4.4 Article

Noninvasive Tests for Fibrosis Predict 5-Year Mortality and Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Chronic Hepatitis B

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 50, 期 10, 页码 882-888

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000574

关键词

liver fibrosis; mortality; hepatocellular carcinoma; chronic hepatitis B

资金

  1. Konkuk University Medical Center Research Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Goals:To evaluate the degree of liver fibrosis as a predictor of mortality and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) development among patients with chronic hepatitis B.Background:The level of fibrosis predicts mortality and liver-related complications.Study:A total of 542 patients over 18 years old with chronic hepatitis B who visited the Konkuk University Hospital between the years 2005 and 2006 were enrolled. We performed noninvasive tests of fibrosis (APRI, FIB-4) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels. The data on mortality and newly developed HCC collected during a 5-year follow-up were analyzed.Results:In 5 years, 40 patients died and 68 patients developed HCC. The area under the receiver operator characteristic (AUROC) curve of APRI, FIB-4, and HBV DNA levels for mortality was 0.760, 0.789, and 0.463, with cut-off points at 0.766, 2.671, and 3.150, respectively. The AUROC curve of APRI, FIB-4, and HBV DNA levels for HCC was 0.731, 0.803, and 0.523, with cut-off points at 0.766, 2.225, and 4.245, respectively. APRI and FIB-4 were predictors of mortality and HCC development, where patients with APRI over 0.766 had a greater risk of death [odds ratio (OR)=3.214, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.009-10.238] and HCC development (OR=4.245, 95% CI, 1.723-10.456). Patients with FIB-4>2.671 had a higher risk of death (OR=4.431, 95% CI, 1.512-12.986) and those over 2.225 had a greater risk of developing HCC (OR=3.607, 95% CI, 1.622-8.021).Conclusions:APRI and FIB-4 may be more useful than HBV DNA level in predicting 5-year mortality and development of HCC.

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

4.4
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