4.7 Article

Serum M2BPGi level and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma after oral anti-viral therapy in patients with chronic hepatitis B

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 48, 期 10, 页码 1128-1137

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.15006

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology [MOST 105-2314-B-650-001-MY2]
  2. Cathay General Hospital [106-CGH-FJU-09]
  3. Tomorrow Medical Foundation [107-2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Mac-2 binding protein glycosylation isomer (M2BPGi) is an emerging biomarker for risk prediction of liver disease, but data remain sparse for patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) who are treated with nucleos(t)ide analogues (NA). Aim Methods To clarify serial changes in M2BPGi and its association with subsequent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) development in NA-treated CHB patients. We enrolled 384 previously untreated CHB patients who received NAs. Among them, 195 had baseline cirrhosis (n = 142:48:5 for Child A:B:C). Sera were collected at NA initiation, and after 1 and 2 years. Serum M2BPGi levels were measured and expressed as cut-off index (COI) at different time points. The association between M2BPGi and HCC was evaluated by the Cox proportional hazard model. Results Conclusions The median M2BPGi levels significantly decreased from 1.68 COI at baseline, to 1.0 at year 1, and 0.88 at year 2. During median follow-up of 72.7 months, HCC occurred in 37 patients, 36 of whom had cirrhosis. In patients with cirrhosis, baseline M2BPGi level was associated with HCC risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07 per COI; 95% CI, 1.01-1.14) on the multivariable Cox analysis, whereas levels at year 1 or 2 were not independently predictive. A risk score for HCC was developed using baseline M2BPGi, age and body mass index with c statistics of 0.77, 0.79 and 0.87 at 3, 5 and 10 years, respectively. Serum M2BPGi level significantly decreases after NA treatment in CHB patients. Baseline level can be factored into the risk prediction of HCC in NA-treated patients with cirrhosis.

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