Marie Vogeler1,2, Isabelle Mohr1,2, Jan Pfeiffenberger1,2, Simon David Sprengel3, Miriam Klauss3, Andreas Teufel4,2, De-Hua Chang3,2, Christoph Springfeld5,2, Thomas Longerich6,2, Uta Merle1,2, Arianeb Mehrabi7,2, Karl Heinz Weiss1,2, Markus Mieth8,9. 1. Internal Medicine IV, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Liver Cancer Center Heidelberg (LCCH), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of Radiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Division of Hepatology, Department of Medicine II, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany. 6. Department of Pathology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. 7. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, INF 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 8. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, INF 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. Markus.mieth@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 9. Liver Cancer Center Heidelberg (LCCH), Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. Markus.mieth@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Several scoring systems have been proposed to predict the outcome of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the application of these scores to a bridging to transplant setting is poorly validated. Evaluation of the applicability of prognostic scores for patients undergoing TACE in palliative intention vs. bridging therapy to liver transplantation (LT) is necessary. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2017, 148 patients with HCC received 492 completed TACE procedures (158 for bridging to transplant; 334 TACE procedures in palliative treatment intention at our center and were analyzed retrospectively. Scores (ART, CLIP, ALBI, APRI, SNACOR, HAP, STATE score, Child-Pugh, MELD, Okuda and BCLC) were calculated and evaluated for prediction of overall survival. ROC analysis was performed to assess prediction of 3-year survival and treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: In patients receiving TACE in palliative intention most scores predicted OS in univariate analysis but only mSNACOR score (p = 0.006), State score (p < 0.001) and Child-Pugh score (p < 0.001) revealed statistical significance in the multivariate analysis. In the bridging to LT cohort only the BCLC score revealed statistical significance (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical usability of suggested scoring systems for TACE might be limited depending on the individual patient cohorts and the indication. Especially in patients receiving TACE as bridging to LT none of the scores showed sufficiently applicability. In our study Child-Pugh score, STATE score and mSNACOR score showed the best performance assessing OS in patients with TACE as palliative therapy.
PURPOSE: Several scoring systems have been proposed to predict the outcome of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the application of these scores to a bridging to transplant setting is poorly validated. Evaluation of the applicability of prognostic scores for patients undergoing TACE in palliative intention vs. bridging therapy to liver transplantation (LT) is necessary. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2017, 148 patients with HCC received 492 completed TACE procedures (158 for bridging to transplant; 334 TACE procedures in palliative treatment intention at our center and were analyzed retrospectively. Scores (ART, CLIP, ALBI, APRI, SNACOR, HAP, STATE score, Child-Pugh, MELD, Okuda and BCLC) were calculated and evaluated for prediction of overall survival. ROC analysis was performed to assess prediction of 3-year survival and treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: In patients receiving TACE in palliative intention most scores predicted OS in univariate analysis but only mSNACOR score (p = 0.006), State score (p < 0.001) and Child-Pugh score (p < 0.001) revealed statistical significance in the multivariate analysis. In the bridging to LT cohort only the BCLC score revealed statistical significance (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical usability of suggested scoring systems for TACE might be limited depending on the individual patient cohorts and the indication. Especially in patients receiving TACE as bridging to LT none of the scores showed sufficiently applicability. In our study Child-Pugh score, STATE score and mSNACOR score showed the best performance assessing OS in patients with TACE as palliative therapy.
Authors: Gauri Mishra; Ammar Majeed; Anouk Dev; Guy D Eslick; David J Pinato; Hirofumi Izumoto; Atsushi Hiraoka; Teh-Ia Huo; Po-Hong Liu; Philip J Johnson; Stuart K Roberts Journal: J Gastrointest Cancer Date: 2022-05-30
Authors: Lukas Müller; Felix Hahn; Florian Jungmann; Aline Mähringer-Kunz; Fabian Stoehr; Moritz C Halfmann; Daniel Pinto Dos Santos; Jan Hinrichs; Timo A Auer; Christoph Düber; Roman Kloeckner Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Lukas Müller; Felix Hahn; Aline Mähringer-Kunz; Fabian Stoehr; Simon J Gairing; Friedrich Foerster; Arndt Weinmann; Peter R Galle; Jens Mittler; Daniel Pinto Dos Santos; Michael B Pitton; Christoph Düber; Roman Kloeckner Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 6.244