Predictors of microvascular invasion before hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma

Background and Objectives Microvascular invasion (MVI) is difficult to detect before resection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods Clinicopathological and outcome data were retrospectively compared between 213 HCC patients with MVI and 221 patients without MVI who underwent hepatectomy. Resul...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of surgical oncology Vol. 102; no. 5; pp. 462 - 468
Main Authors Kaibori, Masaki, Ishizaki, Morihiko, Matsui, Kosuke, Kwon, A-Hon
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Hoboken Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company 01.10.2010
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Background and Objectives Microvascular invasion (MVI) is difficult to detect before resection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods Clinicopathological and outcome data were retrospectively compared between 213 HCC patients with MVI and 221 patients without MVI who underwent hepatectomy. Results MVI risk was selected as an independent prognostic indicator for both disease‐free and overall survival in our 434 HCC patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that an age under 65 years, a protein induced by vitamin K absence/antagonism II (PIVKA‐II) level ≥200 mAU/ml, a preoperative tumor size ≥5.0 cm, and poorly differentiated carcinoma were independent predictors of MVI. When age, PIVKA‐II level, and tumor size (data available before surgery) were scored as a combined index, the total score demonstrated a significant correlation with the extent of vascular invasion and with survival after hepatic resection. Conclusions An age under 65 years, increase of PIVKA‐II, and larger tumor size were preoperative predictors of MVI in HCC patients undergoing potentially curative resection. Our combined score based on the age, serum PIVKA‐II, and preoperative tumor size is a reliable predictor of MVI and survival in patients with HCC. J. Surg. Oncol. 2010;102:462–468. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Bibliography:ArticleID:JSO21631
istex:70B6495E5CC4F8A27F6D81846CDF89BADC80BFA3
ark:/67375/WNG-1CF4TSML-0
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0022-4790
1096-9098
DOI:10.1002/jso.21631