Objective: To validate and compare the predictive ability of albumin-bilirubin model (ALBI) with other 5 liver functional reserve models (APRI, FIB4, MELD, PALBI, King's score) for posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who underwent major hepatectomy. Methods: Data of patients undergoing major hepatectomy for HCC from 4 hospitals between January 01, 2008 and December 31, 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. PHLF was evaluated according to the definition of the 50-50 criteria. Performances of six liver functional reserve models were determined by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration plot and decision curve analysis. Results: A total of 745 patients with 103 (13.8%) experienced PHLF were finally included in this study. Among six liver functional reserve models, ALBI showed the highest AUC (0.64, 95% CI: 0.58-0.69) for PHLF. All models showed good calibration and greater net benefit than treating all patients at a limit range of threshold probabilities, but the ALBI demonstrated net benefit across the largest range of threshold probabilities. Subgroup analysis also showed ALBI had good predictive performance in cirrhotic (AUC=0.63) or non-cirrhotic (AUC=0.62) patients. Conclusion: Among the six models, the ALBI model shows more accurate predictive ability for PHLF in HCC patients undergoing major hepatectomy, regardless of having cirrhosis or not.

BackgroundPost-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) is the most common cause of mortality after major hepatectomy in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. We aim to develop a nomogram to preoperatively predict grade B/C PHLF defined by the International Study Group on Liver Surgery Grading (ISGLS) in HCC patients undergoing major hepatectomy.Study DesignThe consecutive HCC patients who underwent major hepatectomy at the Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital between 2008 and 2013 served as a training cohort to develop a preoperative nomogram, and patients from 2 other hospitals comprised an external validation cohort. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression was applied to identify preoperative predictors of grade B/C PHLF. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized to establish a nomogram model. Internal and external validations were used to verify the performance of the nomogram. The accuracy of the nomogram was also compared with the conventional scoring models, including MELD and ALBI score.ResultsA total of 880 patients who underwent major hepatectomy (668 in the training cohort and 192 in the validation cohort) were enrolled in this study. The independent risk factors of grade B/C PHLF were age, gender, prothrombin time, total bilirubin, and CSPH, which were incorporated into the nomogram. Good prediction discrimination was achieved in the training (AUROC: 0.73) and validation (AUROC: 0.72) cohorts. The calibration curve also showed good agreement in both training and validation cohorts. The nomogram has a better performance than MELD and ALBI score models.ConclusionThe proposed nomogram showed more accurate ability to individually predict grade B/C PHLF after major hepatectomy in HCC patients than MELD and ALBI scores.

SummaryBackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) combination therapy offers a new option for treatment of unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (uICC).AimTo compare the effect of different anti‐PD‐1 combination therapies as the first‐line treatments for uICC.MethodsThis study included 318 patients who received chemotherapy alone (Chemo), anti‐PD‐1 plus chemotherapy (ICI‐chemo), anti‐PD‐1 plus targeted therapy (ICI‐target) or anti‐PD‐1 plus targeted therapy and chemotherapy (ICI‐target‐chemo) as first line for uICC from 22 centres in China. The primary endpoint was progression‐free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and safety.ResultsPatients with ICI‐chemo (median PFS [mPFS], 6.3 months; HR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.42–0.88; p = 0.008; median OS [mOS], 10.7 months; HR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.39–0.94; p = 0.026), ICI‐target (7.2 months; HR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.36–0.80; p = 0.002; 15.8 months; HR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.35–0.84; p = 0.006) or ICI‐target‐chemo (6.9 months; HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.47–0.90; p = 0.009; 14.4 months; HR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.31–0.70; p < 0.001) achieved better clinical outcomes than those with Chemo (3.8 months; 9.3 months). ICI‐target was not inferior to ICI‐chemo in survival outcomes (HR for PFS: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.55–1.42; p = 0.614; HR for OS: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.51–1.55; p = 0.680). ICI‐target‐chemo yielded similar prognoses as ICI‐chemo (HR for PFS: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.70–1.62; p = 0.764; HR for OS: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.45–1.31; p = 0.328) and ICI‐target (HR for PFS: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.77–1.88; p = 0.413; HR for OS: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.51–1.47; p = 0.583) but resulted in more adverse events (p < 0.001; p = 0.010). Multivariable and propensity score analyses supported these findings.ConclusionsAmong patients with uICC, ICI‐chemo or ICI‐target provided more survival benefits than Chemo while achieving comparable prognoses and fewer adverse events than ICI‐target‐chemo.