4.6 Article

The predictive value of the modified AFP model for liver transplantation outcomes in multinodular hepatocellular carcinoma patients

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-023-02994-y

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma; Liver transplantation; AFP model

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aims to establish a model to effectively predict overall survival in Chinese HCC patients with multiple tumors (> 3 tumors) who undergo LT. The AFP model is superior in predicting tumor recurrence in HCC patients with > 3 tumors prior to LT.
BackgroundThere is a lack of studies focusing on the benefit of liver transplantation (LT) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with > 3 tumors. This study aims to establish a model to effectively predict overall survival in Chinese HCC patients with multiple tumors (> 3 tumors) who undergo LT.MethodsThis retrospective study included 434 HCC liver transplant recipients from the China Liver Transplant Registry. All HCC patients had more than 3 tumor nodules. Three selection criteria systems (i.e., AFP, Metroticket 2.0, and Up-to-7) were compared regarding the prediction of HCC recurrence. The modified AFP model was established by univariate and multivariate competing risk analyses.ResultsThe AFP score 2 and the AFP score >= 3 groups had 5-year recurrence rates of 19.6% and 40.5% in our cohort. The prediction of HCC recurrence based on the AFP model was associated with a c-statistic of 0.606, which was superior to the Up-to-7 and Metroticket 2.0 models. AFP level > 1000 ng/mL, largest tumor size >= 8 cm, vascular invasion, and MELD score >= 15 were associated with overall survival. The 5-year survival rate in the modified AFP score 0 group was 71.7%.ConclusionsThe AFP model is superior in predicting tumor recurrence in HCC patients with > 3 tumors prior to LT. With the modified AFP model, patients likely to derive sufficient benefit from LT can be identified.

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