| Literature DB >> 35912198 |
Rongqiang Liu1,2, Rongqi Li1,3, Min Zhang4, Wenbin Liu1, Hui Li1, Dewei Li1.
Abstract
Background: Numerous studies showed that preoperative platelet-albumin-bilirubin (PALBI) grade was closely related to the prognostic outcome of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the conclusions were inconsistent. Therefore, we implemented the study to comprehensively evaluate the association between PALBI grade and prognosis in patients with HCC.Entities:
Keywords: hepatocellular carcinoma; meta-analysis; platelet-albumin-bilirubin; prognosis; survival outcome
Year: 2022 PMID: 35912198 PMCID: PMC9326061 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.914997
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Figure 1Flow chart of the literature search.
Basic information of included studies.
| Study | Year | Country | Study type | 0ptimal cut-off value of PALBI | Sample size | Treatment methods | Analysis type | Survival analysis | Source of HR | NOS score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Božin | 2018 | Croatia | retrospective | -2.09 | 38 | With‐surgery | Univariate | OS | Reported | 6 |
| Carling | 2018 | Norway | retrospective | -2.09 | 49 | TACE | Univariate | OS | SC | 7 |
| Hansmann | 2017 | USA | retrospective | -2.09 | 180 | TACE | Univariate | OS | SC | 6 |
| Ho | 2018A | China | retrospective | -2.09 | 645 | With‐surgery | Univariate | OS、RFS | SC | 7 |
| Ho | 2018B | China | retrospective | -2.09 | 174 | IHRT | Multivariate | OS | Reported | 6 |
| Huang | 2020 | China | retrospective | -2.09 | 86 | TACE | Univariate | OS | SC | 7 |
| Jaruvongvanich | 2018 | USA | retrospective | -2.09 | 900 | Mixed | Univariate | OS、DFS | SC | 7 |
| Lee | 2019 | Korea | retrospective | -2.09 | 6669 | Mixed | Univariate | OS | SC | 7 |
| Liu | 2017 | China | retrospective | -2.09 | 3182 | Mixed | Univariate | OS | SC | 7 |
| Lu | 2019 | China | retrospective | -2.09 | 2038 | With‐surgery | Univariate | OS | SC | 7 |
| Luo | 2018 | China | retrospective | -2.09 | 785 | With‐surgery | Multivariate | OS、RFS | Reported | 7 |
| Ni | 2019 | China | retrospective | -2.09 | 349 | TACE | Univariate | OS | SC | 7 |
| Sonohara | 2019 | Japan | retrospective | -2.09 | 305 | With‐surgery | Univariate | OS、RFS | Reported | 7 |
| Wu | 2019 | China | retrospective | -2.09 | 134 | With‐surgery | Univariate | OS、RFS | Reported | 7 |
TACE, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization; IHRT, individualized hypofractionated radiotherapy; OS, overall survival; DFS,disease-free survival; RFS, recurrent-free survival; SC, survival curve.
Figure 2Forest plot of the association between high PALBI grade and OS.
Subgroups analysis for the prognostic value of high PALBI grade in HCC patients .
| Variables | No. of studies | Estimate HR (95%) |
| Heterogeneity | Meta-regression | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2 (%) | p value | tau2 | Adj R2 (%) | p value | ||||
|
| 0.01 | 81.51 | <0.01 | |||||
| Surgery | 6 | 1.37 (1.23-1.52) | <0.01 | 30.7 | 0.21 | |||
| TACE | 4 | 2.01 (1.41-2.85) | <0.01 | 47 | 0.13 | |||
| Mixed | 3 | 2.15 (1.91-2.43) | <0.01 | 69.5 | 0.04 | |||
| IHRT | 1 | 1.70 (1.12-2.59) | 0.01 | – | – | |||
|
| 0.06 | -11.28 | 0.99 | |||||
| ≥500 | 6 | 1.71 (1.38-2.12) | <0.01 | 93.8 | <0.01 | |||
| <500 | 8 | 1.72 (1.34-2.22) | <0.01 | 64.9 | <0.01 | |||
|
| 0.56 | -3.39 | 0.44 | |||||
| Univariate analysis | 12 | 1.76 (1.48-2.09) | <0.01 | 88.1 | <0.01 | |||
| Multivariate analysis | 2 | 1.40 (1.20-1.63) | <0.01 | 0 | 0.33 | |||
|
| 0.04 | 22.43 | 0.13 | |||||
| Reported | 5 | 1.41 (1.17-1.70) | <0.01 | 45.2 | 0.12 | |||
| SC | 9 | 1.85 (1.54-2.21) | <0.01 | 87.8 | <0.01 | |||
|
| 0.06 | -1.02 | 0.43 | |||||
| Caucasian | 4 | 1.56 (1.09-2.25) | 0.02 | 79.8 | <0.01 | |||
| Asian | 10 | 1.78 (1.48-2.13) | <0.01 | 89.3 | <0.01 | |||
TACE, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization; IHRT, Individualized hypofractionated radiotherapy.
Figure 3Forest plot of subgroup analysis based on treatment method.
Figure 4Forest plot of the association between high PALBI grade and DFS/RFS.
Figure 5Sensitivity analysis for OS.
Figure 6Sensitivity analysis for DFS/PFS.
Figure 7Publication bias for OS.
Figure 8Publication bias for DFS/PFS.