4.5 Article

Evaluation methods for pretransplant oncologic markers and their prognostic impacts in patient undergoing living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

Journal

TRANSPLANT INTERNATIONAL
Volume 27, Issue 4, Pages 391-398

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/tri.12274

Keywords

hepatocellular carcinoma; liver transplantation; alpha-fetoprotein; neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio; des-gamma-carboxyprothrombin; tumor markers

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Tumor markers [alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) or des-gamma-carboxyprothrombin (DCP)] and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) reportedly correlate with long-term outcomes for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, no standardized method has been established for evaluating the pretransplant data. One hundred and twenty-four patients who underwent living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) were retrospectively reviewed. The best predictive parameters for tumor recurrence were maximum values for AFP or DCP and 90-day mean values for NLR, respectively, and multivariate analysis confirmed these values were correlated with tumor recurrence. However, receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed that discriminative powers were sufficient only in maximum AFP [area under the curve (AUC) 0.88, P<0.001] and maximum DCP (AUC 0.76, P<0.001), while mean NLR was less predictive (AUC 0.62, P=0.20). When incorporating AFP and DCP to the Tokyo criteria (<= 5 tumors with each tumor <= 5cm), the presence of at least two of the following factors: (i) beyond the Tokyo criteria, (ii) AFP>250ng/ml, and (iii) DCP>450mAu/ml (>450ng/ml), was correlated with a worse 5-year disease-free survival rate (20.0% vs. 96.8%, P<0.001) and 5-year overall survival rate (20.0% vs. 84.0%, P<0.001). The prognosis of patients undergoing LDLT for HCC strongly relies on maximum AFP or DCP values before transplantation, while the prognostic impact of NLR is limited.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available