Copyright
©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Meta-Anal. May 31, 2019; 7(5): 234-248
Published online May 31, 2019. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v7.i5.234
Published online May 31, 2019. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v7.i5.234
Table 1 Clinical demographics of the patients who underwent liver resection for malignant tumors in the no liver dysfunction group (n = 78) and liver dysfunction group (n = 8)
Clinical variables / characteristics | Total values (n = 86) | No liver dysfunction (n = 78) | Liver dysfunction (n = 8) | P-values |
Age (yr) | 67.0 ± 10.3 | 66.8 ± 10.5 | 68.7 ± 9.3 | NS |
BSA (cm2) | 1.61 ± 0.18 | 1.60 ± 0.18 | 1.65 ± 0.18 | NS |
Albumin (g/dL) | 4.0 ± 0.4 | 4.0 ± 0.4 | 3.8 ± 0.4 | NS |
Bilirubin (mg/dL) | 0.7 ± 0.3 | 0.6 ± 0.3 | 0.8 ± 0.4 | NS |
PT (%) | 93.4 ± 11.9 | 93.9 ± 12.1 | 88.4 ± 9.7 | NS |
ICGR15 (%) | 9.0 ± 4.6 | 8.4 ± 4.3 | 14.9 ± 2.5 | < 0.001 |
HH15 | 0.578 ± 0.079 | 0.575 ± 0.078 | 0.617 ± 0.010 | NS |
LHL15 | 0.940 ± 0.027 | 0.940 ± 0.028 | 0.935 ± 0.024 | NS |
ATIII (%) | 94.9 ± 17.2 | 96.0 ± 17.3 | 83.9 ± 13.4 | 0.036 |
Intraoperative bleeding (mL) | 481.2 ± 468.5 | 455.8 ± 472.4 | 675.0 ± 430.0 | NS |
Operative time (min) | 404.5 ± 135.2 | 390.8 ± 129.3 | 525.9 ± 140.9 | 0.014 |
Sex (male:female) | 49:37 | 44:34 | 5:3 | NS |
Background (HCC: meta or CCC) | 57:29 | 49:29 | 8:0 | 0.047 |
Hr (0/S:1:2/3) | 53:17:16 | 49:16:13 | 4:1:3 | NS |
Sapporo score | 13.2 ± 2.4 | 13.4 ± 2.5 | 11.0 ± 3.2 | 0.037 |
MELD score | 7.6 ± 1.6 | 7.6 ± 1.7 | 7.8 ± 0.7 | 0.103 |
Child-Pugh score | 3.2 ± 0.4 | 3.2 ± 0.4 | 3.4 ± 0.5 | 0.119 |
Total liver volume (cc) | 1137.8 ± 222.9 | 1136.2 ± 228.5 | 1153.5 ± 221.4 | NS |
Reduction in liver volume (%) | 19.0 ± 13.0 | 17.6 ± 12.1 | 32.8 ± 15.0 | 0.006 |
Residual liver volume (%) | 85.1 ± 14.4 | 86.0 ± 13.7 | 75.4 ± 17.9 | 0.039 |
Table 2 Sapporo scores for liver resection of malignant tumors
Factors | Scores | |||
4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
ICGR15 (%) | ≤ 10 | 10-19 | 20-29 | ≥ 30 |
ATIII (%) | ≥ 90 | 80-89 | 70-79 | ≤ 69 |
HH15 | ≤ 0.55 | 0.56-0.59 | 0.60-0.64 | ≥ 0.65 |
LHL15 | ≥ 0.95 | 0.90-0.94 | 0.85-0.89 | ≤ 0.84 |
Table 3 Formulae for the calculation of standard liver volume based on height and weight
Authors | Journals | Formulae | ICC | |
Height and weight | Ogiu et al[22] | Health Phys, 1997 | LV = 576.9 × H + 8.9 × BW – 159.7 (males); LV = 674.3 × H + 6.5 × BW – 214.5 (females) | 0.73 |
Lin et al[23] | Hepatogastroenterology, 1998 | LV = 133 × H + 12 × BW – 1530 | 0.78 | |
Yu et al[24] | Liver Transpl, 2004 | LV = 21.585 × BW0.7322 × H0.225 | 0.77 | |
Chandramohan et al[25] | Indian J Gastroenterol, 2007 | LV = 18.51 × BW + 191.80 | 0.77 | |
Fu-Gui et al[26] | Transplant Proc, 2009 | LV = 11.508 × BW + 334.024 | 0.71 | |
Poovathumkadavil et al[27] | Transplant Proc, 2010 | LV = 12.26 × BW + 555.65 | 0.72 | |
Herden et al[28] | Transpl Int, 2013 | LV = −143.062973 + 4.274603051 × H + 14.78817631 × BW (Age: 0-1); LV = −20.2472281 + 3.339056437 × H + 13.11312561 × BW (Age: 1-16) | 0.76 |
Table 4 Formulae for the calculation of standard liver volume based on body surface area
Authors | Journals | Formulae | ICC | |
BSA | DeLand et al[29] | Radiology, 1968 | LV = 1020 × BSA – 220 | 0.77 |
Urata et al[30] | Hepatology, 1995 | LV = 706.2 × BSA + 2.4 | 0.71 | |
Murry et al[31] | Drug Metab Dispos, 1995 | LV = 710 × BSA | 0.71 | |
Heinemann et al[32] | Liver Transpl Surg, 1999 | LV = 1072.8 × BSA – 345.7 | 0.78 | |
Vauthey et al[33] | Liver Transpl, 2002 | LV = 1267.28 × BSA – 794.41 | 0.78 | |
Yoshizumi et al[34] | Transplant Proc, 2003 | LV = 772 × BSA | 0.74 | |
Yu et al[24] | Liver Transpl, 2004 | LV = 1145.4 × BSA − 506.1 (adults) | 0.78 | |
Hashimoto et al[35] | J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2006 | LV = 961.3 × BSA – 404.8 | 0.77 | |
Chandramohan et al[25] | Indian J Gastroenterol, 2007 | LV = 1267.28 × BSA – 794.41 | 0.78 | |
Saeki et al[36] | Pediatr Transplant, 2012 | LV = 689.9 × BSA − 24.7 | 0.70 | |
Our study | LV = 822.7 × BSA – 183.2 | 0.74 |
Table 5 Formulae for the calculation of standard liver volume based on age, gender, or radiological findings
Authors | Journals | Formulae | ICC | |
Others | Takahashi et al[37] | Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2000 | LV = 15 × (4.6 × Age + 19.8), Age: 1-18; LV = 15 × (0.31 × Age + 97.8), Age: 30-40; LV = 15 × (–0.91 × Age + 149), Age: ≥ 41 | 0.39 |
Kanamori et al[38] | Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2002 | LV = 67.3 × Age + 229.8 | −0.39 | |
Choukèr et al[39] | Liver Transpl, 2004 | LV=452 + 16.34 × BW + 11.85 × Age – 166 × Gender (Age: 16–50, M: 0, F: 1); LV=1390 + 15.94 × BW – 12.86 × Age (Age: 51–70) | 0.79 | |
Chan et al[40] | World J Gastroenterol, 2006 | LV = 218 + BW × 12.3 + Gender × 51 (F: 0, M: 1) | 0.74 | |
Yuan et al[41] | Transplant Proc, 2008 | LV = 949.7 × BSA − 48.3 × Age − 247.4 (Age: 1: < 40, 2: 41–60, 3: > 60) | 0.77 | |
Kokudo et al[42] | J Hepatol, 2015 | LV = 203.3 − 3.61 × Age + 58.7 × Thoracic width − 463.7 × Race (Asian: 1, Caucasian: 0) | 0.66 | |
Ma et al[43] | Liver Transpl, 2017 | LV = (2 × Depth) + (10 × BW) + 190 | 0.75 |
Table 6 Characteristics of the patients and simple standard liver volume formulae based on a mean body surface area of 1.61
Authors | Mean age ± SD (range) | BSA | Simple formulae (tentative mean BSA = 1.61) | ICC | Clusters |
DeLand et al[29] | ND | ND | LV = 883 × BSA | 0.75 | B |
Urata et al[30] | 11.1 ± 8.8 | 1.078 ± 0.528 (0.248–1.935) | LV = 707 × BSA | 0.71 | A |
Murry et al[31] | 9.7 (3.3–18.8) | Median: 1.37 (0.57–2.0) | LV = 710 × BSA | 0.71 | A |
Heinemann et al[32] | 50.6±18.9 | ND | LV = 858 × BSA | 0.75 | B |
Vauthey et al[33] | Mean: 54, Median: 56 (14-90) | Median: 1.82 (1.32–2.90) | LV = 770 × BSA | 0.74 | B |
Yoshizumi et al[34] | 38.6 ± 20.6 (0–87) for males; 47.0 ± 19.7 (0–85) for females | 1.86 ± 0.36 (0.24-2.88); 1.68 ± 0.28 (0.28-2.38) | LV = 772 × BSA | 0.74 | B |
Yu et al[24] | 42.4 ± 16.5 | 1.65 ± 0.26 | LV = 831 × BSA | 0.74 | B |
Hashimoto et al[35] | (17-66) | 1.67 ± 0.18 (1.25-2.56) | LV = 710 × BSA | 0.71 | A |
Chandramohan et al[25] | 46.5 (10-70) | Median: 1.60 (0.88-2.25) | LV = 774 × BSA | 0.73 | B |
Saeki et al[36] | 5.8 (0 d-15) | ND | LV = 675 × BSA | 0.70 | A |
Our study | 67.0 ± 10.3 | 1.61 ± 0.18 | LV = 709 × BSA | 0.71 | A |
Table 7 Minimum residual liver volume based on various functional assessments
Authors | Publications | Functional assessments | Minimum residual LV | Mortality | ||
NL | CH, liver injury | LC | ||||
Shirabe et al[49] | J Am Coll Surg, 1999 | Pathology (HCC, HB, or HC) | 250 mL/m2 (40%) | 8.8% (180 d) | ||
Shoup et al[50] | J Gastrointest Surg, 2003 | Pathology (NL, CRC metastasis alone) | 25% | - | - | ND |
Schindl et al[51] | Gut, 2005 | Pathology (NL, 99% metastasis) | 26.6% | - | - | ND |
Ferrero et al[17] | World J Surg, 2007 | Pathology (NL, liver injury) | 26.5% | 31% | - | 0.8% (60 d) |
van den Esschert et al[52] | J Gastrointest Surg, 2009 | Pathology (CH, LC) | - | 40% | 50% | ND |
Kishi et al[53] | Ann Surg, 2009 | Pathology (NL) | 20% | - | - | 2.0% (30 d) 4.7% (60 d) 6.0% (90 d) |
Suda et al[54] | Am J Surg, 2009 | Pathology (NL, HCCa, GBCa, ICCa) | 40% | - | - | 8.1% (ND) |
Vauthey et al[55] | HPB, 2010 | Pathology (NL, liver injury, LC) | 20% | 30% | 40% | ND |
Gulielmi et al[56] | Dig Surg, 2012 | Pathology (NL, steatosis, LC) | 20% | 30% | 40% | ND |
Hwang et al[16] | J Gastrointest Surg, 2015 | Pathology (CH, LC) | - | 35% | 30% | 0.8% (90 d) |
Ribero et al[57] | J Am Coll Surg, 2016 | Pathology (NL, HCCa alone) | 30% | - | - | 11% (90 d) |
Our series | Hepatogastroenterolo-gy (in press) | ATIII, ICG15, GSA | 35%-95% | 2.3% (90 d) |
- Citation: Harada K, Nagayama M, Ohashi Y, Chiba A, Numasawa K, Meguro M, Kimura Y, Yamaguchi H, Kobayashi M, Miyanishi K, Kato J, Mizuguchi T. Scoring criteria for determining the safety of liver resection for malignant liver tumors. World J Meta-Anal 2019; 7(5): 234-248
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2308-3840/full/v7/i5/234.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13105/wjma.v7.i5.234