4.2 Article

Predictors of 5 year survival rate in hepatocellular carcinoma patients

期刊

出版社

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/jrms.JRMS_1017_18

关键词

Five-year survival rate; hepatocellular carcinomas; prognostic factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common primary hepatic malignancies and growing challenges of global health. In this study, for the first time in Iran, we investigated the 5-year survival rate and prognostic factors in patients with HCC. Materials and Methods: In this historical cohort study, we examined the medical records of 227 HCC patients who were registered in the central tumor registry of our institution from September 2007 to September 2017. Demographic data, clinical parameters, received treatments, and survival curves from time of diagnosis were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier was used for univariate analysis, and multivariable analysis was performed by Cox regression. Results: A total of 208 (91.63%) patients were dead. The 5-year survival rate was estimated 19 (8.37%). The average follow-up in this study was 14.3 months. Overall median survival rate was 12.1 months. Univariate analysis showed that tumor size, metastasis, number of involved lymph node, hepatitis type, and treatment were significantly related to the survival rate, and Cox regression analysis revealed that the tumor size >3 cm (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.68-4.97; P = 0.027), involved lymph nodes >2 (HR = 4.12, 95% CI = 2.66-6.38; P = 0.001), metastasis (HR = 3.87, 95% CI = 3.13-6.54; P = 0.011), combination therapy with surgery and chemotherapy (HR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.15-0.79; P = 0.023), and coinfection with hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus (HR = 2.11, 95% CI = 1.81-4.6; P = 0.036) are the most relevant prognostic factors with 5-year survival rate in patients with HCC. Conclusion: Results of this study will help estimate survival rates for patients with HCC according to their clinical status.

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

4.2
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