4.8 Article

Liver stiffness-based optimization of hepatocellular carcinoma risk score in patients with chronic hepatitis B

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
Volume 60, Issue 2, Pages 339-345

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2013.09.029

Keywords

HBV DNA; Liver-related mortality; Predication score; Transient elastography

Funding

  1. Research Fund for the Control of Infectious Diseases (RFCID) grant [11100372]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background & Aims: CU-HCC score is accurate to predict hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients. However, diagnosis of cirrhosis may be incorrect based on ultrasonography, leading to some errors in HCC prediction. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of LSM-HCC score, refined from CU-HCC score with liver stiffness measurement (LSM) using transient elastography to predict HCC. Methods: A prospective cohort study of 1555 consecutive CHB patients referred for transient elastography examination; 1035 and 520 patients randomly assigned to training and validation cohorts, respectively. Clinical cirrhosis of CU-HCC score was substituted by LSM and analyzed with multivariable Cox regression analysis with other parameters. Results: During a mean follow-up of 69 months, 38 patients (3.7%) in the training cohort and 17 patients (3.4%) in the validation cohort developed HCC. A new LSM-HCC score composed of LSM, age, serum albumin and hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels were derived, which ranges from 0 to 30. Areas under receiver operating characteristic curves of LSM-HCC score were higher than those of CU-HCC score (0.83-0.89 vs. 0.75-0.81). By applying the cutoff value of 11, the score excluded future HCC with high negative predictive value (99.4%-100%) at 5 years. Conclusions: LSM-HCC score constructed from LSM, age, serum albumin and HBV DNA level is accurate to predict HCC in CHB patients. (C) 2013 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available