4.3 Article

The role of albumin-bilirubin grade and inflammation-based index in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy

期刊

STRAHLENTHERAPIE UND ONKOLOGIE
卷 194, 期 5, 页码 403-413

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00066-017-1256-0

关键词

SBRT; HCC; ALBI; IBI; Liver function

资金

  1. Berta Ottenstein Programme, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We evaluated the prognostic accuracy of the albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade and the inflammation-based index (IBI) in estimating overall survival (OS) and toxicity in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Forty patients with 47 HCC lesions with a Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) classification stage B or C were treated with SBRT in 3-12 fractions. The ALBI grade and the IBI were calculated at different time points (baseline, during, at the end of treatment and at follow-up) and compared with the Child-Pugh (CP) score as well as other patient- and treatment-related parameters, concerning OS and toxicity. The median follow-up was 14.3 months for patients alive. The median OS from SBRT was 10 (95% confidence interval 8.3-11.6) months. The local control at 1 year was 79%. A lower IBI during treatment was associated with better OS (paEuro= 0.034) but not CP and ALBI. Higher CaEuroreactive protein levels as well as higher alpha-fetoprotein concentrations correlated with worse survival (paEuro= 0.001). Both higher ALBI (paEuro= 0.02) and CTP (paEuro= 0.001) at baseline correlated with a higher incidence of acute and late toxicities (CTC ae2). Neither the mean radiation dose to the liver nor the dose to 700aEurocc of the liver correlated with the occurrence of toxicities. In this analysis, a higher ALBI grade as well as a higher CP were predictors of higher incidence of toxicity, whereas a lower IBI during treatment correlated with a better OS. These results should be further evaluated in prospective studies.

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

4.3
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