4.5 Article

Impact of hepatitis C virus on survival in patients undergoing resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Report of a Japanese nationwide survey

期刊

HEPATOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 51, 期 8, 页码 890-901

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/hepr.13676

关键词

cholangiocarcinoma; hepatectomy; hepatitis viruses; prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Through 1:1 propensity score-matching, it was found that HCV infection increases the risk of recurrence and worsens overall survival in patients with MF and MF + PI type ICC after surgery.
Aim We reviewed the data of a nationwide follow-up survey to determine the impact of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection on the outcomes of hepatectomy for mass-forming (MF) type, and combined mass-forming and periductal infiltrating (MF + PI) type intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). Methods In total, 956 patients with ICC who underwent curative hepatic resection were included in this cohort study, and patients were classified according to virus status. Patients were classified according to virus status as follows: HCV-related ICC (n = 138, 14.4%), hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related ICC (n = 43, 4.5%) and non-virus-related ICC (n = 775, 81.1%). To control for variables, we used 1:1 propensity score-matching to compare outcomes after surgery between HCV-related (n = 102) and non-virus-related ICC cases (n = 102). Results We successfully matched HCV-related and non-virus-related ICC cases with similar liver function and tumor characteristics. Patients with HCV-related ICC had significantly shorter recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.42-0.92, p = 0.016) and overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.57, 95% confidence interval: 0.37-0.88, p = 0.011) than patients with non-virus-related ICC. Cox proportional hazard analysis showed that HCV-related ICC offered a worse prognosis than non-virus-related ICC. Conclusions HCV infection increases the risk of recurrence and worsens overall survival in patients after curative resection for MF and combined MF + PI type ICC.

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

4.5
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