Laparoscopic liver resection has been reported as a safe and effective approach to the management of liver cancer. However, studies of long-term outcomes regarding tumor recurrence and patient survival in comparison with the conventional open approach are limited. The aim of this study was to analyze the survival outcome of laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection. Between October 2002 and September 2009, 32 patients underwent pure laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Case-matched control patients (n = 64) who received open liver resection for HCC were included for comparison. Patients were matched in terms of cancer stage, tumor size, location of tumor, and magnitude of resection. Immediate operation outcomes, operation morbidity, disease-free survival, and overall survival were compared between groups. With the laparoscopic group compared with the open resection group, operation time was 232.5 minutes versus 204.5 minutes (P = 0.938), blood loss was 150 mL versus 300 mL (P = 0.001), hospital stay was 4 days versus 7 days (P < 0.0001), postoperative complication was 2 (6.3%) versus 12 (18.8%) (P = 0.184), disease-free survival was 78.5 months versus 29 months (P = 0.086), and overall survival was 92 months versus 71 months (P = 0.142). The disease-free survival for stage II HCC was 22.1 months versus 12.4 months (P = 0.075). Laparoscopic liver resection for HCC is associated with less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and fewer postoperative complications in selected patients with no compromise in survival.

Objective We investigated the effect and mechanism of hypoxic microenvironment and hypoxia-inducible factors (HIFs) on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cancer stemness. Design HCC cancer stemness was analysed by self-renewal ability, chemoresistance, expression of stemness-related genes and cancer stem cell (CSC) marker-positive cell population. Specific small ubiquitin-like modifier (SUMO) proteases 1 (SENP1) mRNA level was examined with quantitative PCR in human paired HCCs. Immunoprecipitation was used to examine the binding of proteins and chromatin immunoprecipitation assay to detect the binding of HIFs with hypoxia response element sequence. In vivo characterisation was performed in immunocompromised mice and stem cell frequency was analysed. Results We showed that hypoxia enhanced the stemness of HCC cells and hepatocarcinogenesis through enhancing HIF-1α deSUMOylation by SENP1 and increasing stabilisation and transcriptional activity of HIF-1α. Furthermore, we demonstrated that SENP1 is a direct target of HIF-1/2α and a previously unrecognised positive feedback loop exists between SENP1 and HIF-1α. Conclusions Taken together, our findings suggest the significance of this positive feedback loop between HIF-1α and SENP1 in contributing to the increased cancer stemness in HCC and hepatocarcinogenesis under hypoxia. Drugs that specifically target SENP1 may offer a potential novel therapeutic approach for HCC.

Liver metastasis is the commonest form of distant metastasis in colorectal cancer. Selection criteria for surgery and liver-directed therapies have recently been extended. However, resectability remains poorly defined. Tumour biology is increasingly recognized as an important prognostic factor; hence molecular profiling has a growing role in risk stratification and management planning. Surgical resection is the only treatment modality for curative intent. The most appropriate surgical approach is yet to be established. The primary cancer and the hepatic metastasis can be removed simultaneously or in a two-step approach; these two strategies have comparable long-term outcomes. For patients with a limited future liver remnant, portal vein embolization, combined ablation and resection, and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy have been advocated, and each has their pros and cons. The role of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy is still debated. Targeted biological agents and loco-regional therapies (thermal ablation, intra-arterial chemo- or radio-embolization, and stereotactic radiotherapy) further improve the already favourable results. The recent debate about offering liver transplantation to highly selected patients needs validation from large clinical trials. Evidence-based protocols are missing, and therefore optimal management of hepatic metastasis should be personalized and determined by a multi-disciplinary team.

We investigated the efficacy of entecavir, a cyclopentyl guanosine nucleoside analogue, as monoprophylaxis in patients with chronic hepatitis B who received a liver transplant. We studied data from 80 consecutive patients who received a liver transplant (47 from living donors and 33 from deceased donors) for hepatitis B-related disease and entecavir monotherapy as prophylaxis. None of the patients received hepatitis B immunoglobulin. Indications for transplant included decompensation from cirrhosis (27.5%), acute-on-chronic hepatitis B (47.5%), and hepatocellular carcinoma (25%). The median follow-up time was 26 months (range, 5-40 months). Before transplant, 33 patients were not on antiviral therapy and 47 were on oral therapy (18 had received less than 3 months of treatment). At the time of transplant, the median log HBV DNA level was 3.5 copies/mL (range, 1.54-8.81); 21 patients (26%) had undetectable levels of HBV DNA. The cumulative rate of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) loss was 86% and 91% after 1 and 2 years, respectively. Ten patients had reappearance of HBsAg. Eighteen patients (22.5%) were HBsAg positive at the time of their last examination; 17 of these had undetectable levels of HBV DNA, and the remaining patient had a low level of HBV DNA (217 copies/mL). There was no evidence of mutations at sites that confer resistance to entecavir among patients who were HBsAg positive. Although only 26% of patients had complete viral suppression at the time of transplant, 91% lost HBsAg, with 98.8% achieving undetectable levels of HBV DNA. A hepatitis B immunoglobulin-free regimen of entecavir monotherapy is effective after liver transplantation for chronic hepatitis B.

Portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT) is a common phenomenon in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Compared to HCC without PVTT, HCC with PVTT is characterized by an aggressive disease course, worse hepatic function, a higher chance of complications related to portal hypertension and poorer tolerance to treatment. Conventionally, HCC with PVTT is grouped together with metastatic HCC during the planning of its management, and most patients are offered palliative treatment with sorafenib or other systemic agents. As a result, most data on the management of HCC with PVTT comes from subgroup analyses or retrospective series. In the past few years, there have been several updates on management of HCC with PVTT. First, it is evident that HCC with PVTT consists of heterogeneous subgroups with different prognoses. Different classifications have been proposed to stage the degree of portal vein invasion/thrombosis, suggesting that different treatment modalities may be individualized to patients with different risks. Second, more studies indicate that more aggressive treatment, including surgical resection or locoregional treatment, may benefit select HCC patients with PVTT. In this review, we aim to discuss the recent conceptual changes and summarize the data on the management of HCC with PVTT.