4.7 Article

Comparison of twelve liver functional reserve models for outcome prediction in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing surgical resection

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-22923-4

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Center of Excellence for Cancer Research at Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan [MOHW106-TDU-B-211-144-0030]
  2. Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan [V107A-008, VN107-04, V107C-003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Various noninvasive liver functional reserve models have been proposed, but their prognostic ability in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is unclear. We aimed to investigate the performance of twelve noninvasive liver reserve models in HCC patients undergoing surgical resection. A total of 645 patients undergoing resection were prospectively identified and retrospectively analyzed. Tumor recurrence, overall survival, and independent prognostic factors were evaluated by the Cox proportional hazards model. Of the twelve models, the King's score showed the highest homogeneity and lowest corrected Akaike information criterion (AICc) value, suggesting a better predictive ability for tumor recurrence. In multivariate Cox analysis, we confirmed that King's score, tumor size and serum alphafetoprotein level were independent predictors associated with recurrence. In survival prediction, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) revealed the highest homogeneity and lowest value among twelve invasive models, indicating a better prognostic performance. In the Cox model, ALBI grade, tumor burden, alpha-fetoprotein, vascular invasion, diabetes mellitus and performance status were independent predictors linked with overall survival. In summary, the currently used liver function models have differential predictive ability for HCC patients undergoing surgical resection. The King's score is a feasible tool to predict tumor recurrence, whereas ALBI grade is a more robust model for prognostic prediction.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available