4.7 Article

The effect of oral contraceptive pill cessation on hepatocellular adenoma diameter: A retrospective cohort study

期刊

LIVER INTERNATIONAL
卷 39, 期 5, 页码 905-913

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/liv.14074

关键词

hepatocellular adenoma; oral contraceptive pill; regression; treatment algorithm

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims Hepatocellular adenomas (HCA) are rare, hormone-driven, benign liver tumours. HCA >50 mm are associated with haemorrhage and malignant transformation. Guidelines recommend cessation of oral contraceptive pills (OCP) for size reduction; however, it is currently unknown how HCA respond to cessation of OCP. We sought to investigate the effect of OCP cessation on HCA size. Methods A retrospective cohort study was performed including HCA patients who stopped OCP intake within 6 months of imaging between 2005 and 2018. Biometrics and hormonal medication use were evaluated with self-designed questionnaires. Response of the largest HCA was evaluated according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECISTv1.1). Cox regression was performed for analysis of factors influencing HCA regression. Results Seventy-eight HCA patients were included, diagnosed at a median (interquartile range) age of 32 (26-41) years. Follow-up was 1.6 (0.4-2.9) years. HCA size at diagnosis ranged 10-167 mm. After a median time of 1.3 (0.6-2.6) years after OCP cessation, 37.2% of HCA showed >= 30% regression, 5.1% complete regression, 56.4% stability and 1.3% progression. No HCA-induced complications were observed during follow-up. Cox regression analysis demonstrated a significant association of HCA size with rate of regression; 50 <= HCA < 100 mm (HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.1-5.3; P < 0.05), HCA >= 100 mm (HR 8.3, 95% CI 3.3-21.6; P < 0.001). Conclusions Ninety-eight per cent of HCA remained stable or regressed after OCP cessation. A longer wait-and-see period was associated with a larger proportion of regressing HCA, without HCA-related complications during follow-up.

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