4.7 Article

Alpha-fetoprotein above normal levels as a risk factor for the development of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients infected with hepatitis C virus

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 92-100

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s00535-010-0293-6

关键词

Alpha-fetoprotein; Hepatitis C virus; Hepatocellular carcinoma

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Noninvasive risk factors are required for predicting the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) not only in patients with cirrhosis but also in those with chronic hepatitis who are infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV). Methods A total of 707 patients with chronic HCV infection without other risks were evaluated for the predictive value of noninvasive risk factors for HCC, including age, sex, viral load, genotype, fibrosis stage, aspartate and alanine aminotransferase levels, bilirubin, albumin, platelet count, and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) at entry to the study, as well as interferon (IFN) therapy they received. Results The ten-year cumulative incidence rates of HCC for patients with fibrosis stages F0/F1, F2, F3, and F4 were 2.5, 12.8, 19.3, and 55.9%, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified age >= 57 years [hazard ratio (HR) 2.026, P = 0.004], fibrosis stage F4 (HR 3.957, P < 0.001), and AFP 6-20 ng/mL (HR 1.942, P = 0.030) and >= 20 ng/mL (HR 3.884, P < 0.001), as well as the response to IFN [relative risk (RR) 0.099, P < 0.001], as independent risk factors for the development of HCC. The ten-year cumulative incidence rates of HCC in the patients with AFP levels of <6, 6-20, and >= 20 ng/mL at entry were 6.0, 24.6, and 47.3%, respectively. Conclusions Not only high (>20 ng/mL), but also even slightly elevated (6-20 ng/mL) AFP levels, could serve as a risk factor for HCC to complement the fibrosis stage. In contrast, AFP levels <6 ng/mL indicate a low risk of HCC development in patients infected with HCV, irrespective of the fibrosis stage.

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