4.8 Article

Risk for hepatocellular carcinoma with respect to hepatitis B virus genotypes B/C, specific mutations of enhancer II/core promoter/precore regions and HBV DNA levels

Journal

GUT
Volume 57, Issue 1, Pages 98-102

Publisher

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/gut.2007.119859

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/aim: To examine the risks for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with respect to hepatitis B virus (HBV) genotypes, specific viral mutations (MT), serum HBV DNA levels, and cirrhosis. Methods: HBV genotypes, 1653/1753/core promoter (CP)/precore MT and HBV DNA levels were determined in 248 HBV patients with HCC and 248 HBV controls. Results: Genotype C, CP-MT, T1653, HBV DNA levels >= 4 log(10) copies/ml and cirrhosis had a higher risk for HCC compared to patients with genotype B (p = 0.001, OR 1.9), CP wild-type (WT) (p < 0.001, OR 4.1), C1653 (p = 0.028, OR 2.4), HBV DNA < 4 log(10) copies/ml (p = 0.003, OR 2.1) and without cirrhosis (p < 0.001, OR 4.0) respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that CP-MT, T1653, HBV DNA >= 4 log(10) copies/ml and cirrhosis were independent factors for HCC (all p < 0.05). A receiver operating characteristics curve showed no cut-off HBV DNA level associated with minimal chance of HCC. Patients with CP-MT and cirrhosis had a 22.2-fold increased risk of HCC compared to patients with CP-WT and without cirrhosis. Patients with CP-MT and HBV DNA levels >= 4 log(10) copies/ml had a 7.2-fold increased risk of HCC compared to patients with CP-WT and HBV DNA levels < 4 log(10) copies/ml. Patients with CP-MT and T1653 had a 9.9-fold increased risk of HCC compared to patients with wild-type for both regions. Conclusions: CP-MT, T1653, HBV DNA levels >= 4 log(10) copies/ml and cirrhosis are independent factors for development of HCC. The risks increased substantially in patients having these factors in combination.

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