PRPierluigi Romano

Pierluigi Romano

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article

Previous Organizations / Institutes

The organizations / institutes from the scholar's other articles in the past ten years


Pierluigi Romano has a total of 167 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:


Latest Publications

  • Laparoscopic versus open resection for hepatocellular carcinoma according to the procedure’s complexity: real-world weighted data from a national register

    by Simone Famularo, Flavio Milana, Francesco Ardito, Federica Cipriani, Alessandro Vitale, Andrea Lauterio, Matteo Serenari, Andrea Fontana, Daniele Nicolini, Mario Giuffrida, et al.


  • Open Access

    Waiting list mortality and 5-year transplant survival benefit of patients with MASLD: An Italian liver transplant registry study

    by Alessandro Vitale, Silvia Trapani, Francesco Paolo Russo, Luca Miele, Gianluca Svegliati Baroni, Giulio Marchesini, Patrizia Burra, Marco Salvatore Ottoveggio, Renato Romagnoli, Silvia Martini, et al.


  • Open Access

    Liver Transplantation from Elderly Donors (≥85 Years Old)

    by Pierluigi Romano, Luis Cano, Daniel Pietrasz, Nassiba Beghdadi, Marc-Antoine Allard, Chady Salloum, Frédérique Blandin, Oriana Ciacio, Gabriella Pittau, René Adam, et al.

    Background: Despite the ongoing trend of increasing donor ages in liver transplantation (LT) setting, a notable gap persists in the availability of comprehensive guidelines for the utilization of organs from elderly donors. This study aimed to evaluate the viability of livers grafts from donors aged ≥85 years and report the post-LT outcomes compared with those from “ideal” donors under 40 years old. Methods: Conducted retrospectively at a single center from 2005 to 2023, this study compared outcomes of LTs from donors aged ≥85 y/o and ≤40 y/o, with the propensity score matching to the recipient’s gender, age, BMI, MELD score, redo-LT, LT indication, and cause of donor death. Results: A total of 76 patients received grafts from donors ≥85 y/o and were compared to 349 liver grafts from donors ≤40 y/o. Prior to PSM, the 5-year overall survival was 63% for the elderly group and 77% for the young group (p = 0.002). After PSM, the 5-year overall survival was 63% and 73% (p = 0.1). A nomogram, developed at the time of graft acceptance and including HCC features, predicted 10-year survival after LT using a graft from a donor aged ≥85. Conclusions: In the context of organ scarcity, elderly donors emerge as a partial solution. Nonetheless, without proper selection, LT using very elderly donors yields inferior long-term outcomes compared to transplantation from very young donors ≤40 y/o. The resulting nomogram based on pre-transplant criteria allows for the optimization of elderly donor/recipient matching to achieve satisfactory long-term results, in addition to traditional matching methods.


  • Open Access

    What Is the Role of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery in Treating Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma on Cirrhosis?

    by Alessandro Vitale, Roberta Angelico, Bruno Sensi, Quirino Lai, Emanuele Kauffmann, Irene Scalera, Matteo Serenari, Michael Ginesini, Pierluigi Romano, Alessandro Furlanetto, et al.

    Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) has been slowly introduced in the past two decades and today represents a major weapon in the fight against HCC, for several reasons. This narrative review conveys the major emerging concepts in the field. The rise in metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD)-related HCC means that patients with significant cardiovascular risk will benefit more profoundly from MILS. The advent of efficacious therapy is leading to conversion from non-resectable to resectable cases, and therefore more patients will be able to undergo MILS. In fact, resection outcomes with MILS are superior compared to open surgery both in the short and long term. Furthermore, indications to surgery may be further expanded by its use in Child B7 patients and by the use of laparoscopic ablation, a curative technique, instead of trans-arterial approaches in cases not amenable to radiofrequency. Therefore, in a promising new approach, multi-parametric treatment hierarchy, MILS is hierarchically superior to open surgery and comes second only to liver transplantation.


  • Open Access

    Liver resection versus radiofrequency ablation or trans-arterial chemoembolization for early-stage (BCLC A) oligo-nodular hepatocellular carcinoma: meta-analysis

    by Pierluigi Romano, Marco Busti, Ilaria Billato, Francesco D’aMico, Giovanni Marchegiani, Filippo Pelizzaro, Alessandro Vitale, Umberto Cillo

    The 2022 Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) algorithm does not recommend liver resection (LR) in BCLC A patients with oligo-nodular (two or three nodules ≤3 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This sharply contrasts with the therapeutic hierarchy concept, implying a precise treatment order exists within each BCLC stage. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of LR versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE) in BCLC A patients. A meta-analysis adhering to PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook was performed. All RCT, cohort and case–control studies that compared LR versus RFA or TACE in oligo-nodular BCLC A HCC published between January 2000 and October 2023 were comprehensively searched on PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and China Biology Medicine databases. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at 3 and 5 years. Risk ratio (RR) was computed as a measure of treatment effect (OS and DFS benefit) to calculate common and random effects estimates for meta-analyses with binary outcome data. 2601 patients from 14 included studies were analysed (LR = 1227, RFA = 686, TACE = 688). There was a significant 3- and 5-year OS benefit of LR over TACE (RR = 0.55, 95% c.i. 0.44 to 0.69, P < 0.001 and RR 0.57, 95% c.i. 0.36 to 0.90, P = 0.030, respectively), while there was no significant 3- and 5-year OS benefit of LR over RFA (RR = 0.78, 95% c.i. 0.37 to 1.62, P = 0.452 and RR 0.74, 95% c.i. 0.50 to 1.09, P = 0.103, respectively). However, a significant 3- and 5-year DFS benefit of LR over RFA was found (RR = 0.70, 95% c.i. 0.54 to 0.93, P = 0.020 and RR 0.82, 95% c.i. 0.72 to 0.95, P = 0.015, respectively). A single study comparing LR and TACE regarding DFS showed a significant superiority of LR. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale quality of studies was high in eight (57%) and moderate in six (43%). In BCLC A oligo-nodular HCC patients, LR should be preferred to RFA or TACE (therapeutic hierarchy concept). Additional comparative cohort studies are urgently needed to increase the certainty of this evidence.