4.6 Article

Optimal duration of the early and late recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatectomy

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 1207-1215

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i4.1207

关键词

Early recurrence; Late recurrence; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Hepatectomy; Minimum P-value approach

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM: To determine the best cut-off value between the early and late recurrence periods after the initial recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: The clinical records of 404 patients who underwent macroscopic curative hepatectomy for HCC between 1980 and 2010 were retrospectively examined. We divided the 252 patients experienced a recurrence of HCC into two groups, the early and late recurrence groups using the minimum P-value approach. Factors for early recurrence were investigated using all 404 patients, and factors related to late recurrence were investigated in the patients who were confirmed to be recurrence free at the end of the early recurrence period. RESULTS: For the 252 patients who experienced a recurrence, the optimal cut-off value for differentiating early and late recurrence based on the overall survival after initial recurrence was 17 mo (5-year overall survival after initial recurrence: 15.4% vs 36.3%, P = 0.000018). Cox proportional hazard analysis identified early recurrence (P = 0.003) as one of the independent prognostic factors associated with overall survival after initial recurrence. A logistic regression model showed that an alpha-fetoprotein level > 100 ng/mL (P < 0.001), multiple HCC (P < 0.001), serosal invasion (P = 0.031), and microvascular invasion (P = 0.012) were independent factors associated with early recurrence, whereas the only independent factor related to late recurrence was liver cirrhosis (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Seventeen months after hepatectomy is a useful cut-off value between early and late recurrence of HCC based on the prognosis and different etiologies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据