| Literature DB >> 35710505 |
Genghui Zhuang1, Yuping Xie2, Junfeng Hong3, Shan Lin4, Tingting Chen1, Wenzheng Fang5,6,7.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) concentration has been used for the evaluation and prediction of prognosis of several tumors, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the relationship between changes in LDH after treatment (ΔLDH) and prognosis is still unclear. Herein, we aimed to determine this association in patients with HCC.Entities:
Keywords: Hepatocellular carcinoma; Lactate dehydrogenase; Overall survival; Prognosis; Transarterial chemoembolization
Year: 2022 PMID: 35710505 PMCID: PMC9205044 DOI: 10.1186/s13027-022-00443-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infect Agent Cancer ISSN: 1750-9378 Impact factor: 3.698
Fig. 1Flow chart of HCC patients after TACE treatment
Baseline characteristics of the second follow-up data of HCC patients treated with TACE
| Characteristics | ΔLDH (U/L) | P# value | P$ value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| > − 80, < 80 | ≤ − 80 | ≥ 80 | |||
| N | 444 | 217 | 88 | 0.997 | 0.639 |
| Age (years, median ± SD) | 52.1 ± 12.2 | 53.0 ± 12.4 | 51.3 ± 11.4 | ||
| < 55 | 225 (50.7%) | 110 (50.7%) | 47 (53.4%) | ||
| ≥ 55 | 219 (49.3%) | 107 (49.3%) | 41 (46.6%) | ||
| Gender | 0.292 | 0.436 | |||
| Male | 408 (91.9%) | 194 (89.4%) | 83 (94.3%) | ||
| Female | 36 (8.1%) | 23 (10.6%) | 5 (5.7%) | ||
| PS score | 0.001 | 0.001 | |||
| 0 | 384 (86.5%) | 117 (54%) | 64 (72.7%) | ||
| 1 | 60 (13.5%) | 40 (18.4%) | 24 (17.3%) | ||
| Diameter of main tumour (cm) | 0.035 | < 0.001 | |||
| < 5 | 200 (45.0%) | 79 (36.4%) | 16 (18.2%) | ||
| ≥ 5 | 244 (55.0%) | 138 (63.6%) | 72 (81.8%) | ||
| AFP (ng/mL) | 0.205 | 0.001 | |||
| < 25 | 209 (47.1%) | 93 (42.9%) | 23 (26.1%) | ||
| ≥ 25 | 214 (48.2%) | 118 (54.4%) | 58 (65.9%) | ||
| Hgb (g/L) | 0.567 | 0.129 | |||
| < 120 | 108 (24.3%) | 49 (22.6%) | 28 (31.8%) | ||
| ≥ 120 | 297 (66.9%) | 151 (69.6%) | 52 (59.1%) | ||
| WBC (109/L) | 0.072 | < 0.001 | |||
| < 11 | 380 (85.6%) | 184 (84.8%) | 65 (73.9%) | ||
| ≥ 11 | 22 (5.0%) | 19 (8.8%) | 15 (17.0%) | ||
| No. of intrahepatic lesions | 0.021 | < 0.001 | |||
| 0 | 198 (44.6%) | 79 (36.4%) | 16 (18.2%) | ||
| ≤ 3 | 106 (23.9%) | 46 (21.2%) | 17 (19.3%) | ||
| > 3 | 140 (31.5%) | 92 (42.4%) | 55 (62.5%) | ||
| Location of lesions | 0.048 | < 0.001 | |||
| None | 198 (4.3%) | 79 (36.4%) | 16 (18.2%) | ||
| Left/right | 109 (24.5%) | 51 (23.5%) | 26 (29.5%) | ||
| Both | 137 (30.9%) | 87 (40.1%) | 46 (52.3%) | ||
| Child–Pugh class | |||||
| A | 344 (77.5%) | 178 (82.0%) | 48 (54.5%) | 0.178 | < 0.001 |
| B | 100 (22.5%) | 39 (18.0%) | 40 (45.5%) | ||
ΔLDH = the difference between the LDH value at the second follow-up and the baseline LDH value. The chi-square test for categorical measurement and the Kruskal–Wallis test for continuous measurement were used to compare the differences. Resolve missing data with multiple complementation method. #ΔLDH ≤ − 80 vsΔLDH within ± 80. $ΔLDH ≥ 80 vs ΔLDH within ± 80
Survival analysis of HCC patients treated with TACE
| Group | Median survival (month) | 1-year survival rate (%) | 3-year survival rate (%) | 5-year survival rate (%) | χ2 | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ΔLDH ≤ − 80 U/L | 21.5 | 66.5 | 40.2 | 28.6 | 35.587 | < 0.001 |
| ΔLDH witnin ± 80 U/L | 32.4 | 74.2 | 47.4 | 37.8 | ||
| ΔLDH ≥ 80 U/L | 9.3 | 44.6 | 22.2 | 16.0 |
Fig. 2Kaplan–Meier curves of OS in HCC patients treated with TACE
A univariate analysis of factors related to OS in HCC patients treated with TACE
| ΔLDH ≥ 80 vs ΔLDH within ± 80 | ΔLDH ≤ − 80 vsΔLDH within ± 80 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistics | HR (95% CI) | Statistics | HR (95% CI) | |
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 491 (92.29%) | 1 | 602 (91.07%) | 1 |
| Female | 41 (7.71%) | 1.08 (0.70, 1.68) | 59 (8.93%) | 1.22 (0.85, 1.75) |
| Age (years) | ||||
| < 55 | 272 (51.13%) | 1 | 335 (50.68%) | 1 |
| ≥ 55 | 260 (48.87%) | 0.87 (0.69, 1.09) | 326 (49.32%) | 0.85 (0.69, 1.06) |
| PS score | ||||
| 0 | 448 (84.21%) | 1 | 561 (84.87%) | 1 |
| 1 | 84 (15.79%) | 3.07 (2.29, 4.11) | 100 (15.13%) | 3.35 (2.56, 4.38) |
| Diameter of main tumour (cm) | ||||
| < 5 | 215 (40.41%) | 1 | 278 (42.06%) | 1 |
| ≥ 5 | 317 (59.59%) | 3.32 (2.60, 4.23) | 383 (57.94%) | 3.05 (2.44, 3.81) |
| AFP (ng/mL) | ||||
| < 25 | 232 (43.61%) | 1 | 306 (46.29%) | 1 |
| ≥ 25 | 300 (56.39%) | 2.27 (1.77, 2.90) | 355 (53.71%) | 2.53 (2.03, 3.16) |
| Hgb (g/L) | ||||
| < 120 | 136 (25.56%) | 1 | 161 (24.36%) | 1 |
| ≥ 120 | 396 (74.44%) | 0.72 (0.56, 0.93) | 500 (75.64%) | 0.69 (0.54, 0.87) |
| WBC (109/L) | ||||
| < 11 | 495 (93.05%) | 1 | 620 (93.8%) | 1 |
| ≥ 11 | 37 (6.95%) | 1.80 (1.20, 2.70) | 41 (6.20%) | 1.43 (0.95, 2.14) |
| No. of intrahepatic | ||||
| lesions | ||||
| 0 | 214 (40.23%) | 1 | 277 (41.91%) | 1 |
| ≤ 3 | 126 (23.68%) | 2.10 (1.53, 2.90) | 154 (23.30%) | 2.35 (1.77, 3.13) |
| > 3 | 192 (36.09%) | 4.07 (3.05, 5.44) | 232 (34.80%) | 4.08 (3.14, 5.29) |
| Location of Lesions | ||||
| None | 214 (40.23%) | 1 | 277 (41.91%) | 1 |
| Left/right | 135 (25.38%) | 2.12 (1.54, 2.91) | 160 (24.21%) | 2.33 (1.75, 3.10) |
| Both | 183 (34.40%) | 4.11 (3.08, 5.48) | 224 (33.89%) | 4.15 (3.19, 5.38) |
| Child–Pugh class | ||||
| A | 392 (73.68%) | 1 | 522 (78.97%) | 1 |
| B | 140 (26.32%) | 1.84 (1.43, 2.36) | 139 (21.03%) | 2.11 (1.65, 2.68) |
Resolve missing data with multiple complementation method
CoX regression analysis of independent variable screening
| Parameter | Enter | FSTER(LR) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | P | Exp(B) | 95% CI for Exp(B) | B | P | Exp(B) | 95.0% CI for Exp(B) | |
| PS score | 0.871 | < 0.001 | 2.389 | 1.852–3.081 | 0.878 | < 0.001 | 2.407 | 1.876–3.090 |
| Diameter of main tumour (cm) | 0.454 | < 0.001 | 1.574 | 1.222–2.028 | 0.530 | < 0.001 | 1.699 | 1.338–2.158 |
| AFP (ng/mL) | 0.597 | < 0.001 | 1.817 | 1.461–2.259 | 0.612 | < 0.001 | 1.844 | 1.488–2.284 |
| Location of Lesions | 0.324 | 0.012 | 1.383 | 1.073–1.782 | 0.383 | < 0.001 | 1.466 | 1.265–1.700 |
| Child–Pugh class | 0.514 | < 0.001 | 1.672 | 1.339–2.088 | 0.550 | < 0.001 | 1.733 | 1.397–2.148 |
Multivariable HR and 95% CI between ΔLDH and OS in HCC patients treated by TACE
| ΔLDH(U/L) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| > − 80, < 80 | ≤ − 80 | ≥ 80 | |
| Deaths/patients | 226/444 | 117/217 | 62/88 |
| Not adjusted | Reference | 1.24 (0.99, 1.55) | 2.31 (1.74, 3.06) |
| Model I* | Reference | 1.28 (1.02, 1.60) | 1.90 (1.43, 2.53) |
| Model II# | Reference | 1.11 (0.88, 1.39) | 1.40 (1.04, 1.87) |
Due to missing data, the total of the above data is less than 749. *The model adjusted Gender(Male, Female),PS score (0, 1), age (< 55, ≥ 55), Child–Pugh class (A, B). #The model was adjusted based on Gender(Male, Female), PS score (0, 1), age (< 55, ≥ 55), Child–Pugh class (A, B), location of lesions (none, left/right, both), diameter of main tumour (< 5, ≥ 5), No. of intrahepatic lesions (0, ≤ 3, > 3), AFP (< 25, ≥ 25), Hgb (g/L) (< 120, ≥ 120) and WBC (109/L) (< 11, ≥ 11)
Fig. 3The smooth curve between ΔLDH and HCC after TACE treatment. Notes: It shows that there is a U-shaped relationship between ΔLDH and HCC mortality. The y-axis is the predicted logarithm (HR), and the x-axis is ΔLDH (continuous). Non-linear P < 0.001
Use the two-piece Cox proportional hazard model to perform a threshold effect analysis on the ΔLDH in the deduction cohort
| Unadjusted HR (95% CI) | Adjusted HR (95% CI)# | |
|---|---|---|
| The one-line Cox proportional hazards model | 1.02 (0.98, 1.06) | 1.01 (0.98, 1.05) |
| The two-piece-wise Cox proportional hazards model | ||
| < 0 (80U/L) | 0.96 (0.93, 1.00) | 0.98 (0.94, 1.02) |
| > 0 (80U/L) | 1.11 (1.07, 1.15) | 1.06 (1.02, 1.11) |
| P for log-likelihood ratio test | < 0.001 | 0.021 |
One-line linear regression is compared with the log-likelihood ratio test. #This model was adjusted based on Gender(Male, Female), PS score (0, 1), age (< 55, ≥ 55), Child–Pugh class (A, B), location of lesions (none, left/right, both), diameter of main tumour (< 5, ≥ 5), No.of intrahepatic lesions (0, ≤ 3, > 3), and AFP (< 25, ≥ 25), Hgb (g/L)(< 120, ≥ 120), WBC (109/L)(< 11, ≥ 11)
Fig. 4The Scatter plot between ΔLDH and OS in HCC patients after TACE treatment. Note: A indicates that there is a positive correlation between ΔLDH and OS in the group of ΔLDH < =—80, B indicates that there is a negative correlation between ΔLDH and OS in the group of ΔLDH > = 80, and C indicates that there is no obvious positive and negative correlation between ΔLDH and OS in the group of—80 < ΔLDH < 80