4.7 Article

Simple new clinical score to predict hepatocellular carcinoma after sustained viral response with direct-acting antivirals

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-36052-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a scoring system was developed to accurately predict the occurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after viral eradication with direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy using data from the optimal time point. The scoring system was developed based on factors at SVR12, including diabetes, the fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index, and the alpha-fetoprotein level. This simple scoring system accurately evaluates HCC risk after DAA treatment.
The time point of the most precise predictor of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) development after viral eradication with direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy is unclear. In this study we developed a scoring system that can accurately predict the occurrence of HCC using data from the optimal time point. A total of 1683 chronic hepatitis C patients without HCC who achieved sustained virological response (SVR) with DAA therapy were split into a training set (999 patients) and a validation set (684 patients). The most accurate predictive scoring system to estimate HCC incidence was developed using each of the factors at baseline, end of treatment, and SVR at 12 weeks (SVR12). Multivariate analysis identified diabetes, the fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index, and the alpha-fetoprotein level as independent factors at SVR12 that contributed to HCC development. A prediction model was constructed with these factors that ranged from 0 to 6 points. No HCC was observed in the low-risk group. Five-year cumulative incidence rates of HCC were 1.9% in the intermediate-risk group and 15.3% in the high-risk group. The prediction model at SVR12 most accurately predicted HCC development compared with other time points. This simple scoring system combining factors at SVR12 can accurately evaluate HCC risk after DAA treatment.

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