By
Dr E Aravind
 Most common primary liver malignancy
 Most common of the solid organ cancers
 Surgery is potentially curative
 But discovered at a stage too advanced
for complete excision
 Highly resistant to chemotherapy,
limiting options for palliative treatment.
 Difficulties in treatment due to
 Usually asymptomatic at early stages
 Associated with cirrhosis
 Intravascular or intrabiliary extension
 Important aspect of the morbidity,
mortality, and long-term outcome of liver
resection depends on patient selection
 Treatment depends on tumor stage and
the functional status of the liver
 Classified into three distinct patterns of
growth that are associated with
resectability
 Hanging type
 Pushing type
 Infiltrative type
TUMOR STAGE
 Done by triphasic CT
 Number
 Size
 Presence of satellite nodules
 Tumor invasion of the portal vein, its branches,
or the inferior vena cava;
 To exclude any extrahepatic metastasis; for
surgical planning,
 Clarify the relationship of the tumors with the
intrahepatic vascular and biliary structures
 MRI is contrast is contrindicated
EVALUATION OF LIVER FUNCTION
 Accurate evaluation of the liver
functional reserve is therefore crucial to
avoid postoperative hepatic insufficiency
 Child-Turcotte-Pugh(Child) classification
is used for evaluation of liver function
 partial hepatectomy is offered only to
patients who are Class A
 Most favourable Class B patients.
 Class C patients are only offered
supportive care,
 Indocyanine green (ICG) clearance test
 ICG retention rate at 15 minutes (ICG R15)
of 10% to 20% is considered the upper limit
 Hepatic venous pressure gradient
(HVPG)
 indirect measure of portal hypertension
 >10 mm Hg - unresolved hepatic
decompensation
 Model for End-Stage Liver Disease
(MELD) score
 MELD = 3.78×ln[serum bilirubin (mg/dL)] +
11.2×ln[INR] + 9.57×ln[serum creatinine
(mg/dL)] + 6.43×aetiology(0: cholestatic or
alcoholic, 1: otherwise)
 Scores of <9 predict both low mortality and
reduced morbidity after hepatic resection
FUTURE LIVER REMNANT
 Actual total liver volume (TLV), defined
as the volume of the patients liver
measured directly on CT images minus
tumor volume
 Estimated liver volume, an alternative
method by which the total liver volume is
calculated by a formula that relies on a
linear correlation between TLV and body
weight or body surface area in healthy
subjects
 Portal vein embolization (PVE)
 In candidates for hepatic resection with
insufficient future liver re
 FLR is <40% of TLV
 Contraindications to PVE include tumor
invasion of the portal vein
Prognostic staging models
 Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC)
 Early,
 Intermediate,
 Advanced,
 Terminal
 Hepatic resection is indicated only in
patients with early stage HCC defined
by
 Milan criteria
○ single tumors ≤5 cm in maximal dimension or
no more than three tumors each ≤3 cm in
maximal dimension
 Normal clinical performance status
 Preserved liver function (bilirubin levels <1
mg/dL, absence of portal hypertension, and
Child-Pugh class A status)
 Site of tumor
 Hepatic segments involved
 Feasibility when all tumor nodules can
be technically excised with negative
margins while maintaining an
adequately functioning hepatic remnant,
 Clinical performance statusis >50% to
60% and systemic comorbidity is
compensated
 Contraindications for resection
 Extrahepatic disease,
 Tumor thrombus in the inferior vena cava,
 Involvement of the common hepatic artery
and portal vein trunk
Total Hepatectomy and Liver
Transplantation.
 Allows for tumor resection with the
widest possible margins, and permits
removal of diseased and tumorigenic
parenchyma that may contain
microscopic metastatic disease and be
predisposed to the formation of
additional primary tumors.

Hepatocellular carcinoma indications for surgery

  • 1.
  • 2.
     Most commonprimary liver malignancy  Most common of the solid organ cancers  Surgery is potentially curative  But discovered at a stage too advanced for complete excision  Highly resistant to chemotherapy, limiting options for palliative treatment.
  • 3.
     Difficulties intreatment due to  Usually asymptomatic at early stages  Associated with cirrhosis  Intravascular or intrabiliary extension  Important aspect of the morbidity, mortality, and long-term outcome of liver resection depends on patient selection  Treatment depends on tumor stage and the functional status of the liver
  • 5.
     Classified intothree distinct patterns of growth that are associated with resectability  Hanging type  Pushing type  Infiltrative type
  • 6.
    TUMOR STAGE  Doneby triphasic CT  Number  Size  Presence of satellite nodules  Tumor invasion of the portal vein, its branches, or the inferior vena cava;  To exclude any extrahepatic metastasis; for surgical planning,  Clarify the relationship of the tumors with the intrahepatic vascular and biliary structures  MRI is contrast is contrindicated
  • 7.
    EVALUATION OF LIVERFUNCTION  Accurate evaluation of the liver functional reserve is therefore crucial to avoid postoperative hepatic insufficiency  Child-Turcotte-Pugh(Child) classification is used for evaluation of liver function
  • 8.
     partial hepatectomyis offered only to patients who are Class A  Most favourable Class B patients.  Class C patients are only offered supportive care,
  • 9.
     Indocyanine green(ICG) clearance test  ICG retention rate at 15 minutes (ICG R15) of 10% to 20% is considered the upper limit  Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG)  indirect measure of portal hypertension  >10 mm Hg - unresolved hepatic decompensation
  • 10.
     Model forEnd-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score  MELD = 3.78×ln[serum bilirubin (mg/dL)] + 11.2×ln[INR] + 9.57×ln[serum creatinine (mg/dL)] + 6.43×aetiology(0: cholestatic or alcoholic, 1: otherwise)  Scores of <9 predict both low mortality and reduced morbidity after hepatic resection
  • 11.
    FUTURE LIVER REMNANT Actual total liver volume (TLV), defined as the volume of the patients liver measured directly on CT images minus tumor volume  Estimated liver volume, an alternative method by which the total liver volume is calculated by a formula that relies on a linear correlation between TLV and body weight or body surface area in healthy subjects
  • 12.
     Portal veinembolization (PVE)  In candidates for hepatic resection with insufficient future liver re  FLR is <40% of TLV  Contraindications to PVE include tumor invasion of the portal vein
  • 13.
    Prognostic staging models Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC)  Early,  Intermediate,  Advanced,  Terminal
  • 14.
     Hepatic resectionis indicated only in patients with early stage HCC defined by  Milan criteria ○ single tumors ≤5 cm in maximal dimension or no more than three tumors each ≤3 cm in maximal dimension  Normal clinical performance status  Preserved liver function (bilirubin levels <1 mg/dL, absence of portal hypertension, and Child-Pugh class A status)
  • 15.
     Site oftumor  Hepatic segments involved  Feasibility when all tumor nodules can be technically excised with negative margins while maintaining an adequately functioning hepatic remnant,  Clinical performance statusis >50% to 60% and systemic comorbidity is compensated
  • 16.
     Contraindications forresection  Extrahepatic disease,  Tumor thrombus in the inferior vena cava,  Involvement of the common hepatic artery and portal vein trunk
  • 19.
    Total Hepatectomy andLiver Transplantation.  Allows for tumor resection with the widest possible margins, and permits removal of diseased and tumorigenic parenchyma that may contain microscopic metastatic disease and be predisposed to the formation of additional primary tumors.