomy vs minor hepatectomy. World J Surg. 2014;38:2386–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhang XF, Bagante F, Chakedis J, Moris D, Beal EW, Weiss M, et al. Perioperative and long-term outcome for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: impact of major versus minor hepatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;21:1841–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Clinical practice guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma 2021. The Japan Society of Hepatology. Available from: https://www.jsh.or.jp/lib/files/english/examination_en/guidelines_hepatocellular_carcinoma_2021_02.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2021.

  19. Strasberg SM, Belghiti J, Clavien PA, Gadzijev E, Garden JO, Lau WY, et al. The Brisbane 2000 terminology of liver anatomy and resections. HPB. 2000;2:333–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Elfrink AKE, Kok NFM, den Dulk M, Buis CI, Kazemier G, Ijzermans JNM, et al. Short-term postoperative outcomes after liver resection in the elderly patient: a nationwide population-based study. HPB (Oxford). 2021;23:1506–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Okinaga H, Yasunaga H, Hasegawa K, Fushimi K, Kokudo N. Short-term outcomes following hepatectomy in elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: an analysis of 10,805 septuagenarians and 2,381 octo- and nonagenarians in Japan. Liver Cancer. 2018;7:55–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tanaka J, Kurisu A, Ohara M, Ouoba S, Ohisa M, Sugiyama A, et al. Burden of chronic hepatitis B and C infections in 2015 and future trends in Japan: a simulation study. Lancet Reg Health West Pac. 2022;22:100428.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Yasukawa K, Shimizu A, Kubota K, Notake T, Hosoda K, Hayashi H, et al. Clinical characteristics, prognosis, and surgical outcomes of patients with non-HBV and non-HCV related hepatocellular carcinoma: three-decade observational study. BMC Gastroenterol. 2023;23:200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Liu YW, Yong CC, Lin CC, Wang CC, Chen CL, Cheng YF, et al. Liver resection in elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: age does matter. Updates Surg. 2021;73:1371–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chen ZL, Zhang CW, Liang L, Wu H, Zhang WG, Zeng YY, et al. Major hepatectomy in elderly patients with large hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective observational study. Cancer Manag Res. 2020;12:5607–18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Harimoto N, Shirabe K, Yamashita YI, Ikegami T, Yoshizumi T, Soejima Y, et al. Sarcopenia as a predictor of prognosis in patients following hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Surg. 2013;100:1523–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Marasco G, Dajti E, Serenari M, Alemanni LV, Ravaioli F, Ravaioli M, et al. Sarcopenia predicts major complications after resection for primary hepatocellular carcinoma in compensated cirrhosis. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14:1935.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Saito Y, Imura S, Morine Y, Ikemoto T, Yamada S, Shimada M. Preoperative prognostic nutritional index predicts short- and long-term outcomes after liver resection in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncol Lett. 2021;21:153.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Li L, Liu C, Yang J, Wu H, Wen T, Wang W, et al. Early postoperative controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score is associated with complication III-V after hepatectomy in hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study of 1,334 patients. Sci Rep. 2018;8:13406.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Kaibori M, Hiraoka A, Matsui K, Matsushima H, Kosaka H, Yamamoto H, et al. Predicting complications following surgical resection of hepatocellular carcinoma using newly developed neo-Glasgow prognostic score with ALBI grade: comparison of open and laparoscopic surgery cases. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14:1402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kim JM, Kim S, Rhu J, Choi GS, Kwon CHD, Joh JW. Elderly hepatocellular carcinoma patients: open or laparoscopic approach? Cancers (Basel). 2020;12:2281.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Yoshino O, Wang Y, McCarron F, Motz B, Wang H, Baker E, et al. Major hepatectomy in elderly patients: possible benefit from robotic platform utilization. Surg Endosc. 2023;37:6228–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Editage for the English language editing (https://www.editage.com).

Funding

None declared.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Kurume University School of Medicine, 67 Asahi-Machi, Kurume, 830-0011, Japan

    Hiroki Kanno, Kazuaki Hashimoto, Hisamune Sakai, Toshiro Ogata, Shogo Fukutomi, Masanori Akashi, Yuichi Goto & Toru Hisaka

  2. Department of Surgery, St. Mary’s Hospital, Kurume, Japan

    Hiroki Kanno, Toshiro Ogata, Takeshi Aoyagi & Masahiko Taniguchi

Authors
  1. Hiroki Kanno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kazuaki Hashimoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hisamune Sakai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Toshiro Ogata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shogo Fukutomi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Masanori Akashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yuichi Goto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Takeshi Aoyagi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Masahiko Taniguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Toru Hisaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception and design: H. K, Development of methodology: H. K, Data collection: H. K, K. H, S. F, M. A, Y. G, T. A, Analysis and interpretation of data: H. K, Writing, review and/or revision of the manuscript: H. K, H. S, T. O, M. T, Study supervision: T. H

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hiroki Kanno.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The protocol for this research project has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Kurume University (no. 22294), and it conforms to the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki. The need for informed consent was waived owing to the retrospective design of the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kanno, H., Hashimoto, K., Sakai, H. et al. Safety and feasibility of liver resection including major hepatectomy for geriatric patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective observational study. BMC Cancer 24, 765 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12514-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12514-0

Keywords

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us