4.6 Article

Usefulness of albumin-bilirubin grade for evaluation of prognosis of 2584 Japanese patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 31, 期 5, 页码 1031-1036

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.13250

关键词

ALBI grade; hepatocellular carcinoma; JIS score; prognosis; scoring system

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aim:The Child-Pugh classification has some non-objective factors, with chronic hepatitis indistinguishable from early liver cirrhosis in Child-Pugh A. We retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade, which has been proposed as a new classification for hepatic function, for grading hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients based on hepatic function and predicting their prognosis. Method:From 2000 to 2014, 2584 naive HCC [69.09.8years old, 1850 men, 734 female, Child-Pugh class A:B:C=1871:558:155] were enrolled. TNM staging was determined using the classification of the Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan and ALBI grade, instead of Child-Pugh classification (ALBI with TNM score: ALBI-T score) (Table1), and is similar to the Japan Integrated Staging (JIS) score. We retrospectively compared ALBI-T and JIS scores in these patients. Results:Of patients classified as Child-Pugh A (n=1871), 1285 with 5 points were divided into 858 with ALBI grade 1 and 427 with grade 2, while 586 with 6 points were divided into 53 with grade 1 and 533 with grade 2. The ratio of ALBI grade 2 patients with a Child-Pugh score of 6 points (91.0%) was similar to that of those with 7 points (91.8%). Patients with a lower ALBI-T score (0-5 points) showed a better median survival time than those with a corresponding lower JIS score [137.7:83.2:53.4:27.4:5.0:1.4 vs 97.6:74.9:39.7:15.0:4.0:1.0months]. Conclusion:Albumin-bilirubin grade was found to be superior for distinguishing patients with better hepatic function. ALBI-T scoring may be a better total prognostic scoring system for predicting survival of Japanese patients with HCC.

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