| Literature DB >> 28056901 |
Weiliang Xia1,2, Qinghong Ke1,2, Hua Guo1,2, Weilin Wang1,2, Min Zhang1,2, Yan Shen1,2, Jian Wu1,2, Xiao Xu1,2, Sheng Yan1,2, Jun Yu1,2, Mangli Zhang1,2, Shusen Zheng3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Hangzhou criteria expand the Milan criteria safely and effectively in selecting hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) candidates for liver transplantation (LT), but some patients exceeding the Milan but fulfilling the Hangzhou criteria still show poor outcomes due to early tumor recurrence. In this study, the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) was employed to differentiate high-risk tumor recurrence recipients, and a new method combining PLR and the Hangzhou criteria was established.Entities:
Keywords: Hangzhou criteria; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Liver transplantation; Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28056901 PMCID: PMC5216555 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-016-3028-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1Schematic diagram of valid patients selection. A total of 500 cases of LT for HCC were performed, of these cases, 157 cases were excluded by exclusion criteria and 343 HCC patients were enrolled in this study
Fig. 2Outcomes of patients divided according to the Milan and Hangzhou criteria. The patients were divided into in-Milan group, Milan ~ Hangzhou group, and out-Hangzhou group. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS of patients in the out-Hangzhou group were significantly worse than the other two groups. The RFS of the Milan ~ Hangzhou group were less than that of the in-Milan group, but no statistically significant difference was presented
Fig. 3Comparison of survival rates after stratification by PLR. After stratification, the patients were divided into in-Milan group, Milan ~ Hangzhou & PLR < 120 group, Milan ~ Hangzhou & PLR ≥ 120 group, and out-Hangzhou group. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS of the Milan ~ Hangzhou & PLR < 120 group were comparable with that of the in-Milan group. The Milan ~ Hangzhou & PLR ≥ 120 group showed poor outcomes which were similar to those of the out-Hangzhou group
Fig. 4Differentiate value of PLR for patients of in-Milan or out-Hangzhou group. The patients of in-Milan or out-Hangzhou group were divided by PLR 120, there was no significant difference in RFS in either the in-Milan (Panel a) or out-Hangzhou group (Panel b)
Fig. 5The comparison of different selection criteria. The ROC analysis showed that the ROC area of Hangzhou criteria & PLR method was higher than that of the current selection criteria including the Milan, UCSF, up-to-seven, and Hangzhou criteria (Panel a). The expansion of Hangzhou criteria & PLR method was lower than that of Hangzhou criteria, but higher than that of UCSF and up-to-seven criteria (Panel b)
Comparison of tumor-related characteristics and clinical data between the Milan ~ Hangzhou and PLR < 120 and Milan ~ Hangzhou and PLR ≥ 120 groups
| Variables | Milan ~ Hangzhou group |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| PLR < 120 ( | PLR ≥ 120 ( | ||
| Age (years) | 50.5 ± 8.4 | 51.3 ± 11.2 | 0.802 |
| Gender (Male) | 36 (90.0%) | 7 (77.8%) | 0.302 |
| MELD score | 12.6 ± 4.6 | 10.4 ± 2.5 | 0.062 |
| AFP (ng/ml) | 675.1 ± 1282.9 | 1248.0 ± 2808.1 | 0.565 |
| HBV infection | 37 (92.5%) | 7 (77.8%) | 0.224 |
| Blood cell count (*109/L) | |||
| Neutrophil | 2.1 ± 1.4 | 2.4 ± 2.3 | 0.740 |
| Lymphocyte | 1.1 ± 0.7 | 0.7 ± 0.4 | 0.089 |
| Platelet | 84.0 ± 64.4 | 153.2 ± 108.5 | 0.098 |
| Pre-LT treatment | |||
| Surgical resection | 5 (12.5%) | 4 (44.4%) | 0.046 |
| Interventional therapy | 18 (45.0%) | 8 (88.9%) | 0.026 |
| Types of LT | 1.000 | ||
| LDLT | 3 (7.5%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| DDLT | 37 (92.5%) | 9 (100.0%) | |
| Solitary tumor | 19 (47.5%) | 6 (66.7%) | 0.463 |
| Maximal tumor | 7 (17.5%) | 5 (55.6%) | 0.029 |
| Well-moderate differentiation | 28 (70.0%) | 8 (88.9%) | 0.412 |
| Microvascular invasion | 8 (20.0%) | 1 (11.1%) | 1.000 |
Univariate and multivariate analysis of risk factors for RFS of patients in Milan ~ Hangzhou group
| Characteristics | Univariate | Multivariate | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| HR (95% CI) | |
| Recipient | |||
| Age ≥ 60 years | 0.093 | ||
| Gender (Male) | 0.067 | ||
| MELD score ≥ 20 | 0.517 | ||
| HBV infection | 0.852 | ||
| Types of LT: LDLT | 0.219 | ||
| PLR ≥ 120 | 0.000 | 0.020 | 5.194 (1.293 ~ 20.865) |
| Tumor-related | |||
| Pre-LT treatment | |||
| Surgical resection | 0.023 | 0.919 | 1.082 (0.236 ~ 4.966) |
| Interventional therapy | 0.539 | ||
| AFP ≥ 200 ng/ml | 0.000 | 0.004 | 4.313 (1.591 ~ 11.695) |
| Solitary tumor | 0.118 | ||
| Maximal tumor ≥ 7 cm | 0.743 | ||
| Well-moderate differentiation | 0.374 | ||
| Microvascular invasion | 0.208 | ||