| Literature DB >> 35936699 |
Da-Li Zhang1, Dan-Ni Feng1, Xi He1, Xiao-Feng Zhang1, Li-Xin Li1, Zhi-Jie Li1, Xiao-Feng Niu1, Yun-Long Zhuang1, Zhen-Wen Liu1, Xu-Dong Gao1, Hong-Bo Wang1.
Abstract
Background: Orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is a life-saving option for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the expanded OLT criteria remain controversial. Objective: The study aimed to explore whether expanded OLT criteria can be applied to Chinese cirrhotic patients with HCC.Entities:
Keywords: Up-to-seven criteria; alpha-fetoprotein; beyond Milan criteria; hepatocellular carcinoma; liver transplantation; long-term outcomes
Year: 2022 PMID: 35936699 PMCID: PMC9351723 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.959151
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Risk factors for HCC-related death on univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis.
| Variable | Univariate | Multivariate | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95%CI |
| HR | 95%CI |
| |
| Age | 1.02 | 0.95–1.10 | 0.542 | |||
| Gender | 1.43 | 0.30–6.74 | 0.650 | |||
| Etiology | 0.71 | 0.35–1.47 | 0.358 | |||
| Pre LT RAF | 0.33 | 0.04–2.55 | 0.285 | |||
| Pre LT TACE | 1.36 | 0.40–4.67 | 0.625 | |||
| MELD | 1.02 | 0.96–1.09 | 0.512 | |||
| BMI (kg/m2) | 1.14 | 0.97–1.34 | 0.116 | |||
| AFP >1000 ng/ml | 8.36 | 1.77–39.46 | 0.007 | 6.63 | 1.31–33.52 | 0.022 |
| Tumor number | 1.99 | 1.09–3.64 | 0.026 | 2.17 | 1.12–4.24 | 0.023 |
| Max tumor diameter (cm) | 1.32 | 1.12–1.56 | 0.001 | 1.33 | 1.08–1.62 | 0.006 |
| Sum of tumor diameter (cm) | 1.21 | 1.07–1.38 | 0.004 | 0.74 | 0.43–1.27 | 0.277 |
| Microvascular invasion | 3.67 | 0.77–17.42 | 0.102 | |||
| TNM Stage | 2.03 | 1.20–3.41 | 0.008 | 1.44 | 0.66–3.15 | 0.362 |
LT, liver transplantation; RAF, radiofrequency ablation; TACE, transhepatic arterial chemotherapy and embolization; MELD, model for end-stage liver disease; BMI, body mass index; AFP, alpha-fetoprotein. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed based on the Cox proportional hazards regression model. Clinical variables with a P of < 0.1 in the univariate analysis were included in the multivariate analysis.
Risk factors for HCC recurrence on univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis.
| Variable | Univariate | Multivariate | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95%CI |
| HR | 95%CI |
| |
| Age | 1.01 | 0.96–1.06 | 0.773 | |||
| Gender | 0.80 | 0.18–3.47 | 0.797 | |||
| Etiology | 0.90 | 0.56–1.44 | 0.660 | |||
| Pre LT RAF | 1.12 | 0.40–3.12 | 0.827 | |||
| Pre LT TACE | 1.67 | 0.63–4.42 | 0.307 | |||
| MELD | 1.01 | 0.96–1.06 | 0.658 | |||
| BMI (kg/m2) | 1.19 | 1.04–1.33 | 0.009 | 1.14 | 0.96–1.30 | 0.055 |
| AFP >1000 ng/ml | 6.66 | 1.93–23.04 | 0.003 | 10.05 | 2.45–41.13 | 0.001 |
| Tumor number | 2.10 | 1.31–3.23 | 0.002 | 2.08 | 1.25–3.47 | 0.005 |
| Max tumor diameter (cm) | 1.32 | 1.16–1.51 | <0.001 | 1.25 | 1.07–1.46 | 0.005 |
| Sum of tumor diameter (cm) | 1.23 | 1.11–1.36 | <0.001 | 0.85 | 0.60–1.20 | 0.366 |
| Microvascular invasion | 2.88 | 0.96–8.69 | 0.060 | 1.54 | 0.46–5.17 | 0.487 |
| TNM Stage | 1.88 | 1.27–2.78 | 0.002 | 1.16 | 0.61–2.18 | 0.652 |
LT, liver transplantation; RAF, radiofrequency ablation; TACE, transhepatic arterial chemotherapy and embolization; MELD, model for end-stage liver disease; BMI, body mass index; AFP, alpha-fetoprotein. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed based on the Cox proportional hazards regression model. Clinical variables with a P of < 0.1 in the univariate analysis were included in the multivariate analysis.
Baseline of patients with HCC who met the “Up-to-seven” criteria and had AFP of < 1000 ng/mL.
| Variables | Overall (n = 153) | Group 1* (n =121) | Group 2* (n = 32) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic data | ||||
| Age (years) | 53.0 (48.0, 58.0) | 54.0 (48.0, 59.0) | 53.0 (48.5, 56.0) | 0.455 |
| Sex | 136 (88.9%) | 106 (87.6%) | 30 (93.8%) | 0.325 |
| BMI (Kg/m2) | 24.4 (22.7, 27.0) | 24.3 (22.7, 26.7) | 24.8 (22.8, 28.8) | 0.143 |
| Etiology of liver disease | 109 (71.2%) | 85 (70.2%) | 24 (75.0%) | 0.620 |
| MELD | 11.0 (8.0, 14.0) | 11.0 (8.0, 14.0) | 12.5 (8.5, 17.0) | 0.242 |
|
| ||||
| AFP values (ng/ml) | 146 (95.4%) | 121 (100.0%) | 25 (78.1%) | <0.001 |
| Tumor number | 131 (85.6%) | 111 (91.7%) | 20 (62.5%) | <0.001 |
| Max tumor diameter (cm) | 2.8 (1.5, 4.5) | 2.5 (1.5, 3.5) | 6.0 (4.0, 8.5) | <0.001 |
| Sum of tumor diameter (cm) | 3.0 (1.6, 5.0) | 2.5 (1.5, 3.6) | 8.0 (4.9, 10.2) | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| Pre-LT RAF | 34 (22.2%) | 29 (24.0%) | 5 (15.6%) | 0.313 |
| Pre-LT TACE | 94 (61.4%) | 74 (61.2%) | 20 (62.5%) | 0.890 |
|
| ||||
| Microvascular invasion | 88 (57.5%) | 60 (49.6%) | 28 (87.5%) | <0.001 |
| TNM stage | 123 (80.4%) | 107 (88.4%) | 16 (50.0%) | <0.001 |
*Group 1: met the “Up-to-seven” criteria and had AFP of < 1000 ng/mL. *Group 2: did not meet “Up-to-seven” criteria or had AFP of > 1000 ng/mL. BMI, Body mass index; CHB, chronic hepatitis B; CHC, chronic hepatitis C; LT, liver transplantation; RAF, radiofrequency ablation; TACE, transhepatic arterial chemotherapy embolization; MELD, model for end-stage liver disease; AFP, alpha-fetoprotein.
Differences of patients with HCC under Milan, “Up-to seven,” and Hangzhou criteria.
| Variables | MC1-in | MC-out and in-”Up-to-seven” | “Up-to-seven”-out and in-HZ |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Age (years) | 53.5 (48.0, 59.0) | 54.0 (47.0, 57.0) | 53.0 (48.5, 56.5) | 0.721 |
| Sex | 93 (86.1%) | 16 (94.1%) | 27 (96.4%) | 0.232 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.3 (22.6, 26.7) | 24.8 (23.2, 26.9) | 24.8 (22.8, 28.8) | 0.311 |
| Etiology of liver disease | 75 (69.4%) | 13 (76.5%) | 21 (75.0%) | 0.654 |
| MELD | 11.0 (8.0, 14.0) | 11.0 (9.0, 17.0) | 14.0 (9.5, 17.5) | 0.139 |
|
| ||||
| AFP values (ng/ml) | 104 (96.3%) | 17 (100.0%) | 25 (89.3%) | 0.181 |
| Tumor number | 103 (95.4%) | 12 (70.6%) | 16 (57.1%) | <0.001 |
| Max tumor diameter (cm) | 2.5 (1.5, 3.0) | 4.0 (3.5, 6.0) | 6.5 (5.5, 9.0) | <0.001 |
| Sum of tumor diameter (cm) | 2.5 (1.5, 3.5) | 6.0 (5.0, 6.0) | 8.5 (6.8, 10.7) | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| Pre-LT RAF | 25 (23.1%) | 4 (23.5%) | 5 (17.9%) | 0.821 |
| Pre-LT TACE | 66 (61.1%) | 11 (64.7%) | 17 (60.7%) | 0.957 |
|
| ||||
| Microvascular Invasion | 50 (46.3%) | 12 (70.6%) | 26 (92.9%) | <0.001 |
| TNM Stage | 99 (91.7%) | 12 (70.6%) | 12 (42.9%) | <0.001 |
MC, Milan criteria; HZ, Hangzhou criteria; BMI, body mass index; CHB, chronic hepatitis B; CHC, chronic hepatitis C; MELD, model for end-stage liver disease; AFP, alpha-fetoprotein; LT, liver transplantation; RAF, radiofrequency ablation; TACE, transhepatic arterial chemotherapy and embolization.
Figure 1Differences in recurrence, death, and tumor characteristics in patients with HCC under distinctive liver transplant criteria. (A) compared with Milan criteria, patients who met “Up-to-seven” and Hangzhou criteria had similar AFP concentrations (p = 0.636). (B) compared with Milan criteria, patients who met “Up-to-seven” and Hangzhou criteria had a higher prevalence of HCC recurrence (p = 0.001). (C) compared with Milan criteria, patients who met “Up-to-seven” and Hangzhou criteria had longer tumor diameter (p < 0.001). (D) compared with Milan criteria, patients who met “Up-to-seven” and Hangzhou criteria had a higher prevalence of HCC-related death (p < 0.001). HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; AFP, alpha-fetoprotein.
Figure 2The OS and DFS of patients under different liver transplant criteria. (A) compared with the Milan criteria, patients who did not meet the Milan criteria but met the “Up-to-seven criteria” had no significant difference in OS (p = 0.69), while patients who did not meet the “Up-to-seven” but met the Hangzhou criteria had significant differences (p < 0.001). (B) compared with the Milan criteria, patients who did not meet the Milan criteria but met the “Up-to-seven criteria” had no significant difference in DFS (p = 0.35), while patients who did not meet the “Up-to-seven” but met the Hangzhou criteria had significant differences in DFS (p < 0.001). OS, Overall survival; DFS, disease-free survival; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma.
Figure 3Compared OS and DFS of patients with HCC who met “Up-to-seven” criteria and AFP of < 1000 ng/mL (group 1) and patients who did not meet “Up-to-seven” criteria or had AFP of > 1000 ng/mL (group 2). (A) patients within group 1 had better OS (p < 0.001), with a 4-year OS of 91.6% than patients in group 2, with a 4-year OS of 67.5%. (B) patients within group 1 had better DFS (p < 0.001), with a 4-year DFS of 90.8%, than patients in group 2, with a 4-year DFS of 46.5%. OS, overall survival; DFS, disease-free survival, HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma. Group 1 (n = 121): patients who met the “Up-to-seven” criteria and had AFP of < 1000 ng/mL; group 2 (n = 32): patients who did not meet “Up-to-seven” or had AFP of > 1000 ng/mL.