Literature DB >> 33900502

Prediction of Prognosis for cHCC-CC Patients After Surgery: Comparison of Tumor Marker Score Based on AFP, CEA, CA19-9, and Other Clinical Stages.

Gui-Min Hou1,2,3, Hai-Ling Liu1,2,3, Hong Wu1,2, Yong Zeng4,5,6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of clinical stage as a prognostic factor in combined hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC) patients is controversial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records of all pathologically confirmed cHCC-CC patients from 2000 to 2017 at West China Hospital were retrieved. Tumor marker score (TMS) was determined from optimal AFP, CEA, and CA19-9 cutoff values. Interaction and subgroup analysis were conducted according to potential confounders. Prognostic value of TMS and other prognostic models were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier (K-M) analysis, c-index, and time-dependent receiver operating curves (td-ROC).
RESULTS: Optimal cutoff values for preoperative AFP, CEA, and CA19-9 were 10.76 ng/mL, 5.24 ng/mL, and 31.54 U/mL, respectively. Among 128 patients, 24, 58, and 46 were classified into TMS 0, TMS 1, and TMS ≥ 2, respectively. TMS could stratify our series into groups of statistically different prognosis. Subgroup analysis according to potential confounders and test for interactions showed that TMS 1 and TMS ≥ 2 were stable risk factors relative to TMS 0. Univariate (HR: TMS1 = 2.30, p = 0.014; TMS ≥ 2 = 5.1, p < 0.001) and multivariate Cox regression analyses (HR: TMS1 = 1.72, p = 0.124; TMS ≥ 2 = 4.15, p < 0.001) identified TMS as an independent prognostic risk factor. TMS had good discrimination (c-index 0.666, 95% CI 0.619-0.714), and calibration plots revealed favorable consistency. Area under the curve (AUC) value of td-ROC for TMS and integrated AUC was higher than for other clinical stages at any month within 5 years postoperation.
CONCLUSION: TMS exhibited optimal prognostic value over other widely used clinical stages for cHCC-CC after surgery and may guide clinicians in prognostic prediction.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33900502     DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-09949-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  51 in total

1.  A worldwide approach to the TNM staging system: collaborative efforts of the AJCC and UICC.

Authors:  Frederick L Greene; Leslie H Sobin
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2009-04-01       Impact factor: 3.454

Review 2.  Prognostic staging system for hepatocellular carcinoma (CLIP score): its value and limitations, and a proposal for a new staging system, the Japan Integrated Staging Score (JIS score).

Authors:  Masatoshi Kudo; Hobyung Chung; Yukio Osaki
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 7.527

3.  The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM.

Authors:  Stephen B Edge; Carolyn C Compton
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Construction of the Chinese University Prognostic Index for hepatocellular carcinoma and comparison with the TNM staging system, the Okuda staging system, and the Cancer of the Liver Italian Program staging system: a study based on 926 patients.

Authors:  Thomas W T Leung; Amanda M Y Tang; Benny Zee; W Y Lau; Paul B S Lai; K L Leung; Joseph T F Lau; Simon C H Yu; Philip J Johnson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2002-03-15       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Clinicopathologic features and prognosis of combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma.

Authors:  Kwang Cheol Koh; Hyuk Lee; Moon Seok Choi; Joon Hyoek Lee; Seung Woon Paik; Byung Chul Yoo; Jong Chul Rhee; Jae Won Cho; Cheol Keun Park; Hong Joo Kim
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.565

6.  Combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma: demographic, clinical, and prognostic factors.

Authors:  William R Jarnagin; Sharon Weber; Satish K Tickoo; Jonathan B Koea; Sam Obiekwe; Yuman Fong; Ronald P DeMatteo; Leslie H Blumgart; David Klimstra
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2002-04-01       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: the BCLC staging classification.

Authors:  J M Llovet; C Brú; J Bruix
Journal:  Semin Liver Dis       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 6.115

Review 8.  Management of combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma.

Authors:  W T Kassahun; J Hauss
Journal:  Int J Clin Pract       Date:  2008-02-13       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 9.  Combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma: Controversies to be addressed.

Authors:  An-Qiang Wang; Yong-Chang Zheng; Juan Du; Cheng-Pei Zhu; Han-Chun Huang; Shan-Shan Wang; Liang-Cai Wu; Xue-Shuai Wan; Hao-Hai Zhang; Ruo-Yu Miao; Xin-Ting Sang; Hai-Tao Zhao
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-05-14       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  Natural history of hepatocellular carcinoma and prognosis in relation to treatment. Study of 850 patients.

Authors:  K Okuda; T Ohtsuki; H Obata; M Tomimatsu; N Okazaki; H Hasegawa; Y Nakajima; K Ohnishi
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1985-08-15       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  2 in total

1.  Sarcopenia predicts an adverse prognosis in patients with combined hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma after surgery.

Authors:  Gui-Min Hou; Chuang Jiang; Jin-Peng Du; Ke-Fei Yuan
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2021-12-05       Impact factor: 4.452

2.  Predictive Value of Preoperative Serum AFP, CEA, and CA19-9 Levels in Patients with Single Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Leijuan Gan; Shaohua Ren; Mengran Lang; Guangtao Li; Feng Fang; Lu Chen; Yayue Liu; Ruyu Han; Kangwei Zhu; Tianqiang Song
Journal:  J Hepatocell Carcinoma       Date:  2022-08-13
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.