| Literature DB >> 29416782 |
Li-Feng Huang1, Ping Wan1, Dong-Wei Xu1, Seogsong Jeong1, Ming-Xuan Feng1, Jian-Jun Zhang1, Qiang Xia1.
Abstract
A novel prognostic nomogram predicting post-transplant pulmonary metastasis was established with a primary cohort of 308 HCC patients who received liver transplantation between 2007 and 2011 at Ren Ji Hospital. The C-indexes for predicting pulmonary metastasis was 0.85. The calibration curves fitted well between the predicted and actual outcomes. The decision curve analysis indicated that our nomogram was the optimal decision-making strategy for PM prediction compared to Milan, University of California San Franscisco, and up-to-seven criteria. These results were further validated by data from 103 patients who underwent liver transplantation between 2011 and 2012 at the same institution. In conclusion, our nomogram could be used as an effective tool to predict PM after liver transplantation.Entities:
Keywords: hepatocellular carcinoma; liver transplantation; nomogram; prognosis; pulmonary metastasis
Year: 2017 PMID: 29416782 PMCID: PMC5788650 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.23418
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Baseline patients characteristics
| Variables | Primary cohort | Validation cohort | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of | % | No. of | % | |
| 308 | 100 | 103 | 100 | |
| Median | 51 | 50 | ||
| Male | 262 | 85.1 | 92 | 89.3 |
| Negative | 27 | 8.8 | 15 | 14.6 |
| Negative | 300 | 97.4 | 99 | 96.1 |
| Median | 14.5 | 14.2 | ||
| Median | 35.6 | 35.9 | ||
| Median | 42.2 | 50.8 | ||
| Median | 654.4 | 794.3 | ||
| Median | 58.7 | 46.1 | ||
| Median | 12.6 | 10.8 | ||
| No | 45 | 14.6 | 9 | 8.7 |
| DDLT | 266 | 86.4 | 91 | 88.3 |
Abbreviations: AFP, alpha-fetoprotein; ALB, albumin; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; CA19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9; DDLT, deceased-donor liver transplantation; HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; HCV, hepatitis C virus; LDLT, living-donor liver transplantation; MELD, model for end-stage liver disease; PT, prothrombin time.
Pathological characteristics of tumor
| Variables | Primary cohort | Validation cohort | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of | % | No. of | % | |
| 308 | 100 | 103 | 100 | |
| Median | 5.7 | 5.1 | ||
| Single | 229 | 74.4 | 70 | 68.0 |
| Incomplete | 260 | 84.4 | 87 | 84.5 |
| None | 240 | 77.9 | 77 | 74.8 |
| I-II | 252 | 81.8 | 82 | 79.6 |
| Within† | 185 | 60.1 | 58 | 56.3 |
†Includes tumor within and downstaged to Milan criteria before Liver transplantation. Microvascular invasion indicates number of patients with microvascular invasion, but without macrovascular invasion. Macrovascular invasion includes both the patients with or without microvascular invasion.
Independent risk factors predicting PM in the primary cohort
| Variables | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI | |||
| Age, years | 0.97 | 0.94-0.99 | NA | |||
| Sex: Male vs. Female | 2.32 | 0.94-5.75 | 0.070 | NA | ||
| HBsAg: Positive vs. Negative | 1.22 | 0.49-3.02 | 0.673 | NA | ||
| PT, second | 0.94 | 0.88-1.01 | 0.089 | NA | ||
| ALB, g/L | 1.02 | 0.99-1.06 | 0.192 | NA | ||
| ALT, U/L | 1.00 | 0.99-1.01 | 0.338 | NA | ||
| AFP, ng/mL | 1.00 | 1.00-1.01 | 1.00 | 1.00-1.01 | ||
| CA19-9, U/mL | 1.01 | 1.01-1.04 | 0.074 | NA | ||
| MELD score | 0.99 | 0.94-1.03 | 0.581 | NA | ||
| Cirrhosis: Yes vs. No | 1.20 | 0.60-2.42 | 0.606 | NA | ||
| Tumor size, cm | 1.15 | 1.12-1.19 | 1.08 | 1.02-1.13 | ||
| Nodules: Multiple vs. Single | 1.53 | 1.18-1.98 | 1.42 | 1.05-1.92 | ||
| Capsule: Complete vs. Incomplete | 0.28 | 0.10-0.76 | NA | |||
| Vascular invasion | 2.80 | 2.18-3.61 | 1.90 | 1.38-2.62 | ||
| Differentiation: III-IV vs. I-II | 4.92 | 3.04-7.95 | 1.81 | 1.08-3.04 | ||
| Surgical intervention: DDLT vs LDLT | 2.08 | 0.90-4.79 | NA | |||
| Milan: Within† vs. Beyond | 0.07 | 0.04-1.41 | 0.22 | 0.10-0.49 | ||
Abbreviations: AFP, alpha-fetoprotein; ALB, albumin; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; CA19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9; CI, confidence interval; DDLT, deceased-donor liver transplantation; HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; HR, hazard ratio; LDLT, living-donor liver transplantation; MELD, model for end-stage liver disease; PT, prothrombin time.
†Includes tumor within and downstaged to Milan criteria before Liver transplantation.
Note: Univariate and Multivariate analysis, competing risk regression model. Bold values indicate P<0.05.
Figure 1Nomogram for PM prediction after LT
AFP, serum α-fetoprotein level before LT; Milan, tumor within or downstaged to the Milan criteria before LT; Differentiation, tumor histologic differentiation.
Figure 2The calibration curve analysis for PM prediction
(A) 3 years after LT in the primary cohort; (B) 5 years after LT in primary cohort; (C) 3 years after LT in the validation cohort.
Figure 3DCA of nomogram and conventional criteria
The net benefits and the threshold probabilities are presented on Y-axis and X-axis, respectively. (A) Comparison within the primary cohort; (B) comparison within the validation cohort; horizontal black line, PM did not occur in any patients; gray line, all the patients developed PM.