There has been controversy regarding the first-line treatment modality for the patients who have small solitary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI), surgical hepatic resection (HR) and liver transplantation (LT). For selection of treatment modality of HCC, it should be considered of hepatic reservoir function as well as the tumor stage. If the liver function is good enough, HR may be the first choice regardless of the tumor size. However, recent studies comparing RFA with resection showed comparable outcome and similar survival rates. RFA, HR and LT provide good outcome for patients who have small HCCs. RFA would be desired in patients who have below 3.0 cm in size and low alpha-fetoprotein (<200 ng/mL). However, in small HCC with high tumor marker, HR should be considered. Better patient selection for the 'resection first' approach and early detection of recurrence can achieve better outcomes of the salvage LT strategy. Another benefit of resection first strategy is that it make possible to do enlist of LT for patients before recurrence at high risk of HCC recurrence after resection on the basis of pathologic aggressiveness, microvascular invasion and/or satellites nodule. They should be applied appropriately according to the tumor size, location, tumor markers and underlying liver parenchymal disease.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most common type of cancer and the third most frequent cause of cancer-related death. Advances in preoperative assessment of HCC (e.g., imaging studies and liver function tests), surgical techniques, and postoperative care have improved the surgical outcomes and survival of patients who undergo hepatic resection for HCC. However, in the last 20 years, the long-term survival after hepatectomy has remained unsatisfactory owing to the high rates of local recurrence and multicentric occurrence. Anatomical liver resection (AR) was introduced in the 1980s. Although several studies have revealed tangible benefits of AR for HCC, these benefits are still debated. Because most HCCs occur in patients with liver cirrhosis and poor hepatic function, there are many factors that affect survival, including the surgical method. Nevertheless, many studies have documented the perioperative and long-term benefits of AR in various conditions. In this article, we review the results of several recently published, well-designed comparative studies of AR, to investigate whether AR provides real benefits on survival outcomes. We also discuss the potential pitfalls associated with this approach.

Although liquid biopsy of blood is useful for cancer diagnosis and prediction of prognosis, diagnostic and prognostic value of ctDNA in bile fluid for BTCs are not clear yet. To determine whether liquid biopsy for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can replace tissue biopsy when assessing somatic mutations in biliary tract cancers (BTCs). Bile samples were obtained from 42 patients with BTC. Matched formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples were obtained from 20 of these patients and matched plasma samples from 16 of them. Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) was used for detection KRAS somatic mutation. KRAS mutations were identified in the bile ctDNA of 20 of 42 (48%) patients. Patients with mutant KRAS showed significantly worse survival than those with wild-type KRAS (2-year survival rates: 0% vs. 55.5%, respectively; p = 0.018). There was 80.0% mutational concordance between the paired bile ctDNA and FFPE samples, and 42.9% between the plasma and FFPE samples. On transcriptomic sequencing of one set of paired bile and FFPE samples, expression level of KRAS-associated signaling oncogenes in the bile and tissue samples showed a strong positive correlation (r = 0.991, p < 0.001). Liquid biopsy of bile reliably detect mutational variants within the bile ctDNA of BTC patients. These results suggest that bile is an effective biopsy fluid for ctDNA analysis.