| Literature DB >> 31040897 |
Ka Wing Ma1, Wong Hoi She1, Albert Chi Yan Chan2, Tan To Cheung2, James Yan Yue Fung3, Wing Chiu Dai1, Chung Mau Lo2, Kenneth Siu Ho Chok4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation (LT) is regarded as the best treatment for both primary and recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Post-transplant HCC recurrence rate is relatively low but significant, ranging from 10%-30% according to different series. When recurrence happens, it is usually extrahepatic and associated with poor prognosis. A predictive model that allows patient stratification according to recurrence risk can help to individualize post-transplant surveillance protocol and guidance of the use of anti-tumor immunosuppressive agents. AIM: To develop a scoring system to predict HCC recurrence after LT in an Asian population.Entities:
Keywords: Hepatocellular carcinoma; Liver transplantation; Post-transplant recurrence; Predictive model
Year: 2019 PMID: 31040897 PMCID: PMC6475674 DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v11.i4.322
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastrointest Oncol
Characteristics of the whole hepatocellular carcinoma population receiving liver transplantation
| Age (yr, range) | 56 (30-73) |
| Sex (male) | 269 (81.5%) |
| Hepatitis B carrier (%) | 81.6% |
| Waiting time from listing to transplantation (mo) | 1 (0-89) |
| MELD | 12.4 (6-59) |
| Size of tumor in explant (cm) | 3(0.25-19.5) |
| No. of tumor nodules in explant One Two Three | 163 (51.1%) 85 (26.6%) 28 (8.8%) |
| Within UCSF criteria | 75% |
| Within Milan Criteria | 65.6% |
| Serum AFP level before time of LT (ng/mL) | 18.0 (1-117850) |
| Salvage LT (%) | 71 (21.5%) |
| LDLT (%) | 204 (61.8%) |
| Microvascular invasion (%) | 97 (29.4%) |
| Well/mod differentiation (%) | 271 (84.7%) |
| Operation duration (min) | 671 |
| Blood loss (mL) | 2600 (200-30800) |
| Hospital mortality (%) | 5 (1.6%) |
| Morbidity (ClavienIIIa or above) (%) | 23.3% |
| Length of hospital stay (d) | 16 (7-378) |
| Post-transplant HCC recurrence (%) | 73 (23.9%) |
| Median disease-free survival (mo) | 60.8 (0-263) |
| Median overall survival (mo) | 65.4 (0-263) |
MELD: Model of end-stage liver disease; UCSF: University of California at San Francisco; LT: Liver transplantation; AFP: Alpha fetoprotein; LDLT: Living donor liver transplantation; HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma.
Comparison of perioperative data between the training and validation sets
| Age | 55 ( ± 7.1) | 55 ( ± 7.0) | 0.768 |
| Sex (male, %) | 80% | 83% | 0.570 |
| HBsAg positivity (%) | 82% | 80.3% | 0.777 |
| MELD | 14.7 (± 7.5) | 13.8 (± 7.0) | 0.284 |
| Waiting time from listing to transplantation (mo) | 1 (0-89) | 1 (0-81) | 0.051 |
| Size of tumor in explant (cm) | 3.0 (± 1.4) | 3.3 (± 2.1) | 0.116 |
| No. of tumor nodules in explant | 2.1 (± 1.8) | 2.3 (± 2.5) | 0.609 |
| Serum AFP level before time of LT (ng/mL) | 586 ( ± 3169) | 1719 ( ± 10541) | 0.169 |
| Salvage LT (%) | 19.1% | 24.5% | 0.281 |
| LDLT (%) | 112 (62.9%) | 91 (61.9%) | 0.908 |
| Microvascular invasion (%) | 28.8% | 32.2% | 0.713 |
| Well/mod differentiation | 87.5% | 81.1% | 0.237 |
| HCC recurrence | 24% | 23.8% | 1.000 |
| 5 yr disease-free survival (%) | 78.8% | 76.8% | 0.733 |
| 5 yr overall survival (%) | 80.8% | 78.7% | 0.733 |
HBsAg: Hepatitis B surface antigen; MELD: Model of end stage liver disease; AFP: Alpha fetoprotein; LT: Liver transplantation; LDLT: Living donor liver transplantation; Well/mod differentiation: Well or moderate differentiation; HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma.
Univariate and multivariate analyses for the training set
| Sex | 0.525 | - | - |
| Age | 0.062 | - | - |
| Albumin | 0.816 | - | - |
| Platelet count | 0.094 | - | - |
| MELD | 0.874 | - | - |
| Tumor size in explant | 0.059 | - | - |
| Number of tumors in explant | 0.007 | NS | - |
| Microvascular invasion | 0.895 | - | - |
| Well/mod differentiation | 0.811 | - | - |
| Serum AFP level before LT ( ≥ 400 ng/mL) | 0.002 | 0.012 | 2.92 (1.487-5.748) |
| Graft (g)/ESLW | 0.083 | - | - |
| Waiting time from listing to transplantation | 0.77 | - | - |
| Salvage LT | 0.019 | 0.033 | 2.08 (1.063-4.081) |
| Milan criteria | 0.052 | NS | - |
| UCSF criteria | 0.009 | NS | - |
| Sum of tumor size and number | 0.002 | 0.013 | 1.15 (1.03-1.28) |
MELD: Model for end stage liver disease; Well/mod differentiation: Well or moderate differentiation; CI: Confidence interval; AFP: Alpha fetoprotein; LT: Liver transplantation; ESLW: Estimated standard liver weight; UCSF: University of California at San Francisco.
Figure 1Method of total risk score development. AFP: Alpha fetoprotein; HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma; CI: Confidence interval.
Figure 2ROC curve for scoring system in the training set. ROC: Receiver-operating characteristic.
Figure 3Risk stratification model in the training set. AFP: Alpha fetoprotein; LT: Liver transplantation; HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma.
Figure 4Performance of risk stratification model in relation to recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma in the training set. ROC: Receiver-operating characteristic.
Figure 5Risk stratification models with corresponding hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence rates in the training set. AFP: Alpha fetoprotein; ROC: Receiver-operating characteristic.
Figure 6Comparison of the areas under ROC curve between the current scoring system, the alpha fetoprotein model, and the RETREAT score in the validation set. AFP: Alpha fetoprotein; LT: Liver transplantation; HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma; ROC: Receiver-operating characteristic; RETREAT: Risk estimation of tumor recurrence after transplant.
Figure 7Risk stratification model with corresponding hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence rates in the validation set. ROC: Receiver-operating characteristic.
Figure 8Diagram showing discrepancy between the expected and observed hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence rates.
Figure 9Disease-free survival of patients in different risk strata. DFS: Disease-free survival.