Simultaneous portal and hepatic vein embolization is better than portal embolization or ALPPS for hypertrophy of future liver remnant before major hepatectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background:Post-hepatectomy liver failure(PHLF)is the Achilles’heel of hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases.The most commonly used procedure to generate hypertrophy of the functional liver remnant(FLR)is portal vein embolization(PVE),which does not always lead to successful hypertrophy.Associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy(ALPPS)has been proposed to overcome the limitations of PVE.Liver venous deprivation(LVD),a technique that includes simultaneous portal and hepatic vein embolization,has also been proposed as an alternative to ALPPS.The present study aimed to conduct a systematic review as the first network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy,effectiveness,and safety of the three regenerative techniques.Data sources:A systematic search for literature was conducted using the electronic databases Embase,PubMed(MEDLINE),Google Scholar and Cochrane.Results:The time to operation was significantly shorter in the ALPPS cohort than in the PVE and LVD cohorts by 27 and 22 days,respectively.Intraoperative parameters of blood loss and the Pringle maneuver demonstrated non-significant differences between the PVE and LVD cohorts.There was evidence of a significantly higher FLR hypertrophy rate in the ALPPS cohort when compared to the PVE cohort,but non-significant differences were observed when compared to the LVD cohort.Notably,the LVD cohort demonstrated a significantly better FLR/body weight(BW)ratio compared to both the ALPPS and PVE cohorts.Both the PVE and LVD cohorts demonstrated significantly lower major morbidity rates compared to the ALPPS cohort.The LVD cohort also demonstrated a significantly lower 90-day mortality rate compared to both the PVE and ALPPS cohorts.Conclusions:LVD in adequately selected patients may induce adequate and profound FLR hypertrophy before major hepatectomy.Present evidence demonstrated significantly lower major morbidity and mortality rates in the LVD cohort than in the ALPPS and PVE cohorts.

Clinical studies on inferior right hepatic veins

BACKGROUND: Many small veins are called accessory, short hepatic veins in addition to the right, middle and left hepatic veins. The size of these veins varied from a pinhole to 1 cm; the size of inferior right hepatic veins (IRHVs) is thicker than that of short hepatic veins or more than 1 cm. occasionally. Adults have a higher incidence rate of the IRHV. DATA SOURCES: A literature search of the PubMed database was conducted and research articles were reviewed. RESULTS: The size of IRHVs is related to the size of the right hepatic vein, i.e. the larger the diameter of the right hepatic vein, the smaller the diameter of the IRHVs, and vice versa. The IRHVs are divided into superior, medial and inferior groups, separately named the superior, medial and inferior right hepatic veins according to the position of the IRHV entering the inferior vena cava. The superior right hepatic vein mainly drains the superior part of segment VII, and the medial right hepatic vein drains the middle part of segment VII. A thicker IRHV mainly drains segment VI and the inferior part of segment VII and a thinner IRHV drains the inferior part of segment V. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical significance of these studies on IRHVs is varied: (1) Hepatic caudate lobe resection could be introduced after study on the veins of that lobe. (2) It is very important to identify the draining region of the IRHV for guiding hepatic segmentectomy. The postero-inferior area of the right lobe can be preserved along with the hypertrophic IRHV even if the entire main right hepatic vein is resected during segmentectomy of VII and VIII with right hepatic vein resection for patients with primary liver cancer. (3) The ligation of the major hepatic vein for the treatment of juxtahepatic vein injury is recommended because of severe hemorrhagic shock and difficulty in exposure. (4) It is very helpful to decide therapeutic modalities for Budd-Chiari syndrome.

Precise hepatectomy guided by the middle hepatic vein

The middle hepatic vein (MHV) lies in the midplane of the liver. The classical teaching of right or left hepatectomy is transection of liver I cm to the right or left wall of the MHV in order to avoid bleeding. However, guidance of liver transection is lost if the course of the MHV is not known. By exposing the MHV early in the phase of liver transection and following its course to the inferior vena cava, a precise liver transection plane could be obtained. Such technique has the potential of achieving adequate tumor-free resection margin, avoiding damage to intrahepatic portal pedicles, preserving venous drainage and functional liver tissue, and less postoperative infection.

Glissonian approach combined with major hepatic vein first for laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy

Background: Laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy remains challenging because of the complex interior structures of the liver. Our novel strategy includes the Glissonian approach and the major hepatic vein first, which serves to define the external and internal landmarks for laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy.Methods: Eleven cases underwent laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy, including three right hepatectomies, three left hepatectomies, three right posterior hepatectomies, and two mesohepatectomies. The Glissonian approach was used to transect the hepatic pedicles as external demarcation. The major hepatic vein near the hepatic portal was exposed and served as the internal landmark for parenchymal transection. The liver parenchyma below and above the major hepatic vein was transected along the major hepatic vein. Fifty-nine subjects were used to compare the distance between the major hepatic vein and secondary Glisson pedicles among different liver diseases.Results: The average operative time was 327 min with an estimated blood loss of 554.55 m L. Only two patients received three units of packed red blood cells. The others recovered normally and were discharged on postoperative day 7. The distance between right posterior Glissonian pedicle and right hepatic vein was shorter in the patients with cirrhosis than that without cirrhosis, and this distance was even shorter in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.Conclusion: The Glissonian approach with the major hepatic vein first is easy and feasible for laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy, especially in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and cirrhosis.

Management of the middle hepatic vein and its tributaries in right lobe living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: Left liver graft from a small donor will not meet the metabolic demands of a larger adult recipient. To overcome the problem of graft size insufficiency, living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using the right lobe has become a standard method for adult patients. As the drainage of the median sector (segments V, VIII and IV) is mainly by the middle hepatic vein (MHV), the issue of whether the MHV should or should not be taken with the graft or whether the MHV tributaries (V5, V8) should be reconstructed in the recipient remains to be settled. DATA SOURCES: An English-language literature search was conducted using MEDLINE (1985-2006) on right lobe living donor liver transplantation, middle hepatic vein, vein graft, hepatic venoplasty and other related subjects. RESULTS: Some institutions had proposed their policy for the management of the MHV and its tributaries. Dominancy of the hepatic vein, graft-to-recipient weight ratio, and remnant liver volume as well as the donor-to-recipient body weight ratio, the volume of the donor's right lobe to the recipient's standard liver volume and the size of MHV tributaries are the major elements for the criteria of inclusion of the MHV, while for the policy of MHV tributaries reconstruction, the proportion of congestive area and the diameter of the tributaries are the critical elements. Optimal vein grafts such as recipient's portal vein and hepatic venoplasty technique have been used to obviate hepatic congestion and venous drainage disturbance. CONCLUSIONS: Taking right liver grafts with the MHV trunk (extended right lobe grafts) or performing the MHV tributaries reconstruction in modified right lobe grafts, according to the criteria proposed by the institutions with rich experience, can solve the congestion problem of the right paramedian sector and help to improve the outcomes of the patients. The additional use of optimal vein grafts and hepatic venoplasty also can guarantee excellent venous drainage.

Efficacy of middle hepatic vein reconstruction in adult right-lobe living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: Congestion of the right anterior segment may lead to graft dysfunction in right-lobe living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) without a middle hepatic vein (MHV) trunk. Selective reconstruction of MHV tributaries with the interposition of vascular grafts has been introduced to overcome this problem. However, there is still no consensus on the definite criteria of MHV reconstruction. METHODS: LDLT patients were reviewed to evaluate the effects of MHV reconstruction. From March 2005 to September 2008 in our transplantation center, 120 consecutive LDLTs were performed using a right-lobe graft without a MHV. Excluding 11 patients, among the remainder, 73 (67%) had reconstructed MHV tributaries, and the others 36 (33%) did not. The values of liver functional index and liver graft regeneration ratio were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There was a prolonged period of liver functional recovery in patients with small-for-size grafts and a graft-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) <1.0%, and without MHV reconstruction. The ratio of liver regeneration 1 month postoperatively in reconstruction cases was 81%, versus 78% in patients without reconstruction (P=0.352), but among small-for-size grafts, there was a significant difference between the two groups (95% vs. 80%). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that reconstruction of MHV tributaries is not necessary in all patients, but is beneficial for patients with GRWR <1.0%. (Hepatobiliary Pancrent Dis Int 2010; 9: 135-138)

Hepatic segmentectomy combined with major hepatic vein resection for preserving remnant liver lobe

BACKGROUND: Impairment of liver function is the most serious complication that occurs after liver resection or in cirrhotic liver. Postoperative hepatic failure, which is mainly preceded by insufficient remnant liver function and/or postoperative septic complications, is the major cause of hospital mortality. This study was undertaken to evaluate hepatic segmentectomy combined with major hepatic vein (MHV) resection for preserving the remnant liver lobe in the treatment of resectable primary liver cancer. METHODS: From 1997 to 2007, six patients with primary liver cancer underwent hepatic segmentectomy with MHV resection, and three patients with hepatic vein injury had ligation of the MHV. The remnant liver lobe was preserved after hepatic segmentectomy combined with MHV resection or ligation. RESULTS: The preserved liver lobe with normal structure could maintain hepatic function and showed no evidence of atrophy or swelling after hepatic segmentectomy combined with MHV resection or ligation. CONCLUSIONS: After the right inferior hepatic vein is confirmed, and the MHV is occluded experimentally before hepatic segmentectomy combined with MHV resection, progressively deteriorating congestion does not occur in the preserved segment. Ligation or resection of the two MHVs must be avoided in patients with hepatic cirrhosis who have to undergo hepatic segmentectomy combined with MHV resection. Ligation of the MHV in patients with juxtahepatic vein injury is a simple and effective therapeutic modality.

Color Doppler ultrasonographic assessment of the risk of injury to major branch of the midddle hepatic vein during laparoscopic cholecystectomy

OBJEGTIVE: To investigate the causes of hemorrhage from the gallbladder bed during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: 617 patients who had received laparoscopic cholecystectomy from September, 2000 to March, 2001 at this hospital were reviewed retrospectively. Ninety-one of these patients were selected randomly for prospective observation. Color Doppler ultrasound was used to examine the cause of venous hemorrhage from the gallbladder bed during laparoscopic cholecystectomy and to examine the anatomic relationship between the gallbladder bed and the branches of the middle hepatic vein in 91 patients preoperatively. RESULTS: A large branch of the middle hepatic vein extended closely behind the gallbladder bed in all 91 patients. The mean distance between the closest point (C point) of this branch to the gallbladder bed was 5.0±4.6 mm. The branch of the middle hepatic vein was completely adherent to the gallbladder bed in 14 (15.38%) of the 91 patients. The distance between this branch and the gallbladder bed was within I mm in 10 (10.99%) of the 91 patients. The inside diameter at C point of this branch was 3.2±1.1 mm. The C point was found on the left side of the longitudinal axis of the gallbladder in 31 (34.66%) of the 91 patients, on the right side in 39 patients (42.86%), just on the axis in 21 patients (23.08%). The venous blood flow rate at the C point was 9.9±3.3 cm/s. CONCLUSIONS: A large branch of the middle hepatic vein passes behind the gallbladder. The inside diameter of this branch is relatively larger. The bleeding of this branch during operation can only be stopped by transfixion. The closest point of this vein to the gallbladder is mostly situated on the right side of the longitudinal axis of the gallbladder. Patients with large branches of the middle hepatic vein close to the gallbladder bed are at risk of hemorrhage during laparoscopic cholecystectomy and should be identified preoperatively with ultrasound.

Hepatic vein in living donor liver transplantation

Right lobe living donor liver transplantation(LDLT)is a major development in adult LDLT that has significantly increased the donor pool by providing larger graft size and by decreasing risk of small-for-size graft syndrome.However,right lobe anatomy is complex,not only from the inflow but also from the outflow perspective.Outflow reconstruction is one of the key requirements of a successful LDLT and venous drainage of the liver graft is just as important as hepatic inflow for the integrity of graft function.Outflow complications may cause acute graft failure which is not always easy to diagnose.The right lobe graft consists of two sections and three hepatic venous routes for drainage that require reconstruction.In order to obtain a congestion free graft,several types of vascular conduits and postoperative interventions are needed to assure an adequate venous allograft drainage.This review described the anatomy,functional basis and the evolution of outflow reconstruction in right lobe LDLT.

Hepatic veins anatomy and piggy-back liver transplantation

BACKGROUND:The piggy-back caval anastomosis technique is widely used in orthotopic liver transplantation although it carries an increased risk of complications,including outflow obstruction and Budd-Chiari syndrome.The aim of this study is to clarify the anatomy and variations of hepatic veins(HVs) draining into the inferior vena cava(IVC),and to classify the surgical techniques of piggy-back liver transplantation(PBLT) based on the anatomy of HVs which can reduce the occurrence of complications.METHODS:PBLT was performed in 248 consecutive cases at our hospital from January 2004 to August 2011.The anatomy of recipients’ HVs was determined when removing the native diseased livers.Both anatomy of HVs and short HVs draining into the IVC were recorded.These data were collected and analyzed.RESULTS:We classified anatomic variations of HVs in the 248 livers into five types according to the way of drainage into the IVC:type I(trunk type of left and middle HVs),142(57.3%) patients;type II(trunk type of right and middle HVs),54(21.8%);type III(trunk type of left,middle and right HVs),14(5.6%);type IV(non-trunk type of left,middle and right HVs),of which,type IVa,16(6.5%),in the same horizontal plane;type IVb,18(7.3%),in different horizontal planes;and type V(segment type),4(1.6%).The patients whose HVs anatomy belonged to types I,II and III underwent classical piggy-back liver transplantation.Type IVa patients had classical PBLT via HV venoplasty prior to piggy-back anastomosis,while type IVb patients and type V patients could only have modified PBLT.CONCLUSION:This study demonstrates that HVs can be classified according to the anatomy of their drainage into the IVC and we can use this classification to choose the best operative approach to PBLT.

Management of the Middle Hepatic Vein in Right Lobe Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Meta-analysis

Summary： Living donor liver transplantation （LDLT） is a curative treatment for end stage liver disease. It is advantageous due to the shortage of deceased donors. However, in LDLT, whether the middle he- patic vein （MHV） should be preserved in donors remains controversial. We conducted searches in Pub- reed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Ovid, and Google Scholar using the key words ＂living donor liver transplantation＂ and ＂middle hepatic vein＂. Due to ethical issues, there were no randomized control trails focusing on MHV in LDLT. The majority of reports were retrospective studies. We exam- ined the reference lists to identify related investigations. Google Scholar was then used to obtain full texts. Nine observational studies were analyzed. There were no significant differences in liver function （WMD, -5.51; P=0.12） and complications （RR, 0.98; P=0.89） in donors with or without MHV. How- ever, the liver function in recipients was greatly improved after LDLT with MHV （WMD, -78.32; P=0.01）. No definite conclusion was obtained in terms of the liver regeneration indices between LDLT with or without MHV. It was conclude that grafts with MHV in LDLT favor recipient outcomes and do not harm the living donor if a careful preoperative evaluation is oerformed.

Color Doppler ultrasonographic examination on the relationship between the gallbladder bed and major branch of the middle hepatic vein

BACKGROUND: There is a controversy about the risk of injury to the branch of the middle hepatic vein during lapa- roscopic cholecystectomy. This study was conducted to further investigate the relationship between the gallbladder bed and the branch of the middle hepatic vein. METHODS: Color Doppler ultrasound was used to exa- mine the anatomical relationship between the gallbladder bed and the branches of the middle hepatic vein in 143 healthy volunteers. RESULTS: Not all the middle hepatic vein extended close to the gallbladder bed, the branches and gallbladder beds in 23 subjects were not in the same plane during ultrasound scanning. In 21 of the 143 subjects the branch of the middle hepatic vein was completely adherent to the gallbladder bed with a diameter ranging from 1.2 mm to 3.6 mm. In 10 subjects the branches of the middle hepatic vein traversed approximately 1.0 mm from the gallbladder bed with a dia- meter ranging from 1.6 mm to 3.0 mm. CONCLUSIONS: In most subjects the branch of the middle hepatic vein and the gallbladder bed are well separated. Only patients with large branches of the middle hepatic vein close to the gallbladder bed are at risk of hemorrhage during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Caudal shifting of hepatic vein anastomosis in right liver living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: In right liver living donor liver transplantation, hepatic venous anastomosis is performed using the recipient's right hepatic vein orifice. There may be situations that the portal vein is short or the right liver graft is small, leading to difficulty in portal vein, hepatic artery or duct-to-duct anastomosis. METHODS: The recipient's right hepatic vein orifice is closed partially for 2 cm at the cranial end or totally, and a new venotomy is made caudal to the right hepatic vein orifice. Hepatic vein anastomosis is performed with the new venotomy. RESULTS: The distance between the liver graft hilum and hepatoduodenal ligament is reduced. Portal vein, hepatic artery and biliary anastomosis could be performed without tension or conduit. CONCLUSION: Caudal shifting of hepatic vein anastomosis facilitates implantation of a right liver living donor graft.

Reconstruction of the middle hepatic vein tributary in adult right lobe living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: In adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), the use of a right lobe graft without the middle hepatic vein (MHV) can cause hepatic congestion and disturbance of venous drainage. To solve this problem, we successfully used cadaveric venous allografts preserved in 4 ℃ University of Wisconsin (UW) solution within 10 days as interposition veins for drainage of the paramedian portion of the right lobe in adult LDLT. METHODS: From June 2007 to January 2008, 11 adult LDLT patients received modified right liver grafts. The major MHV tributaries (greater than 5 mm in diameter) of 9 cases were preserved and reconstructed using cadaveric interposition vein allografts that had been stored for 1 to 10 days in 4 ℃ UW solution. The regeneration of the paramedian sector of the grafts and the patency of the interposition vein allografts were examined by Doppler ultrasonography after the operation. RESULTS: MHV tributaries were reconstructed in 9 recipients. Only 1 recipient died of renal failure and severe pulmonary infection on day 9 after transplantation without any hemiliver venous outflow obstruction. The other 8 recipients achieved long-term survival with a median follow-up of 30 months. The cumulative patency rates of the 8 recipients were 63.63% (7/11), 45.45% (5/11), 45.45% (5/11) and 36.36% (4/11) at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months, respectively. Regeneration of the paramedian sectors was equivalent.CONCLUSION: The cadaveric venous allograft preserved in 4 ℃ UW solution within 10 days serves as a useful alternative for interposition veins in facilitating implantation of a right lobe graft and guarantees outflow of the MHV.

Is right lobe liver graft without main right hepatic vein suitable for living donor liver transplantation?

BACKGROUND Since the first living donor liver transplantation(LDLT)was performed by Raia and colleagues in December 1988,LDLT has become the gold standard treatment in countries where cadaveric organ donation is not sufficient.Adequate hepatic venous outflow reconstruction in LDLT is essential to prevent graft congestion and its complications including graft loss.However,this can be complex and technically demanding especially in the presence of complex variations and congenital anomalies in the graft hepatic veins.CASE SUMMARY Herein,we aimed to present two cases who underwent successful right lobe LDLT using a right lobe liver graft with rudimentary or congenital absence of the right hepatic vein and describe the utility of a common large opening drainage model in such complex cases.CONCLUSION Thanks to this venous reconstruction model,none of the patients developed postoperative complications related to venous drainage.Our experience with venous drainage reconstruction models shows that congenital variations in the hepatic venous structure of living liver donors are not absolute contraindications for LDLT.

Left hepatic vein: can be sutured and ligated blindly in left hepatectomy?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the anatomic characteristics of the left hepatic vein, middle hepatic vein and common trunk could influence the operation procedures of left hepatectomy. METHOD: Fifteen fresh human liver specimens were dissected and their anatomic characteristics were recorded. RESULTS: The left hepatic vein and middle hepatic vein formed the common trunk of 1.2±0.4 cm in length in the 15 liver specimens. The angle between the left hepatic vein and middle hepatic vein was 91±18.3°. CONCLUSION: The left hepatic vein should not be sutured and ligated blindly in left hepatectomy because there might be a potential damage to the middle hepatic vein.

Absent middle hepatic vein in a right liver graft donor

BACKGROUND: The middle hepatic vein (MHV) is normally in form of a large trunk lying within the midplane of the liver. An anomaly in form of two separate trunks, each draining segment V/VIII and segment IV, has been described by Couinaud but not been well documented in the literature. METHOD: We report a right liver donor in whom the MHV was absent and not encountered during liver transection along the midplane of the liver. RESULTS: On computed tomography (CT) scan and intraoperative ultrasonography, there was a large segment VIII hepatic vein mistaken as the MHV on preoperative assessment and a large segment IV hepatic vein close to the ligamenturn venosum. CT volumetry based on either segment VIII or IV hepatic vein led to major error in liver volume calculation. Transection of the liver guided by segment VIII or IV hepatic vein would lead to sacrifice of liver parenchyma unnecessarily or presence of necrotic liver in the graft. CONCLUSION: Absent MHV is a rare anomaly. It is revealed by careful study of the CT scan.

Complete resection of the hepatic veins: The role of right inferior vein

To the editor:In the recent years liver surgery has been dramatically improved because of technical and technological innovations,perioperative and intraoperative intensive care,better knowledge of liver physiology and early recognition and treatment of postoperative complications.Last but not least,liver anatomy,though not

Establishment of a Rat Model of Liver Venous Deprivation:Simultaneous Portal and Hepatic Vein Ligation

Background and Aims:The aim was to establish a liver venous deprivation(LVD)model in rats,compare hepatic hypertrophy between LVD and associated liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy(ALPPS),and explore the underlying mechanisms.Methods:The LVD or extended-LVD(e-LVD)group received portal vein ligation(PVL)combined with hepatic vein ligation(HVL).The ALPPS or eALPPS group received PVL plus parenchyma ligation.Liver regeneration was assessed by measuring the liver weight and performing pathological analysis.Liver functions and the sphingosine kinase 1(SPHK1)/sphingosine-1-phosphate(S1P)/sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 1(S1PR1)pathway were also investigated.Results:All future liver remnants(FLRs)in the ALPPS,e-ALPPS,LVD,and e-LVD groups exhibited significant hypertrophy compared with the control group.The LVD and e-LVD procedures induced similar liver hypertrophy than that in the corresponding ALPPS groups.Furthermore,the LVD and e-LVD methods led to obvious cytolysis in the venous-deprived lobes as well as a noticeable increase in serum transaminase levels,while no necrosis was observed in the ALPPS and e-ALPPS groups.SPHK1/S1P/S1PR1 pathway were distinctly activated after operation,especially in congestive/ischemic livers.Conclusions:We describe the first rat model of LVD and e-LVD with simultaneously associated HVL and PVL.Compared with the ALPPS technique,the LVD or e-LVD procedure had a comparable overall effect on the hypertrophy response and a stronger effect on liver function.The SPHK1/S1P/S1PR1 pathway was involved in the LVD-or ALPPS-induced liver remodeling.

A new classification for hepatocellular carcinoma with hepatic vein tumor thrombus

Background:Hepatic vein tumor thrombus(HVTT)is a significant poor risk factor for survival outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma(HCC)patients.Currently,the widely used international staging systems for HCC are not refined enough to evaluate prognosis for these patients.A new classification for macroscopic HVTT was established,aiming to better predict prognosis.Methods:This study included 437 consecutive HCC patients with HVTT who underwent different treatments.Overall survival(OS)and time-dependent receiver operating characteristic(ROC)curve area analysis were used to determine the prognostic capacities of the new classification when compared with the different currently used staging systems.Results:The new HVTT classification was defined as:type I,tumor thrombosis involving hepatic vein(HV),including microvascular invasion;type II,tumor thrombosis involving the retrohepatic segment of inferior vena cava;and type III,tumor thrombosis involving the supradiaphragmatic segment of inferior vena cava.The numbers(percentages)of patients with types I,II,and III HVTT in the new classification were 146(33.4%),143(32.7%),and 148(33.9%),respectively.The 1-,2-,and 3-year OS rates for types I to III HVTT were 79.5%,58.6%,and 29.1%;54.8%,23.3%,and 13.8%;and 24.0%,10.0%,and 2.1%,respectively.The time-dependent-ROC curve area analysis demonstrated that the predicting capacity of the new HVTT classification was significantly better than any other staging systems.Conclusions:A new HVTT classification was established to predict prognosis of HCC patients with HVTT who underwent different treatments.This classification was superior to,and it may serve as a supplement to,the commonly used staging systems.