ArticleUpdates in surgery2026
Additive value of oncological resectability criteria for predicting post-hepatectomy liver failure in hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recently introduced oncological resectability criteria (borderline resectable [BR] criteria) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been validated for long-term outcomes; however, their relevance to short-term surgical morbidity, particularly post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF), remains uncertain. We aimed to evaluate whether these criteria provide additive predictive value beyond conventional liver function indices for PHLF. A retrospective analysis was performed on 732 patients who underwent initial hepatectomy for HCC between January 2005 and December 2024 at our institution. Patients were categorized as resectable, BR1, or BR2 according to the predefined BR criteria. Logistic regression models were constructed to predict PHLF, defined as International Study Group of Liver Surgery grade B/C. A baseline model using preoperative liver function parameters was developed, and tumor-related metrics-including BR criteria, Milan criteria, up-to-seven criteria, and tumor burden score (TBS)-were subsequently added to assess their additive predictive value. Model performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), net reclassification improvement (NRI), integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), decision curve analysis (DCA), and calibration plots. PHLF occurred in 37 patients (5.1%). The baseline model incorporating albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) score and indocyanine green retention at 15 min (ICG-R15) showed moderate discrimination (AUC 0.71). Addition of the BR criteria significantly improved discrimination (AUC 0.81, p = 0.003) and reclassification by NRI (0.73, p < 0.001) and IDI (0.036, p = 0.025). By comparison, Milan and up-to-seven criteria led to smaller improvements, and TBS showed no meaningful effect. In DCA, the ALBI-ICG-BR model showed higher net benefit across relevant thresholds. The BR criteria provide additive value beyond established liver function indices for predicting PHLF in HCC, supporting more refined preoperative risk stratification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42479129What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.