Primary liver cancer is the 5th most common cancer in the world, with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) being the most common (accounting for more than 80%) histologic type of primary liver cancer [1]. Most HCCs are associated with chronic liver disease, which is mainly caused by hepatitis B virus infection, hepatitis C virus infection, alcohol abuse, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease [1,2]. Recently, the incidence of HCC has been increasing in Europe and America [3,4]. Treatment of patients with HCC remains challenging despite enormous efforts. Less than 25% of patients with HCC receive potentially curative therapy such as liver transplantation (LT), partial hepatectomy (PH), and local ablation [5,6]. The prognosis of these patients is not promising, with an overall five-year survival rate of less than 20% [6]. Management of HCC accompanied by cirrhosis is more challenging because a diminished functional hepatic reservoir limits not only standard curative treatment, but also experimental therapeutic trials.

In cases of HCC accompanied by cirrhosis, LT is the primary treatment as it can treat both the tumor and the underlying liver disease simultaneously [7]. However, LT is not always feasible. In addition, it has a few limitations [8,9]. PH can be an alternative option in some cases, for example, when the functional reservoir of the liver is sufficient for PH to be carried out [10]. Recent studies suggest that the prognosis after PH in patients with HCC accompanied by cirrhosis is comparable to that after LT [10-12]. On the other hand, there are negative views of PH as a curative treatment for HCC accompanied by cirrhosis due to a relatively higher recurrence rate after PH than that after LT. However, this argument has been only based on clinical studies carried out in the immediate postoperative period [6,7,11]. Clinicians may underestimate the value of PH as a treatment option for patients with HCC accompanied by cirrhosis because there is little information on changes in prognosis over time. Thus, a more meticulous statistical analysis of PH needs to be conducted. The cure model analysis is a stepping-stone for solving this issue.

A cure model analysis is a useful statistical method for analyzing post-treatment survival data of long-term survivors with specific diseases, for example, long-term survivors with cancer. The cure model is a valuable tool that can analyze cure fraction in patients under various settings. The use of the cure model could explain the long-term effect of a specific treatment for the disease. It may provide the prospect of cure [13,14].

In this study, we attempted to examine the possibility of PH curing patients with HCC accompanied by cirrhosis. We also compared PH cure fraction for patients with HCC with that for patients without cirrhosis to estimate the statistical chance of cure after PH for patients with HCC using a non-mixture cure model. Outcomes were also compared between non-cirrhotic and cirrhotic patients [15].

Although PH is commonly used in the treatment of HCC without cirrhosis, its use in the treatment of HCC with cirrhosis remains controversial. This was attributed to the higher recurrence rate in patients with HCC accompanied by cirrhosis who underwent PH than that in patients who underwent LT [12,37]. In addition, the risk of recurrence after PH was higher in patients with HCC and cirrhosis than in those without cirrhosis [38]. Some reports suggest that PH is a viable option for treating HCC accompanied by cirrhosis by showing acceptable survival rates [38,39]. However, results derived from these studies do not reflect the curability of a certain treatment. The cure model recently discussed and applied in various diseases for its capability to predict the probability of cure is of value. In our study, we used it to examine the probability of PH curing patients with HCC and cirrhosis. We also compared the cure fraction in cirrhotic patients to that in non-cirrhotic patients. In our study, the RFS of patients with HCC accompanied by cirrhosis after PH was inferior to that of patients with HCC without cirrhosis. Nonetheless, the cure model analysis revealed that patients with HCC accompanied by cirrhosis had a meaningful cure fraction after PH (14.1%; 95% CI, 10.6%–18.1%). To the best of our knowledge, no studies have directly compared cure fractions of patients having HCC with and without cirrhosis after PH.

Recent studies have defined a “cure” as follows: survival curve reaches a plateau at the end, which occurs when the mortality rate of a patient reaches the same level as that in the general population [13,14]. This is generally seen in cancer cases. Currently, the cure model analysis is used in many clinical settings, for instance, to determine the treatment modality and the follow-up term for patients [15]. In the field of oncology, the goal of treatment is to increase a patient’s survival time or cure cancer. Application of the cure model in oncology increases with increasing number of long-term survival patients. In our study, the survival curve of patients with HCC after PH showed a plateau at the end. Thus, the cure model was used to analyze data in both patient groups that showed cure fraction. The cure fraction of patients with HCC accompanied by cirrhosis was lower than that of patients with HCC without cirrhosis. However, around 14 percent of patients with HCC accompanied by cirrhosis were cured after PH.

Cirrhosis is a major risk factor of HCC regardless of its etiology [1,40]. Many patients with HCC first suffer from repetitive hepatitis, cirrhosis, and then finally HCC [40]. Chronic liver diseases such as viral hepatitis and alcoholic liver disease can cause damage to hepatocytes, eventually leading to death. In response to liver injury, myofibroblasts are activated, which are derived from hepatic stellate cells or perivascular fibroblasts [41]. Myofibroblasts play an important role in fibrogenesis, which has a protective role in response to liver damage. However, chronic and excessive fibrosis can occur if the underlying disease is not addressed. In addition, the composition of the extracellular matrix (ECM) changes during fibrosis progression. Collagen proteins, predominantly type I collagens, can accumulate in the ECM, causing structural changes and activating growth factors that contribute to malignant changes [40]. A recent study has shown that peritumoral myofibroblasts are associated with a high recurrence rate in patients undergoing PH. These results imply that fibrosis may make the cancer more aggressive [42]. Some reports have demonstrated that the tumor in a cirrhotic liver can progress into a more aggressive form of HCC than a tumor in a non-cirrhotic liver [43,44]. One study has reported the relationship between the expression of geranylgeranyl diphosphate synthase 1 (GGPPS1) and the development of HCC from cirrhosis [43]. The expression of GGPPS1 was higher in tumor tissues than in tumor-free tissues. Moreover, cirrhotic livers showed higher expression levels of GGPPS1 than healthy livers. Interestingly, GGPPS1 also showed a close correlation with prognostic factors such as tumor stage, vessel invasion, and early recurrence [43]. Another study has suggested that 20 hub genes play an important role in HCC progression [44]. These genes were strongly expressed in patients with HCC with cirrhosis. The degree of gene expression was associated with overall survival and disease-free survival in patients with HCC. These studies unanimously demonstrate that a cirrhotic liver could lead to a more aggressive form of HCC, which in turn leads to a poor prognosis.

In patients with HCC accompanied by cirrhosis, LT is considered an ideal treatment option as it can simultaneously treat HCC and the underlying cirrhosis [7]. The overall survival rate and RFS survival rate were higher in patients who underwent LT than in those who underwent PH [11,45]. However, the postoperative mortality at 3 months was higher and hospital stay was longer in patients treated with LT than in those treated with PH [46]. LT has also been criticized for its restrictive selection criteria [8,9]. While efforts have been made to extend selection criteria for LT, only a limited number of patients have received LT. Another problem with LT is the shortage of donor organs. According to one meta-analysis, while waiting for donor organs, some patients underwent loco-regional therapy as a bridging or down-staging therapy. However, these therapeutic approaches did not significantly reduce the risk of waitlist dropout due to HCC progression. Furthermore, there were no differences in post-transplant outcomes between a locoregionally treated group and a group without receiving a loco-regional therapy [47,48]. Therefore, patients with HCC on the waitlist are at risk of disease progression and morbidity or mortality related to cirrhosis. PH can proceed without delay. It can be applied to a wider range of patients with HCC [49]. There are several additional disadvantages related to LT, including the need for immunosuppressants known to have severe side effects such as nephrotoxicity, opportunistic infections, and malignancies [50]. However, the decision on whether to perform PH or LT for HCC accompanied by cirrhosis cannot be made uniformly. It is excessively influenced by tumor characteristics (size, number, and location), presence of portal hypertension, available living donor, and patient’s performance status and underlying disease.

Recently, salvage liver transplantation (SLT) has been proposed as an alternative treatment option for HCC recurrence after primary PH. This is being discussed due to donor shortage. According to recent studies, the long-term survival outcome of SLT was comparable to that of primary LT [51,52]. Therefore, PH can be considered as an alternative to primary LT as the primary treatment for patients with HCC accompanied by cirrhosis. Our results corroborated these approaches because around 14% patients with HCC accompanied by cirrhosis could be cured after PH. Pathological data that affect prognosis such as tumor size, tumor number, and vascular invasion can also be obtained before SLT [53,54]. Consequently, after primary PH, patients who are revealed to be at high risk of recurrence could undergo “prophylactic” liver transplantation for better prognosis [55]. Furthermore, if recurrence occurs, the liver can be transplanted in the future because the majority of recurrences after PH are within the Milan criteria [56]. Thus, if applicable, PH should be initially performed for patients with HCC accompanied by cirrhosis.

The value of the cure model analysis is that the probability of cure can be calculated for patients of interest. In addition, it can provide information that may aid in making decisions in a variety of clinical settings, such as the postoperative surveillance period and decisions on treatment modalities for other combined diseases.

One limitation of this study was that it was a secondary analysis. Factors such as tumor size, alpha-fetoprotein, and vascular invasion affecting HCC recurrence were not fully identified in original articles. In addition, all included studies were retrospective studies, which might have been biased. In this study, we only compared cure fraction according to the presence or absence of cirrhosis. Future studies are needed to conduct additional subgroup cure model analyses for HCC. The impact of the extent of surgery on the prognosis of patients with HCC accompanied by cirrhosis is a matter of debate and another important research topic to be considered. Therefore, further studies about this issue are warranted.

In conclusion, according to results of our study, PH might be able to cure HCC even in patients with cirrhosis. We propose that PH is a reasonable treatment approach for patients with HCC accompanied by cirrhosis in that it could offer a chance for cure.

Supplementary data related to this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.14701/ahbps.21-080.