| Literature DB >> 32411776 |
Dayun Feng1, Mengmeng Wang2, Jie Hu3, Songlun Li4, Shoujie Zhao5, Huichen Li6, Lei Liu7.
Abstract
One of the most commonly used systems for grading liver function in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients is the Child-Pugh (CP) score. However, the CP scoring system is not without its shortcomings: for example, the cut-off values for the parameters are calculated arbitrarily and the assessment of ascites and hepatic encephalopathy is subjective. More recently, an alternative to traditional CP grade has emerged in the form of albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade. The predictive value provided for HCC patients by the ALBI grade is comparable to that of the CP grade; however, it can also surpass CP grade by greatly reducing subjectivity and further subdividing CP A patients into several different groups, thus improving the prognosis judgment and helping to inform clinicians' optimal decision-making. The application of the ALBI grade into currently used HCC staging systems such as the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system, the Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (CLIP) staging system, and the Japan Integrated Staging (JIS) score, etc., as well as newly produced systems like the ALBI-PLT grade, the ALBI and progression disease (ALBI-PD) grade and Modified Intermediate Stage of Liver Cancer (MICAN) criteria, greatly elevates prognostic power. 2020 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.Entities:
Keywords: Child-Pugh score (CP score); Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); albumin-bilirubin grade; liver diseases; prognostic value
Year: 2020 PMID: 32411776 PMCID: PMC7214886 DOI: 10.21037/atm.2020.02.116
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Transl Med ISSN: 2305-5839
Studies on prognostic value of albumin-bilirubin grade
| Items | Study | Type of study | Characters of patients | No. pts | HR (95% CI); P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALBI 2 | ALBI 3 | |||||
| OS & baseline ALBI | ||||||
| Sorafenib | Kuo | Single-center, retrospective | BCLC C, C-P A, with MVI or with EHM | 260 | 2.35 (1.43–3.87); P<0.001 | N/A |
| Pinato | Multi-center, retrospective | 61% BCLC C | 378 | 1.61 (1.21–2.14); P<0.001 | 2.78 (1.79–4.33); P<0.001 | |
| Edeline | Multi-center, retrospective | 78.1% BCLC C, 70.9% C-P A | 1,019 | 1.68 (1.43–1.97); P<0.001 | 3.36 (2.48–4.56); P<0.001 | |
| Lee | Single-center, retrospective | BCLC C, C-P A | 404 | 1.869 (1.474–2.370); P<0.001 | 4.276 (2.215–8.255); P<0.001 | |
| SBRT | Toesca | Single-center, retrospective | N/A | 40 | P=0.86 | |
| Resection | Ma | Multi-center, retrospective | BCLC 0-A, 95.6% C-P A | Cohort 1, 160 | 2.586 (1.516–4.412); P=0.000 | N/A |
| Cohort 2, 158 | 3.474 (1.652–7.305); P=0.001 | N/A | ||||
| Pinato | Single-center, retrospective | 65% BCLC A | 581 | 1.86 (1.36–2.54); P<0.001 | 2.57 (1.47–4.69); P<0.001 | |
| Li | Single-center, retrospective | C-P A | 491 | 1.394 (1.146–1.696); P=0.001 | ||
| Toyoda | Multi-center, retrospective | C-P A | Japan cohort: 536 | 1.9 (1.5–2.5); P<0.0001 | N/A | |
| Hong Kong cohort: 450 | 2.4 (1.6–3.7); P<0.0001 | N/A | ||||
| Europe cohort: 162 | 1.7 (1.0–2.9); P=0.05 | N/A | ||||
| RFA | Toyoda | Multi-center, retrospective | – | Japan cohort: 267 | 1.7 (1.1–2.6); P=0.024 | 5.1 (2.2–11.7); P<0.0001 |
| Hong Kong cohort: 275 | 1.7 (1.1–2.4); P=0.003 | 9.4 (3.3–26.6); P<0.0001 | ||||
| Europe cohort: 162 | 2.0 (1.3–3.0); P=0.002 | 2.9 (1.4–6.2); P=0.005 | ||||
| Kao | Single-center, retrospective | 95.2% BCLC 0-A, 85.7% C-P A | 622 | 2.975 (2.104–4.206); P<0.001 | 4.290 (2.303–7.990); P<0.001 | |
| TACE | Pinato | Multi-center, retrospective | USA cohort, 86% BCLC B | 315 | 1.16 (0.83–1.63); P=0.12 | 1.89 (1.22–2.70); P=0.003 |
| Europe cohort, 73% BCLC B | 423 | 1.59 (1.24–2.03); P<0.001 | 1.95 (1.21–3.13); | |||
| Asia cohort, 91% BCLC B | 723 | 1.78 (1.37–2.32); P<0.001 | 2.73 (1.88–3.97); P<0.001 | |||
| PST & post-treatment ALBI | ||||||
| Sorafenib | Pinato | Multi-center, prospectively | 62% BCLC C, 75% C-P A | 386 | 1.7 (1.1–2.9); P<0.001 | 4.1 (2.5–6.8); P<0.001 |
| Lee | Single-center, retrospective | BCLC C, C-P A, PD | 310 | 2.023 (1.213–3.373); P=0.007 | 6.188 (3.412–11.220); P<0.001 | |
| SBRT | Toesca | Single-center, retrospective | – | 40 | 2.7; P=0.002 | |
| OS & ALBI change (increase) | ||||||
| Sorafenib | Kuo | Single-center, retrospective | BCLC C, C-P A, with MVI or with EHM | 260 | Increase | |
| SBRT | Toesca | Single-center, retrospective | – | 40 | Increase by ≥0.5 | |
ALBI, albumin-bilirubin grade; Pts, patients; OS, overall survival; MVI, macro-vascular invasion; EHM, hepatic metastasis; PD, progression disease; SBRT, stereotactic body radiation therapy.
Prognostic comparison between ALBI grade and Child-Pugh class
| Therapy | Study | No. pts | AUROC (95% CI) | AICs | Harrel’s C-Index | Homo χ2 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALBI grade | CP class | P value | ALBI grade | CP class | P value | ALBI grade | CP class | ALBI grade | CP class | ||||||
| Sorafenib | Pinato | 386 | 0.69 (0.63–0.75) | 0.66 (0.59–0.72) | <0.001 | 0.64 | 0.62 | ||||||||
| Edeline | All patients [905] | – | – | – | 8,898 | 8,876 | <0.001 | 0.60 | 0.61 | 68.3 | 90.7 | ||||
| CP A patients [722] | – | – | 6,652 | 6,649 | 0.22 | 0.57 | 0.56 | 26.3 | 29.0 | ||||||
| Lee | 404 | 0.709 (0.649–0.769) | 0.756 (0.699–0.813) | 1,899.94 | 1,867.12 | – | – | 64.62 | 97.45 | ||||||
| Resection | Li | 491 | – | – | – | 4,768.84 | 4,778.16 | – | – | 10.62 | 1.31 | ||||
| RFA | Kao | 622 | 2,006.709 | 2,160.717 | 54.012 | 25.155 | |||||||||
ALBI, Albumin-bilirubin grade; CP, Child-Pugh.
Albumin-bilirubin grade in Child-Pugh class A patients
| Therapy | Study | No. pts of ALBI 1 | No. pts of ALBI 2 | No. pts of ALBI 3 | Median OS (95% CI) | HR (95% CI); P value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALBI 1 | ALBI 2 | ALBI 3 | ALBI 2 | ALBI 3 | ||||||
| Sorafenib | Pinato | 25 | 124 | 11 | 17.5 (8.8–26.1) | 8.2 (5.5–10.8) | 1.0 (0.2–1.8) | 1.7 (1.0–2.9); P=0.05 | 4.9 (2.1–11); P<0.001 | |
| Edeline | 300 | 422 | 0 | 10.9 (9.2–12.7) | 7.5 (6.7–8.3) | – | 1.54 (1.30–1.82); P<0.001 | –– | ||
| TACE | Waked | 626 | 1,146 | 12 | 27.86 (25.95–30.00) | 19.05 (17.99–20.63) | 18.09 (6.88–) | |||
| Resection | Toyoda | 325 | 211 | 0 | 122.7 (96.3–148.7) | 71.2 (56.2–82.4) | – | 1.9 (1.5–2.5); P<0.0001 | – | |
| 359 | 91 | 0 | Not reached | 44.5 (28.6) | – | 2.4 (1.6–3.7); P<0.0001 | – | |||
| 123 | 39 | 0 | 71.1 (59.0–120.4) | 42.3 (25.0–69.5) | – | 1.7 (1.0–2.9); P=0.05 | – | |||
| Pinato | 127 | 350 | 0 | 1 | 51 [45–56] | – | 1.7 (1.3–2.2); P<0.001 | – | ||