The Comparison of Surgical Margins and Type of Hepatic Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Microvascular Invasion

This study investigated the impact of surgical margin and hepatic resection on prognosis for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Objective The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of surgical margin and hepatic resection on prognosis and compare their importance on prognosis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods The clinical data of 906 patients with HCC who underwent hepatic resection in our hospital from January 2013 to January 2015 were collected retrospectively. All patients were divided into anatomical resection (AR) (n = 234) and nonanatomical resection (NAR) group (n = 672) according to type of hepatic resection. The effects of AR and NAR and wide and narrow margins on overall survival (OS) and time to recurrence (TTR) were analyzed. Results In all patients, narrow margin (1.560, 1.278-1.904; 1.387, 1.174-1.639) is an independent risk factor for OS and TTR, and NAR is not. Subgroup analysis showed that narrow margins (2.307, 1.699-3.132; 1.884, 1.439-2.468), and NAR (1.481, 1.047-2.095; 1.372, 1.012-1.860) are independent risk factors for OS and TTR in patients with microvascular invasion (MVI)-positive. Further analysis showed that for patients with MVI-positive HCC, NAR with wide margins was a protective factor for OS and TTR compared to AR with narrow margins (0.618, 0.396-0.965; 0.662, 0.448-0.978). The 1, 3, and 5 years OS and TTR rate of the two group were 81%, 49%, 29% versus 89%, 64%, 49% (P = .008) and 42%, 79%, 89% versus 32%, 58%, 74% (P = .024), respectively. Conclusions For patients with MVI-positive HCC, AR and wide margins were protective factors for prognosis. However, wide margins are more important than AR on prognosis. In the clinical setting, if the wide margins and AR cannot be ensured at the same time, the wide margins should be ensured first.