4.5 Article

Different Risk Factors for Early and Late Recurrence After Curative Resection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 197-206

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-021-06308-9

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Seoul National University Hospital [H-1809-001-967]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study identified different clinical factors associated with early and late recurrence after curative resection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Tumor size was associated with early recurrence, while liver stiffness measurement (LSM) was associated with late recurrence. An LSM cut-off value of 7.4 kPa is recommended for predicting recurrence.
Background Factors of early and late recurrence after curative resection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) may be different. The aim of this study was to identify clinical factors, including liver stiffness measurement (LSM), which are associated with HCC recurrence after curative resection. Methods Patients who underwent preoperative LSM and primary curative resection for HCC between October 2015 and May 2018 were retrospectively reviewed, with 1 year as the cut-off between early and late recurrence. Results Recurrence was observed in 42/149 (28.2%) patients over a median follow-up of 38.3 months (early recurrence: 10 [6.7%] patients; late recurrence: 32 [21.5%] patients). Multivariate analysis identified LSM (P = 0.026) and tumor size (P = 0.010) as the only factors that were significantly associated with recurrence-free survival. Compared with patients without recurrence, those with early recurrence had larger tumor size (P = 0.035) and those with late recurrence had higher LSM (P = 0.024). Receiver-operating characteristic analysis indicated that the optimal LSM cut-off value for predicting HCC recurrence was 7.4 kPa. Conclusion Tumor size was associated with early HCC recurrence after curative resection and LSM was associated with late recurrence. LSM cut-off of 7.4 kPa is recommended in predicting recurrence.

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