| Literature DB >> 35117284 |
Yang Wang1,2, Zhuhui Yuan1, Bozhi Liu1, Hui Chen3, Tian Yin2, Jiasheng Zheng2, Wei Li1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy of thermal ablation and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) in treating intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), and to propose a prognostic nomogram to predict overall survival (OS) after ablation.Entities:
Keywords: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC); TACE; ablation; nomogram; overall survival (OS)
Year: 2020 PMID: 35117284 PMCID: PMC8797463 DOI: 10.21037/tcr-20-2299
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Cancer Res ISSN: 2218-676X Impact factor: 1.241
Demographics and characteristics of primary cohort and validation cohort with ICC
| Demographics and characteristics | Primary cohort (n=58) | Validation cohort (n=19) | P value of difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Categorical variables, n (%) | |||
| Gender | 0.387 | ||
| Male | 41 (70.7) | 16 (84.2) | |
| Female | 17 (29.3) | 3 (15.8) | |
| Liver cirrhosis | 0.793 | ||
| No | 34 (58.6) | 12 (63.2) | |
| Yes | 24 (41.4) | 7 (36.8) | |
| HBsAg (serum) | 0.428 | ||
| Negative | 29 (50.0) | 7 (36.8) | |
| Positive | 29 (50.0) | 12 (63.2) | |
| Anti-HCV | 1 | ||
| Negative | 52 (89.7) | 17(89.5) | |
| Positive | 6 (10.3) | 2 (10.5) | |
| Pre-operative TACE | 0.980 | ||
| No | 7 (12.1) | 3 (15.8) | |
| Yes | 51 (87.9) | 16 (84.2) | |
| Prior liver resection | 0.174 | ||
| No | 56 (96.6) | 16 (84.2) | |
| Yes | 2 (3.4) | 3 (15.8) | |
| Prior chemotherapy | 0.681 | ||
| No | 52 (89.7) | 16 (84.2) | |
| Yes | 6 (10.3) | 3 (15.8) | |
| Prior radiotherapy | 0.438 | ||
| No | 50 (86.2) | 18 (94.7) | |
| Yes | 8 (13.8) | 1 (5.3) | |
| Ablation technique | 0.579 | ||
| RFA | 23 (39.6) | 7 (36.9) | |
| MWA | 24 (41.4) | 10 (52.6) | |
| Both | 11 (19.0) | 2 (10.5) | |
| Vascular invasion | 0.85 | ||
| No | 35 (60.3) | 11 (57.9) | |
| Yes | 23 (39.7) | 8 (42.1) | |
| Tumor location | 0.755 | ||
| Right lobe | 33 (56.9) | 10 (52.6) | |
| Left lobe | 9 (15.5) | 2 (10.5) | |
| Bilobed | 16 (27.6) | 7 (36.9) | |
| Extrahepatic metastasis | 0.834 | ||
| No | 52 (89.7) | 18 (94.7) | |
| Yes | 6 (10.3) | 1 (5.3) | |
| Lymph node metastasis | 1.000 | ||
| No | 47 (81.0) | 15 (78.9) | |
| Yes | 11 (19.0) | 4 (21.1) | |
| Resectable | 0.459 | ||
| Yes | 27 (46.6) | 7 (36.8) | |
| No | 31 (53.4) | 12 (63.2) | |
| Child-Pugh | 0.567 | ||
| A | 54 (93.1) | 19 (100.0) | |
| B | 4 (6.9) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Continuous variables and ranked data | |||
| Age, years | 0.792 | ||
| Median | 60.5 | 57 | |
| Range | 30–77 | 42–75 | |
| No. of tumors | 0.971 | ||
| Median | 2 | 3 | |
| Range | 1–6 | 1–6 | |
| Max diameter of tumors, mm | 0.184 | ||
| Median | 52.5 | 44 | |
| Range | 5–100 | 15–100 | |
| ALT, U/L | 0.559 | ||
| Median | 23.55 | 29.2 | |
| Range | 8.2–238.8 | 11.1–81.0 | |
| TBIL, μmol/L | 0.110 | ||
| Median | 14.6 | 12.3 | |
| Range | 7.2–308.6 | 1.8–25.5 | |
| Albumin, g/L | 0.307 | ||
| Median | 43.3 | 40.9 | |
| Range | 29.9–49.2 | 33–49.4 | |
| Prealbumin, g/L | 0.575 | ||
| Median | 145.2 | 148.7 | |
| Range | 25.8–276.9 | 56.3–242.3 | |
| ALP, U/L | 0.600 | ||
| Median | 84.65 | 93.8 | |
| Range | 13.1–416.8 | 43.5–198.5 | |
| GGT, U/L | 0.132 | ||
| Median | 48.3 | 65.55 | |
| Range | 11.6–358.6 | 10.4–318.2 | |
| MELD score | 0.822 | ||
| Median | 8.3 | 7.9 | |
| Range | 7.4–21.6 | 6.1–14.2 | |
| PT, s | 0.003 | ||
| Median | 11.5 | 10.7 | |
| Range | 9.8–14.1 | 9.9–12.5 | |
| AFP, μg/L | 0.829 | ||
| Median | 6.245 | 5.05 | |
| Range | 1.1–10,082 | 1.16–1,461 | |
| CEA, μg/L | 0.138 | ||
| Median | 2.4 | 3.89 | |
| Range | 0.58–415.5 | 0.63–6.43 | |
| CA 19-9, U/mL | 0.417 | ||
| Median | 18 | 48.1 | |
| Range | 2.8–872.3 | 8.87–573 | |
ICC, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; HCV, hepatitis C virus; TACE, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization; RFA, radiofrequency ablation; MWA, microwave ablation; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; TBIL, total bilirubin; ALP, alkaline phosphatase; GGT, gamma-glutamyl transferase; PT, prothrombin time; AFP, alpha-fetoprotein; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CA 19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9.
Univariate and multivariate analysis of prognostic factors for primary cohort (n=58)
| Variables | No. of patients | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median OS or HR | P value | HR (95% CI) | P value | |||
| Categorical variables and ranked data | ||||||
| Vascular invasion | <0.001 | 5.057 (2.057–12.434) | <0.001 | |||
| No | 35 | 27.8 | ||||
| Yes | 23 | 9.2 | ||||
| Extrahepatic metastasis | 0.058 | |||||
| No | 52 | 18.3 | ||||
| Yes | 6 | 5.2 | ||||
| Lymph node metastasis | 0.001 | 6.508 (2.241–18.9) | <0.001 | |||
| No | 47 | 19.3 | ||||
| Yes | 11 | 12.8 | ||||
| Continuous variables | ||||||
| ALP | 1.021 | 0.009 | ||||
| GGT | 1.005 | 0.014 | ||||
| No. of tumors | 1.402 | <0.001 | 1.937 (1.408–2.663) | <0.001 | ||
| Max diameter of tumors | 1.041 | <0.001 | ||||
OS, overall survival; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ALP, alkaline phosphatase; GGT, gamma-glutamyl transferase.
Figure 1Prognostic nomogram for overall survival of patients with ICC undergoing ablation. To use the nomogram, each variable of an individual corresponds to a point on the points axis at the same vertical position. The total points were calculated and corresponds to the possibility of 1-, 3- and 5-year survival at the same vertical position. The 1-, 3- and 5-year survival probability could only be estimated, due to the non-linear distances of the values on the survival axes. Thus, the usage of survival probability range is suggested, for instance, 50–60%, 70–75%, 90–95%. ICC, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.
Figure 2The calibration curve of nomogram predicted survival at (A) 1 year and (B) 3 years in the primary cohort. Nomogram-predicted survival probability is plotted on the X-axis while actual OS is plotted on the Y-axis. Thin gray line represents the reference line. OS, overall survival.
Figure 3Forest plots to show the HRs of the total points calculated by different prognostic systems in the primary cohort. HR, hazard ratio.
Figure 4C-indices of the proposed nomogram and the current prognostic systems for resection in the primary cohort.