Submitted:
27 July 2026
Posted:
29 July 2026
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design, Setting, and Population
2.2. Definition and Diagnosis of Spontaneous Rupture
2.3. Variables and Definitions
2.4. Emergency and Definitive Treatment Strategy
2.5. Follow-Up and Outcomes
2.6. Propensity Score Matching and Statistical Analysis
2.7. Ethical Considerations
3. Results
3.1. Patient Selection and Matching
3.2. Clinical Characteristics at Presentation
3.3. Presentation, Emergency Management, and Oncologic Course
3.4. Survival
3.5. Exploratory Association and Model Analyses
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Fan, L.; Na, J.; Shi, T.; Liao, Y. Hepatoblastoma: From molecular mechanisms to therapeutic strategies. Curr. Oncol. 2025, 32, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zsiros, J.; Brugières, L.; Brock, P.; Roebuck, D.; Maibach, R.; Zimmermann, A.; et al. Dose-dense cisplatin-based chemotherapy and surgery for children with high-risk hepatoblastoma (SIOPEL-4): A prospective, single-arm, feasibility study. Lancet Oncol. 2013, 14, 834–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meyers, R.L.; Maibach, R.; Hiyama, E.; Häberle, B.; Krailo, M.; Rangaswami, A.; et al. Risk-stratified staging in paediatric hepatoblastoma: A unified analysis from the Children’s Hepatic Tumours International Collaboration. Lancet Oncol. 2017, 18, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Czauderna, P.; Haeberle, B.; Hiyama, E.; Rangaswami, A.; Krailo, M.; Maibach, R.; et al. The Children’s Hepatic Tumors International Collaboration (CHIC): Novel global rare tumor database yields new prognostic factors in hepatoblastoma and becomes a research model. Eur. J. Cancer 2016, 52, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Towbin, A.J.; Meyers, R.L.; Woodley, H.; Miyazaki, O.; Weldon, C.B.; Morland, B.; et al. 2017 PRETEXT: Radiologic staging system for primary hepatic malignancies of childhood revised for the Paediatric Hepatic International Tumour Trial (PHITT). Pediatr. Radiol. 2018, 48, 536–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pondrom, M.; Pariente, D.; Mallon, B.; Taque, S.; Branchereau, S.; Chardot, C.; et al. Tumor rupture in hepatoblastoma: A high-risk factor? Pediatr. Blood Cancer 2020, 67, e28549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maibach, R.; Roebuck, D.; Brugières, L.; Capra, M.; Brock, P.; Dall’Igna, P.; et al. Prognostic stratification for children with hepatoblastoma: The SIOPEL experience. Eur. J. Cancer 2012, 48, 1543–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meyers, R.L.; Rowland, J.R.; Krailo, M.; Chen, Z.; Katzenstein, H.M.; Malogolowkin, M.H. Predictive power of pretreatment prognostic factors in children with hepatoblastoma: A report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Pediatr. Blood Cancer 2009, 53, 1016–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chang, S.; Yang, S.; Yang, W.; Qin, H.; Cheng, H.; Chang, X.; et al. Clinical risk factors for patients with ruptured hepatoblastoma in children: A retrospective study from a single center in China. Pediatr. Surg. Int. 2023, 39, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, Y.T.; Zhao, Y.F.; Yang, D.F.; Chang, J. Retrospective analysis of pediatric hepatoblastoma with tumor rupture: Experience from a single center. Front. Pediatr. 2022, 10, 799307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P.; STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann. Intern. Med. 2007, 147, 573–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- López-Terrada, D.; Alaggio, R.; de Dávila, M.T.; Czauderna, P.; Hiyama, E.; Katzenstein, H.; et al. Towards an international pediatric liver tumor consensus classification: Proceedings of the Los Angeles COG liver tumors symposium. Mod. Pathol. 2014, 27, 472–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chinese Children Cancer Group; Oncology Group of the Pediatric Surgery Branch, Chinese Medical Association. Expert consensus for multidisciplinary management of hepatoblastoma (CCCG-HB-2016). Chin. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2017, 38, 733–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kitahara, S.; Makuuchi, M.; Ishizone, S.; Terada, M.; Kawasaki, S.; Nakahata, T.; et al. Successful left trisegmentectomy for ruptured hepatoblastoma using intraoperative transarterial embolization. J. Pediatr. Surg. 1995, 30, 1709–1712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chan, K.L.; Tam, P.K. Successful right trisegmentectomy for ruptured hepatoblastoma with preoperative transcatheter arterial embolization. J. Pediatr. Surg. 1998, 33, 783–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, S.C.; Chung, J.W.; Kim, K.H.; Kim, W.K. Successful transumbilical embolization of congenitally ruptured hepatoblastoma. J. Pediatr. Surg. 1999, 34, 1851–1852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- van Laarhoven, S.; van Baren, R.; Tamminga, R.Y.; de Jong, K.P. Radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of liver tumors in children. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2012, 47, e7–e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, A.P.Y.; Ip, J.J.K.; Leung, A.W.K.; Luk, C.W.; Li, C.H.; Ho, K.K.H.; et al. Treatment outcome and pattern of failure in hepatoblastoma treated with a consensus protocol in Hong Kong. Pediatr. Blood Cancer 2019, 66, e27482. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]



| Characteristic | Rupture Group (n = 14) | Matched Control Group (n = 42) | p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, months | 76.40 (29.48-120.20) | 71.88 (26.40-118.52) | 0.578 |
| Male sex, n (%) | 8 (57.1) | 23 (54.8) | 0.876 |
| Weight, kg | 20.15 (12.25-32.53) | 21.31 (13.57-30.12) | 0.147 |
| Height, cm | 111.00 (89.45-129.02) | 107.63 (90.58-123.48) | 0.364 |
| Hemoglobin, g/L | 80.00 (60.00-100.00) | 103.00 (100.00-115.00) | 0.032 |
| Bilobar disease, n (%) | 13 (92.9) | 19 (45.2) | 0.002 |
| Maximum tumor diameter, cm | 14.00 (10.88-15.45) | 10.55 (8.31-12.15) | <0.001 |
| PRETEXT stage III-IV, n (%) | 13 (92.9) | 19 (45.2) | 0.002 |
| Macrovascular invasion, n (%) | 10 (71.4) | 10 (23.8) | 0.003 |
| Patient | Sex/Age (m) | PRETEXT | Histopathology | AFP | Metastasis | Rupture type | Tumor site | Maximum Diameter of Tumor (cm) | Vascular Invasion | Treatment | CR at the End of First-Line Treatment | Event | Status at Last Follow-Up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M/5.1 | II | Epi/Fet | 885312 | No | Subcapsular | Lhl | 10.1 | No | RR | Yes | No | Alive (10.0y) |
| 2 | M/14.2 | III | Mix/Stro | 47923 | No | Intraperitoneal | Lhl/Ra | 10.9 | Yes | RR | Yes | R | Death (5.0y) |
| 3 | F/22.5 | III | Epi/Em | 12715 | No | Intraperitoneal | Rhl/Lm | 10.4 | No | RR | Yes | No | Alive, (7.9y) |
| 4 | M/54.4 | IV | Epi/Sma | 412455 | Yes/ AN | Intraperitoneal | Lhl/Rhl | 15.8 | Yes | PH | No | PD | Death (0.1y) |
| 5 | F/78.3 | III | Mix/Tera | 507831 | No | Intraperitoneal | Rhl/Lm | 15.0 | Yes | RR | Yes | R | Alive (11.0y) |
| 6 | F/31.8 | III | Mix/Stro | 15002 | No | Intraperitoneal | Rhl/Lm | 10.9 | No | RR | Yes | No | Alive (6.3y) |
| 7 | M/89.1 | IV | Epi/Em | 44000 | Yes/Lung | Intraperitoneal | Lhl/Rhl | 13.0 | Yes | TAE | No | PD | Death (0.8y) |
| 8 | M/56.1 | III | Uncertain | 361789 | No | Intraperitoneal | Rhl/Lm | 12.5 | Yes | CT | No | PD | Death (0y) |
| 9 | M/74.5 | III | Epi/Fet | 808315 | No | Intraperitoneal | Rhl/Lm | 11.2 | No | RR | Yes | No | Alive (5.6y) |
| 10 | F/105.0 | IV | Mix/Stro | 842167 | No | Intraperitoneal | Lhl/Rhl | 15.2 | Yes | PH | No | PD | Death (0.7y) |
| 11 | M/141.4 | III | Epi/Fet | 145219 | No | Intraperitoneal | Rhl/Lm | 15.6 | Yes | RR | No | PD | Death (2.6y) |
| 12 | F/118.1 | III | Epi/Em | 781455 | No | Intraperitoneal | Lhl/Ra | 15.1 | Yes | RR | Yes | R | Death (4.1y) |
| 13 | F/126.5 | III | Mix/Tera | 341123 | No | Intraperitoneal | Rhl/Lm | 15.4 | Yes | RR | Yes | No | Alive (7.5y) |
| 14 | M/132.3 | IV | Epi/Fet | 27851 | No | Intraperitoneal | Lhl/Rhl | 16.0 | Yes | RFA | No | PD | Death (0.6y) |
| Variables | Univariate Analysis | Multivariable Analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P | OR | 95%CI | P | |
| Maximum diameter of tumor | <0.001 | 3.078 | 1.62-5.55 | <0.001 |
| Macrovascular invasion | 0.003 | 13.521 | 1.16-148.23 | 0.037 |
| Tumor site (unilobar or bilobar) | 0.024 | 1.211 | 0.75-2.21 | 0.621 |
| PRETEXT (III–IV or I–II) | 0.019 | 1.006 | 0.21-2.15 | 0.422 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.