| Literature DB >> 34513667 |
Jing-Huan Li1,2,3, Xin Yin1,2,3, Wen-Shuai Fan4,5, Lan Zhang1,2,3, Rong-Xin Chen1,2,3, Yi Chen1,2,3, Li-Xin Li1,2,3, Ning-Ling Ge1,2,3, Yu-Hong Gan1,2,3, Yan-Hong Wang1,2,3, Zheng-Gang Ren1,2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with main portal vein tumor thrombus (mPVTT) have poor prognosis. Promising systemic therapies, such as target therapies, have limited benefits. The purpose of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the benefits of conventional TACE (c-TACE) and to establish a prognostic stratification of HCC patients with mPVTT.Entities:
Keywords: hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); model; overall survival (OS); portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT); prognosis; transarterial chemoembolization (TACE)
Year: 2021 PMID: 34513667 PMCID: PMC8427599 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.671171
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics for 173 HCC patients with mPVTT treated with c-TACE.
| Characteristics | Number (%)/Median (IQR) |
|---|---|
| Gender | |
| Male | 153 (88.4) |
| Female | 20 (11.6) |
| Age (yr) | 51 (43~60) |
| Aetiology | |
| HBV | 164 (94.8) |
| Others | 9 (5.2) |
| Largest tumor diameter, cm | 9.5 (6.0~11.8) |
| <8 | 48 (27.7) |
| ≥8 | 125 (72.3) |
| Tumor number | |
| 1 | 88 (50.9) |
| ≥2 | 85 (49.1) |
| Complete mPVTT | |
| Without | 84 (48.6) |
| With | 89 (51.4) |
| AFP, ng/ml | 3600 (60.5~42300) |
| <400 | 60 (35.3) |
| ≥400 | 112 (64.7) |
| Child-Pugh score | |
| A5 | 93 (53.8) |
| A6 | 63 (36.4) |
| B7 | 17 (9.8) |
| ALBI grade | |
| 1 | 124 (71.7) |
| 2 | 31 (17.9) |
| 3 | 18 (10.4) |
| ALT, U/L | 45 (30.5~67) |
| ALB, g/L | 36 (32~39) |
| TBIL, umol/L | 14.6 (10.1~20.9) |
| GGT, U/L | 212 (146~326) |
| PT, s | 13.2 (12.3~14) |
| c-TACE sessions | 2 (1~3) |
Median with interquartile range are shown for quantitative variables, whereas counts with proportions are shown for categorical variables.
mPVTT, main portal vein thrombus; AFP, alpha-fetoprotein; ALBI, albumin-bilirubin grade; ALT, alanine transaminase; ALB, albumin; TBIL, total bilirubin; GGT, gamma-glutamyl transferase; PT, prothrombin time.
Univariate and multivariate analysis of potential prognostic factors of OS for HCC patients with mPVTT treated with c-TACE.
| Characteristics | Univariate P | Multivariate P | HR (95%CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (female/male) | 0.985 | ||
| Age >65 (no/yes) | 0.881 | ||
| Largest tumor diameter (<8/≥8) | 0.001 | 0.001 | 2.576(1.605~4.134) |
| Tumor number (single/multiple) | 0.001 | 0.001 | 2.767(1.829~4.186) |
| Complete mPVTT (without/with) | 0.002 | 0.005 | 1.800(1.192~2.719) |
| AFP ≥400ng/ml (no/yes) | 0.005 | 0.024 | 1.626(1.066~2.480) |
| Child-Pugh score (A5/A6/B7) | 0.566 | ||
| ALBI grade (1/2/3) | 0.016 | ||
| ALT >40U/l (no/yes) | 0.010 | ||
| ALB ≤3.6g/dl (no/yes) | 0.309 | ||
| TB >17.1 umol/L (no/yes) | 0.009 | ||
| GGT >225U/L (no/yes) | 0.001 | ||
| PT >14s (no/yes) | 0.507 |
(n=173).
Points allocated to each prognostic factor to calculate an overall prognostic score for OS.
| Prognostic factor | Model 1 points | Model 2 points |
|---|---|---|
| Largest tumor diameter | ||
| < 8 | 0 | 100 |
| ≥ 8 | 2 | 0 |
| Tumor number | ||
| single | 0 | 73.5 |
| multiple | 2 | 0 |
| Complete mPVTT | ||
| without | 0 | 51.9 |
| with | 1 | 0 |
| AFP | ||
| <400ng/ml | 0 | 32.7 |
| ≥400ng/ml | 1 | 0 |
Model 1 points= estimated cox regression coefficient ×2, rounded.
Model 2 points= scores calculated form the nomogram scoring system from R package “nomogramEx”.
Figure 1Kaplan–Meier estimated overall survival curves and calibration curves of the current staging systems in the test 173 HCC patients with mPVTT treated with c-TACE. (A) Kaplan–Meier estimated curves of overall survival of 173 studied patients stratified by current model 1 staging system. (B) Calibration curves of the model 1. The y-axis represents the actual survival rate. The x-axis represents the predicted possibility. The diagonal dashed line indicates the ideal prediction by a perfect model. (C) Kaplan–Meier estimated survival curves by model 2 (nomogram). (D) Calibration curves of the model 2 (nomogram).
Figure 2Nomograms for HCC patients with mPVTT received the c-TACE treatment. The nomogram may have the potential to individually predict survival in a particular patient according to his clinicopathologic feature and imaging signature. To use the nomogram, locate the margin according to the patient information, draw a line straight up to the points axis to obtain the score associated with each subtype within these four variables separately. The final score was obtained by adding up the total score. Locate it on the total points axis and draw a line straight down to the bottom axis, the estimated survival probability could be determined.
Comparison of the performance and discrimination ability of current models and other systems.
| Model/system | AIC | C-index | LRT loglik |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | 850.54 | 0.70 | -423.53REF |
| Model 2 (nomogram) | 855.23 | 0.70 | -425.62** |
| HAP | 887.04 | 0.62 | -441.52*** |
| mHAPII | 884.04 | 0.57 | -440.36*** |
| Six-and-twelve | 887.99 | 0.60 | -443.39*** |
| ITA.LI.CA system | 893.84 | 0.57 | -445.92*** |
| ALBI | 887.49 | 0.61 | -441.99*** |
ACI, Akaike information criterion; LRT, likelihood ratio test; HAP, hepatoma arterial-embolization prognostic; mHAP, modified HAP;ITA.LI.CA system, Italian liver cancer system; ALBI, albumin-bilirubin. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Pairwise comparisons of the 6- and 12-month survival rates with 95%CI between each strata of the current Model 1.
| Strata | 6-month survival (%) | 12-month survival (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Difference | 95%CI | Difference | 95%CI | |
| Model1 A&B | 0.201 | 0.151~0.285 | 0.410 | 0.331~0.463 |
| Model1 B&C | 0.395 | 0.301~0.437 | 0.173 | 0.009~0.213 |
Based on the Model 1, prognosis was distributed into three groups (Group A, B and C) among the study population. Bootstrap method was used to calculate the half- and one-year survival rate, along with 95%CI among Group A, B and C of the Model 1. Internal validation was performed by pairwise comparisons of the survival rates among these three groups. The lower confidence limit for difference between each pair of the Group A, B and C was greater than zero, suggesting all differences were statistically significant.