4.4 Article

Clinical and epidemiological aspects of hepatocellular carcinoma in Brazil

Journal

CLINICS
Volume 65, Issue 12, Pages 1285-1290

Publisher

HOSPITAL CLINICAS, UNIV SAO PAULO
DOI: 10.1590/S1807-59322010001200010

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma; Epidemiology; Liver cancer; Brazil; Treatment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES: We performed a national survey to update hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) epidemiology in Brazil and determined the clinical and epidemiological profiles of patients with HCC in different Brazilian regions. METHODS: Data from 29 centers included 1,405 patients diagnosed with HCC from 2004 to 2009. RESULTS: The median age was 59 (1-92 years old; 78% male). At diagnosis, females were older than males (median age: 62 vs. 59 years old respectively; p<0.0001). Ninety-eight percent of the patients had cirrhosis (1279/1308). Hepatitis C virus was the main etiology (54%), followed by hepatitis B virus (16%) and alcohol (14%). In Southeastern and Southern Brazil, hepatitis C virus accounted for over 55% of cases. In the Northeast and North, hepatitis C virus accounted for less than 50%, and hepatitis B virus accounted for 22-25% of cases; hepatitis B was more prevalent in the Northern than in the Southern regions. Some 43%, 35%, and 22% of patients were in early, intermediate, and advanced stages respectively. Initial therapies for HCC included chemoembolization or embolization (36%), percutaneous ablation (13%), liver resection (7%), and sorafenib (1%). Liver transplantation was performed in 242 patients (19%), but it was the initial therapy for only 56 patients (4%). CONCLUSION: The epidemiology, classification, and therapy selection for HCC varied among Brazilian regions. Hepatitis C infection was the most common etiology of liver cirrhosis; chemoembolization was the most common therapy employed. Liver cirrhosis was the main risk factor for HCC development in Brazil.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available