4.7 Article

Risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma in Caucasian patients with non-viral cirrhosis: the importance of prior obesity

期刊

LIVER INTERNATIONAL
卷 35, 期 7, 页码 1872-1876

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/liv.12767

关键词

Caucasian; cirrhosis; hepatocellular carcinoma; obesity

资金

  1. Programme Hospitalier Recherche Clinique

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & AimsIn patients with cirrhosis, the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) depends upon age, gender and the etiology of liver disease. Few studies are available in Caucasian patients with alcoholic or metabolic cirrhosis without viral hepatitis. MethodsCross-sectional clinical data from 905 HCV- and HBV-negative Caucasian patients with alcoholic or metabolic cirrhosis were prospectively collected in four French centres. The risk factors for HCC were identified by logistic regression analysis in the whole population and in a nested case-control study. ResultsThe etiology of cirrhosis was alcoholic (48%), metabolic (7%) or mixed (45%). Patients were predominantly male (80%), mean age 62years old and 31% had HCC. Mean body mass index (BMI) was 275 and 30% were obese at inclusion. The maximum BMI reached throughout life was 316 and 63% had been obese. Ninety percent of the population had daily alcohol consumption, 73% were smokers. Hepatocellular carcinoma was independently related to male gender (P<0.0001), older age (P<0.0001), past obesity (P=0.007), diabetes (P=0.037), abnormal levels of transaminases (P<0.0001) and tobacco consumption (P=0.007). The case-control study (200 HCC cases matched with 400 non-HCC cases for gender, age and Child-Pugh score) confirmed past obesity, tobacco and abnormal levels of transaminases. ConclusionsBeside diabetes, male gender and age, a past history of obesity, but not an existing overweight, as well as exposure to tobacco and elevated transaminases were three risk factors which could improve the strategy for HCC screening in Caucasian cirrhotic patients without hepatitis B or C.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据