| Literature DB >> 27725532 |
Satoshi Oeda1, Shinji Iwane, Mitsuhiro Takasaki, Naoko E Furukawa, Taiga Otsuka, Yuichiro Eguchi, Keizo Anzai.
Abstract
Objective To manage patients with viral hepatitis, it is important to screen for hepatitis, conduct a comprehensive examination if such screening is positive, administer antiviral treatment, and conduct surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The proper execution of this strategy is expected to effectively reduce the number of deaths from viral hepatitis. Such an "optimal" follow-up for HCC surveillance is therefore important. This study aimed to determine the benefits of performing an optimal follow-up of patients with viral hepatitis. Methods The subjects were infected with the hepatitis virus and were initially diagnosed with or treated for HCC from 2004-2012. We retrospectively analyzed the history of a patient's current illness using the hospital discharge summary. To minimize any lead-time bias, we calculated the corrected survival for patients who received an optimal follow-up. Results Of 333 patients, 107 (32.1%) did not receive an optimal follow-up and thus had low cumulative survival rates in comparison to those who did. The median corrected survival was 51.5 months for patients with an optimal follow-up compared with 31.4 months for those without (p=0.011). A multivariate analysis revealed that AFP <35 [odds ratio (OR), 2.054], Child-Pugh A (OR, 2.488), and an optimal follow-up (OR, 4.539) were independent factors associated with the detection of early-stage HCC. Age (OR, 0.939), tumor stage I/II (OR, 6.918), and an optimal follow-up (OR, 3.213) were found to be independent factors associated with receiving curative treatment. Conclusion An optimal follow-up of patients with viral hepatitis independently increased the detection of early-stage HCC and the administration of curative treatment. Patients with an optimal follow-up survived longer than those without.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27725532 PMCID: PMC5088533 DOI: 10.2169/internalmedicine.55.6730
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Intern Med ISSN: 0918-2918 Impact factor: 1.271
Characteristics of Patients upon Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
| Factors | n=333 |
|---|---|
| Sex, n (%) | |
| Female | 113 (33.9 %) |
| Male | 220 (66.1 %) |
| Age (years), median (range) | 70 (23-91) |
| PLT (×104/µL), median (range) | 10.8 (2.0-37.2) |
| PT (%), median (range) | 79.2 (10-119) |
| ALB (g/dL), median (range) | 3.6 (1.6-4.9) |
| T-BIL (mg/dL), median (range) | 1.0 (0.3-7.7) |
| ALT (IU/L), median (range) | 44 (10-421) |
| AFP (ng/mL), median (range) | 35.9 (1-1,320,000) |
| Tumor diameter (mm), median (range) | 24 (5-200) |
| Child-Pugh class, n (%) | |
| A | 253 (76.0%) |
| B | 70 (21.0%) |
| C | 10 (3.0%) |
| Tumor stage, n (%) | |
| I | 81 (24.3%) |
| II | 110 (33.0%) |
| III | 105 (31.5%) |
| IV | 37 (11.1%) |
| Treatment, n (%) | |
| Surgery | 92 (27.6%) |
| RFA | 126 (37.8%) |
| TACE/TAI | 93 (28.0%) |
| Others | 22 (6.6%) |
| Etiology, n (%) | |
| HBV | 52 (15.6%) |
| HCV | 281 (84.4%) |
| Optimal follow-up, n (%) | |
| With | 226 (67.9%) |
| Without | 107 (32.1%) |
Abbreviations: PLT: platelet count, PT: prothrombin activity, ALB: albumin, T-BIL: total bilirubin, ALT: alanine aminotransferase, AFP: α-fetoprotein, RFA: radiofrequency ablation, TACE: transcatheter arterial chemoembolization, TAI: transcatheter arterial infusion, HBV: hepatitis B virus, HCV: hepatitis C virus
Figure 1.Patients who did not receive the recommended management strategy. One hundred and seven (32.1%) of 333 patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) deviated from the management strategy as follows: 40/107 patients did not undergo screening, 23/107 patients did not undergo examinations, and 44/107 patients did not undergo treatment. An optimal follow-up was thus achieved in 226 (67.9%) patients.
| Variables | Optimal follow-up | No optimal follow-up | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex, n (%) | 0.11 | ||
| Female | 87 (38.5 %) | 26 (24.3%) | |
| Male | 139 (61.5 %) | 81 (75.7%) | |
| Age (years), median (range) | 71 (33-87) | 69 (23-91) | 0.047 |
| PLT (×104/µL), median (range) | 10.3 (2.0-26.2) | 12.7 (3.5-37.2) | 0.002 |
| PT (%), median (range) | 79 (10-119) | 80 (19-116) | 0.817 |
| ALB (g/dL), median (range) | 3.6 (1.6-4.9) | 3.5 (2.0-4.9) | 0.129 |
| T-BIL (mg/dL), median (range) | 1.0 (0.3-5.3) | 0.9 (0.3-7.7) | 0.637 |
| ALT (IU/L), median (range) | 44 (10-360) | 45 (10-421) | 0.237 |
| AFP (ng/mL), median (range) | 28.6 (1-61,200) | 92.9 (1.8-1,320,000) | 0.003 |
| Tumor diameter (mm), median (range) | 21 (5-100) | 41 (7-200) | <0.001 |
| Child-Pugh class, n (%) | 0.010 | ||
| A | 182 (80.5%) | 71 (66.4%) | |
| B | 40 (17.7%) | 30 (28.0%) | |
| C | 4 (1.8%) | 6 (5.6%) | |
| Tumor stage, n (%) | <0.001 | ||
| I | 71 (31.4%) | 10 (9.3%) | |
| II | 85 (37.6%) | 25 (23.4%) | |
| III | 60 (26.5%) | 45 (42.1%) | |
| IV | 10 (4.4%) | 27 (25.2%) | |
| Treatment, n (%) | <0.001 | ||
| Surgery | 63 (27.9%) | 29 (27.1%) | |
| RFA | 111 (49.1%) | 15 (14.0%) | |
| TACE/TAI | 48 (21.2%) | 45 (42.1%) | |
| Others | 4 (1.8%) | 18 (16.8%) | |
| Etiology, n (%) | <0.001 | ||
| HBV | 24 (10.6%) | 28 (26.2%) | |
| HCV | 202 (89.4%) | 79 (73.8%) | |
| Imaging for surveillance, n (%) | |||
| Combination of CT, MRI, and US | 155 (68.6%) | - | |
| Only US | 71 (31.4%) | - | |
| Variables | Optimal follow-up n=156 | No optimal follow-up n=35 | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex, n (%) | 0.326 | ||
| Female | 93 (59.6 %) | 24 (68.6%) | |
| Male | 63 (40.4 %) | 11 (31.4%) | |
| Age (years), median (range) | 70 (33-87) | 72 (42-83) | 0.712 |
| PLT (×104/µL), median (range) | 9.9 (2.0-26.2) | 12.3 (3.5-19.8) | 0.114 |
| PT (%), median (range) | 79 (10-109) | 81 (44-102.1) | 0.721 |
| ALB (g/dL), median (range) | 3.6 (1.6-4.9) | 3.6 (2.0-4.6) | 0.332 |
| T-BIL (mg/dL), median (range) | 0.9 (0.3-5.3) | 0.9 (0.4-5.8) | 0.611 |
| ALT (IU/L), median (range) | 44 (10-360) | 45 (10-421) | 0.142 |
| AFP (ng/mL), median (range) | 45 (10-306) | 40 (12-109) | 0.960 |
| Tumor diameter (mm), median (range) | 17.5 (5-70) | 22 (7-120) | 0.003 |
| Child-Pugh class, n (%) | 0.188 | ||
| A | 130 (83.3%) | 26 (74.3%) | |
| B | 24 (15.4%) | 7 (20.0%) | |
| C | 2 (1.3%) | 2 (5.7%) | |
| Treatment, n (%) | 0.005 | ||
| Surgery | 40 (25.6%) | 13 (37.1%) | |
| RFA | 96 (61.5%) | 11 (31.4%) | |
| TACE/TAI | 18 (11.5%) | 9 (25.7%) | |
| Others | 2 (1.3%) | 2 (5.7%) | |
| Etiology, n (%) | 0.223 | ||
| HBV | 19 (12.2%) | 7 (20.0%) | |
| HCV | 137 (87.8%) | 29 (80.0%) | |
| Imaging for surveillance, n (%) | |||
| Combination of CT, MRI, and US | 108 (69.2%) | - | |
| Only US | 48 (30.8%) | - |
Abbreviations: PLT: platelet count, PT: prothrombin activity, ALB: albumin, T-BIL: total bilirubin, ALT: alanine aminotransferase, AFP: α-fetoprotein, RFA: radiofrequency ablation, TACE: transcatheter arterial chemoembolization, TAI: transcatheter arterial infusion, HBV: hepatitis B virus, HCV: hepatitis C virus, CT: computed tomography, MRI: magnetic resonance imaging, US: ultrasonography
| Variables | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P value | OR | 95% CI | p value | |
| Sex | 0.032 | |||
| Male | 1 | Referent | ||
| Female | 1.568 | 0.857-2.869 | 0.145 | |
| Age (years), | 0.652 | |||
| PLT (×104/µL) | 0.089 | |||
| <15 | ||||
| ≥15 | ||||
| ALT (IU/L) | 0.042 | |||
| >60 | 1 | Referent | ||
| ≤60 | 1.095 | 0.586-2.046 | 0.776 | |
| AFP (ng/mL) | 0.001 | |||
| >35 | 1 | Referent | ||
| ≤35 | 2.054 | 1.162-3.629 | 0.013 | |
| Child-Pugh class | 0.005 | |||
| B/C | 1 | Referent | ||
| A | 2.488 | 1.263-4.900 | 0.008 | |
| Etiology | 0.243 | |||
| HBV | ||||
| HCV | ||||
| Optimal follow-up | <0.001 | |||
| Without | 1 | Referent | ||
| With | 4.539 | 2.459-8.379 | <0.001 | |
| Variables | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P value | OR | 95% CI | p value | |
| Sex | 0.384 | |||
| Male | 1 | Referent | ||
| Female | 1.582 | 0.788-3.175 | 0.197 | |
| Age (years), | 0.255 | |||
| PLT (×104/µL) | 0.416 | |||
| <15 | ||||
| ≥15 | ||||
| ALT (IU/L) | 0.677 | |||
| >60 | 1 | Referent | ||
| ≤60 | 0.606 | 0.286-1.281 | 0.189 | |
| AFP (ng/mL) | 0.089 | |||
| >35 | 1 | Referent | ||
| ≤35 | 1.815 | 0.935-3.525 | 0.078 | |
| Child-Pugh class | 0.115 | |||
| B/C | 1 | Referent | ||
| A | 1.797 | 0.794-4.068 | 0.160 | |
| Etiology | 0.261 | |||
| HBV | ||||
| HCV | ||||
| Imaging for surveillance | 0.755 | |||
| Combination of CT, MRI, and US | 1 | Referent | ||
| Only US | 1.004 | 0.495-2.034 | 0.991 | |
Abbreviations: OR: odds ratio, CI: confidence interval, PLT: platelet count, ALT: alanine aminotransferase, AFP: α-fetoprotein, HBV: hepatitis B virus, HCV: hepatitis C virus, CT: computed tomography, MRI: magnetic resonance imaging, US: ultrasonography
Independent Factors for the Choice of Curative Treatment.
| Variables | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P value | OR | 95% CI | p value | |
| Sex | 0.622 | |||
| Male | ||||
| Female | ||||
| Age (years), | 0.041 | 0.939 | 0.906-0.974 | 0.001 |
| PLT (×104/µL) | 0.267 | |||
| <15 | ||||
| ≥15 | ||||
| ALT (IU/L) | 0.356 | |||
| >60 | ||||
| ≤60 | ||||
| AFP (ng/mL) | 0.003 | |||
| >35 | 1 | Referent | ||
| ≤35 | 1.584 | 0.840-2.985 | 0.155 | |
| Child-Pugh class | <0.001 | |||
| B/C | 1 | Referent | ||
| A | 1.899 | 0.917-3.933 | 0.084 | |
| Tumor stage | <0.001 | |||
| III/IV | 1 | Referent | ||
| I/II | 6.918 | 3.550-13.484 | <0.001 | |
| Etiology | 0.517 | |||
| HBV | ||||
| HCV | ||||
| Optimal follow-up | <0.001 | |||
| Without | 1 | Referent | ||
| With | 3.213 | 1.615-6.391 | 0.001 | |
Abbreviations: RFA: radiofrequency ablation, OR: odds ratio, CI: confidence interval, PLT: platelet count, ALT: alanine aminotransferase, AFP: α-fetoprotein, HBV: hepatitis B virus, HCV: hepatitis C virus
Figure 2.Survival of patients who did or did not receive an optimal follow-up. Patients who received an optimal follow-up had a higher cumulative survival rate in comparison to those who did not.
Figure 3.Corrected survival of patients who received an optimal follow-up vs. the observed survival of patients who did not. An optimal follow-up significantly increased survival, even after adjusting for lead-time.
Figure 4.Corrected survival of the patients who received an optimal follow-up vs. the observed survival of the patients who did not according to tumor stage (a, b), Child-Pugh class (c, d), and treatment (e, f). Full line (—), optimal follow-up group; dotted line (- - -), non-optimal follow-up group. Stage III/IV patients with an optimal follow-up had a higher cumulative survival rate compared to those without (p=0.037, b).