4.1 Article

Development and Applicability of the A-P 200 Criteria for Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Journal

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
Volume 48, Issue 10, Pages 3317-3322

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2016.08.050

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The Milan criteria are widely accepted for indicating liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, a 7% to 20% possibility of HCC recurrence remains, even among patients who fulfill the Milan criteria. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 88 patients with HCC who underwent liver transplantation at Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital between May 2010 and December 2014. The risk factors for HCC recurrence were analyzed, and the overall survival and disease-free survival rates were calculated based on each risk factor. Results. Seventeen patients (19.3%) experienced HCC recurrence. Multivariate analyses revealed that the independent risk factors for HCC recurrence were protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonist II (PIVKA-II) levels of >200 mAU/mL, levels of >200 for alpha-fetoprotein (ng/mL) or PIVKA-II (mAU/mL), and microvascular invasion. Therefore, we defined the A-P 200 criteria as simultaneously exhibiting alpha-fetoprotein levels of <= 200 ng/mL and PIVKA-II levels of <= 200 mAU/mL. The 3-year overall survival rates among patients who fulfilled or exceeded the A-P 200 criteria were 89.2% and 80.0%, respectively (P = .79). The 3-year disease-free survival rates among patients who fulfilled or exceeded the A-P 200 criteria were 89.9% and 43.1%, respectively (P < .001). We also applied the A-P 200 criteria to patient data from another major center and observed similar results. Conclusion. These findings confirm that the A-P 200 criteria can be used to predict recurrence after liver transplantation among patients with HCC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available