4.7 Article

Patients with isolated polycystic liver disease referred to liver centres: clinical characterization of 137 cases

期刊

LIVER INTERNATIONAL
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 92-98

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1478-3231.2010.02247.x

关键词

clinical characterization; liver cyst; PCLD; polycystic liver disease; PRKCSH; SEC63

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aim: Isolated polycystic liver disease (PCLD) is characterized by the presence of multiple cysts in the liver in the absence of polycystic kidneys. The clinical profile of PCLD is poorly defined and we set up a study for the clinical characteristics of PCLD. Methods: We collected clinical data on 188 PCLD patients (defined as 410 liver cysts) from five tertiary referral centres, and 137 patients were selected for the purpose of this study. We performed molecular analysis of the PCLD associated genes PRKCSH and SEC63 in 91 patients. Results: A total of 118 (86%) patients were female. The majority of patients (88%) had 420 cysts. The median age at diagnosis was 47 years (range 23-84). 37 (41%) patients carried a mutation. Clinical symptoms at presentation were present in 111 (84%) patients. gamma-glutamyl transferase was elevated to 1.4 times upper limit of normal (interquartile range 1.0-2.7). The presence of a mutation and female gender predicted a more severe course: female patients were 9 years younger at the time of diagnosis (47 years; range 23-84) and 91% had symptoms (P < 0.01); likewise, mutation carriers were younger at presentation (39 years; range 35-48) and 95% of this cohort had symptoms (P < 0.01). During follow-up [median 8.2 years (range 0-35)], 10% of untreated and 51% of treated patients developed complications. Mortality in this cohort was 8%, but only 2% died of PCLD-related causes. 58% of patients were treated a median of 2 years (range 0-25) after diagnosis. Conclusion: Symptomatic PCLD patients are mainly females. Females and mutation carriers were younger at diagnosis and had a more severe course of disease.

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