| Literature DB >> 27244889 |
David J Pinato1, Tadaaki Arizumi2, Jeong Won Jang3, Elias Allara4,5, Puvan I Suppiah1, Carlo Smirne4, Paul Tait6, Madhava Pai7, Glenda Grossi4, Young Woon Kim3, Mario Pirisi4,8, Masatoshi Kudo2, Rohini Sharma1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is variable, despite a myriad of prognostic markers. We compared and integrated the established prognostic models, HAP and ART scores, for their accuracy of overall survival (OS) prediction.Entities:
Keywords: ART score; HAP score; TACE; hepatocellular carcinoma; prognosis
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27244889 PMCID: PMC5190130 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.9604
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
The hepatoma arterial-embolisation prognostic (HAP) score and the assessment for re-treatment with TACE (ART) score
| Prognostic Model | Variables | Prognostic Stratification |
|---|---|---|
| HAP Score | Albumin <35 g/L | HAP A |
| ART Score | Child Pugh increase following TACE (+1, +2 points) | High risk (>2.5) |
Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with HCC treated with TACE (training and validation set)
| Baseline characteristic | n=83, (%) or median, (range) | n=660, (%) or median, (range) |
|---|---|---|
| 72 (47-84) | 73 (42-89) | |
| Male | 64 (77) | 465 (70) |
| Female | 19 (23) | 195 (30) |
| Viral | 49 (60) | |
| Non Viral | 31 (37) | 533 (80) |
| Not characterized | 3 (3) | 127 (20) |
| A5 | 37 (45) | 332 (49) |
| A6 | 25 (30) | 168 (26) |
| B7 | 14 (17) | 94 (14) |
| B8 | 5 (6) | 43 (7) |
| B9 | 2 (2) | 23 (4) |
| ≤ 5 cm | 26 (40) | 565 (86) |
| > 5 cm | 38 (60) | 95 (14) |
| 1 | 28 (34) | 110 (17) |
| 2 | 22 (26) | 120 (18) |
| 3 | 16 (20) | 97 (15) |
| >3 | 17 (20) | 248 (38) |
| Missing | − | 85 (12) |
| <400 ng/mL | 77 (93) | 534 (81) |
| ≥400 ng/mL | 6 (7) | 126 (19) |
| 37 (23-49) | 37 (20-50) | |
| 19 (7-55) | 14 (3-70) | |
| 48 (13-177) | 37 (4-277) | |
| 56 (16-188) | 48 (6-303) | |
| 255 (113-529) | 336 (108-1212) | |
| 1.2 (1.0-1.6) | 1.0 (1.0-2.0) | |
| 115 (26-269) | 115 (14-453) | |
| A | 42 (50) | 270 (40) |
| B | 41 (50) | 390 (60) |
| 0-1 | 61 (73) | N.A. |
| ≥2 | 22 (27) | |
| 1 | 42 (50) | 171 (26) |
| 2 | 16 (20) | 139 (21) |
| ≥3 | 25 (30) | 274 (42) |
| Missing | − | 76 (11) |
| First line TACE | 50 (60) | 322 (48) |
| Resection | 6 (7) | 77 (12) |
| Transplantation | 1 (1) | 0 (0) |
| Radiofrequency ablation | 22 (27) | 243 (36) |
| Systemic treatment | 4 (3) | 18 (4) |
| Complete Response | 22 (26) | 268 (40) |
| Partial Response | 40 (48) | 110 (17) |
| Stable Disease | 12 (15) | 91 (14) |
| Progressive Disease | 9 (11) | 191 (29) |
| A | 23 (28) | 274 (41) |
| B | 32 (39) | 209 (32) |
| C | 24 (30) | 137 (21) |
| D | 3 (3) | 40 (6) |
| <2.5 | 55 (66) | 423 (64) |
| >2.5 | 28 (44) | 237 (36) |
Univariate analysis of prognostic factors of overall survival (training set)
| UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | N=83 | Median OS (95% CI) | Hazard Ratio (95% CI) | P-value |
| <65 | 32 | − | − | 0.45 |
| >65 | 51 | |||
| Viral | 31 | − | − | 0.91 |
| Non-viral | 49 | |||
| Uninodular <50% | 27 | 104 (12-196) | 2.6 (1.3 – 5.2) | 0.007* |
| Multinodular <50% | 51 | 50 (40-59) | ||
| Massive ≥50% | 8 | 19 (5-35) | ||
| <5 cm | 67 | 55 (20-90) | 3.9 (1.7-8.7) | <0.001* |
| ≥5 cm | 20 | 21 (16-27) | ||
| <400 | 78 | 55 (17-93) | 8.2 (3.3 – 20.8) | <0.001* |
| ≥400 | 8 | 14 (7-21) | ||
| 0-1 | 61 | 104 (32-176) | 2.3 (1.5-2.5) | 0.001* |
| ≥2 | 22 | 22 (18-25) | ||
| A | 42 | − | − | 0.22 |
| B | 41 | |||
| A | 62 | 104 (33-175) | 2.9 (1.3-6.5) | 0.008* |
| B | 21 | 46 (10-83) | ||
| CR | 22 | NR | 1.9 (1.2-2.9) | 0.002* |
| PR | 40 | 55 (36-73) | ||
| SD | 12 | 52 (26-79) | ||
| PD | 9 | 21 (7-37) | ||
| A | 23 | NR | 3.1 (1.8-5.3) | <0.001* |
| B | 32 | 55 (34-75) | ||
| C | 24 | 46 (18-82) | ||
| D | 3 | 9 (43-63) | ||
| <2.5 | 55 | 104 (30-160) | 3.1 (1.5-6.7) | 0.002* |
| >2.5 | 28 | 22 (10-47) | ||
NR: Not reached.
Figure 1Kaplan Meier curve analysis showing the effect of ART and HAP score as predictors of overall survival in HCC in the training (A, B) and in the validation set (C, D).
Figure 2Study flow diagram illustrating patient inclusion in the training and validation set
Clinicopathologic characteristics of patients exceeding BCLC-B criteria
| Baseline characteristic | n=63, (%) or median, (range) |
|---|---|
| 53 (34-87) | |
| Male | 48 (76) |
| Female | 15 (24) |
| Viral | 48 (76) |
| Non Viral | 15 (24) |
| A | 51 (80) |
| B | 11 (19) |
| C | 1 (1) |
| ≤ 5 cm | 33 (52) |
| > 5 cm | 30 (48) |
| 1 | 5 (8) |
| 2 | 15 (24) |
| ≥3 | 43 (68) |
| Absent | 34 (54) |
| Present | 29 (46) |
| Absent | 29 (46) |
| Present | 34 (54) |
| <400 ng/mL | 43 (68) |
| ≥400 ng/mL | 20 (32) |
| 37 (21-46) | |
| 13 (3-53) | |
| 44 (10-122) | |
| 56 (14-138) | |
| 220 (120-1901) | |
| 1.1 (1.0-1.6) | |
| 121 (14-1653) | |
| 1 | 31 (50) |
| 2 | 17 (20) |
| ≥3 | 15 (30) |
| Complete Response | 3 (5) |
| Partial Response | 21 (32) |
| Stable Disease | 11 (18) |
| Progressive Disease | 28 (45) |
| A | 12 (19) |
| B | 20 (32) |
| C | 22 (35) |
| D | 9 (14) |
| <2.5 | 32 (51) |
| >2.5 | 31 (49) |
Figure 3Kaplan Meier curve analysis showing the effect of different prognostic models on the overall survival of a subgroup of patients exceeding intermediate HCC staging criteria: ART score (A), HAP score (B, C) mRECIST based radiologic response (D). Panel E illustrates a proposed algorithm for the sequential use of the HAP and ART score in BCLC-A/B stage patients.