No abstract

No abstract

Background The aim was to analyse the impact of cirrhosis on short-term outcomes after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in a multicentre national cohort study. Methods This retrospective study included all patients undergoing LLR in 27 centres between 2000 and 2017. Cirrhosis was defined as F4 fibrosis on pathological examination. Short-term outcomes of patients with and without liver cirrhosis were compared after propensity score matching by centre volume, demographic and tumour characteristics, and extent of resection. Results Among 3150 patients included, LLR was performed in 774 patients with (24·6 per cent) and 2376 (75·4 per cent) without cirrhosis. Severe complication and mortality rates in patients with cirrhosis were 10·6 and 2·6 per cent respectively. Posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) developed in 3·6 per cent of patients with cirrhosis and was the major cause of death (11 of 20 patients). After matching, patients with cirrhosis tended to have higher rates of severe complications (odds ratio (OR) 1·74, 95 per cent c.i. 0·92 to 3·41; P = 0·096) and PHLF (OR 7·13, 0·91 to 323·10; P = 0·068) than those without cirrhosis. They also had a higher risk of death (OR 5·13, 1·08 to 48·61; P = 0·039). Rates of cardiorespiratory complications (P = 0·338), bile leakage (P = 0·286) and reoperation (P = 0·352) were similar in the two groups. Patients with cirrhosis had a longer hospital stay than those without (11 versus 8 days; P = 0·018). Centre expertise was an independent protective factor against PHLF in patients with cirrhosis (OR 0·33, 0·14 to 0·76; P = 0·010). Conclusion Underlying cirrhosis remains an independent risk factor for impaired outcomes in patients undergoing LLR, even in expert centres.

Background The relevance of laparoscopic resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) remains debated. The aim of this study was to compare laparoscopic (LLR) and open (OLR) liver resection for ICC, with specific focus on textbook outcome and lymph node dissection (LND). Methods Patients undergoing LLR or OLR for ICC were included from two French, nationwide hepatopancreatobiliary surveys undertaken between 2000 and 2017. Patients with negative margins, and without transfusion, severe complications, prolonged hospital stay, readmission or death were considered to have a textbook outcome. Patients who achieved both a textbook outcome and LND were deemed to have an adjusted textbook outcome. OLR and LLR were compared after propensity score matching. Results In total, 548 patients with ICC (127 LLR, 421 OLR) were included. Textbook-outcome and LND completion rates were 22.1 and 48.2 per cent respectively. LLR was independently associated with a decreased rate of LND (odds ratio 0.37, 95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.69). After matching, 109 patients remained in each group. LLR was associated with a decreased rate of transfusion (7.3 versus 21.1 per cent; P = 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (median 7 versus 14 days; P = 0.001), but lower rate of LND (33.9 versus 73.4 per cent; P = 0.001). Patients who underwent LLR had lower rate of adjusted TO completion than patients who had OLR (6.5 versus 17.4 per cent; P = 0.012). Conclusion The laparoscopic approach did not substantially improve quality of care of patients with resectable ICC.

ObjectiveSocioeconomic status may impact survival in cancer patients. This study assessed whether low socioeconomic status has an impact on survival in patients with ovarian cancer and investigated whether differences in survival may be explained by type of therapy received.MethodsThe study population comprised 318 patients with ovarian cancer diagnosed between 2011 and 2015 in the François Baclesse regional cancer care center in Caen, North-West France. Socioeconomic status was assessed by using the European deprivation index and overall survival was calculated at 3 years.ResultsThe unadjusted 3-year overall survival rate was 52% (95% CI 47 to 58). In a multivariable logistic regression model, a low socioeconomic status was associated with a lower probability of surgical resection (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.74). A high socioeconomic status was associated with improved survival, adjusted for age, performance status, grade, and International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (adjusted HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.26). When adjusting for treatment variables, there was no longer any significant difference in survival according to socioeconomic status (adjusted HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.84).ConclusionsHigher socioeconomic status is associated with a greater probability of undergoing surgical resection and with improved survival in patients with ovarian cancer.