4.6 Article

Prognostic biomarkers for prediction of recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma: Current status and future prospects

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 20, Issue 12, Pages 3112-3124

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i12.3112

Keywords

Liver cancer; Biomarker; Transcriptomics; Proteomics; Metabolomics; Recurrence

Funding

  1. National Medical Research Council (NMRC), Singapore [1259/2010]
  2. National University of Singapore President's Graduate Fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer death worldwide, with region specific etiologies. Despite improvements made in the diagnosis of HCC, the prognosis of HCC patients remains poor due to the high recurrence rate of HCC. There is an urgent need for development of prognostic biomarkers to predict the risk of recurrence in HCC patients after curative treatment. Such stratification may aid in patient management and development of personalized medicine for HCC treatment. Omics based studies facilitate the study of global changes in biomolecules in a disease in a high throughput manner, and hence are well poised to understand the complex changes which led to HCC recurrence. The quantitative nature of data obtained from omics based studies allow for development of prognostic biomarkers based on changes in gene, protein and metabolite expression. In this review, we surveyed the application of transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics in the study of HCC recurrence. We summarised the data in the literature from these three fields of studies that claimed to be prognostic for HCC recurrence. We critiqued on the limitations of each area of research and the challenges faced in translating the research results for clinical application in predicting HCC recurrence. (C) 2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited. 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available