SCI 발표논문

SCI 발표논문

← SCI 발표논문 목록

Gut Liver. 2018;12(5):571-582.

Assessment of the Surveillance Interval at 1 Year after Curative Treatment in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Risk Stratification.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

제1저자 이민종 · 교신저자 김윤준

소속 (5)
  1. Department of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
  2. Department of Internal Medicine, Kangwon National University Hospital, Chuncheon, Korea.
  3. Department of Biostatistics, Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
  4. Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
  5. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS Guidelines recommend surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence at 3-month intervals during the first year after curative treatment and 6-month intervals thereafter in all patients. This strategy does not reflect individual risk of recurrence. We aimed to stratify risk of recurrence to optimize surveillance intervals 1 year after treatment.

METHODS We retrospectively analyzed 1,316 HCC patients treated with resection/radiofrequency ablation at Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0/A. In patients without 1-year recurrence under 3-monthly surveillance, a new model for recurrence was developed using backward elimination methods: training (n=582)/validation cohorts (n=291). Overall survival (OS) according to risk stratified by the new model was compared according to surveillance intervals: 3-monthly versus 6-monthly (n=401) after lead time bias correction and propensity-score matching analyses.

RESULTS Among patients without 1-year recurrence, age and international normalized ratio values were significant factors for recurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.03; p=0.009 and HR, 5.63; 95% CI, 2.24 to 14.18; p<0.001; respectively). High-risk patients stratified by the new model showed significantly higher recurrence rates than low-risk patients in the validation cohort (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.18 to 2.53; p=0.005). After propensity-score matching between the 3-monthly and 6-monthly surveillance groups, OS in high-risk patients under 3-monthly surveillance was significantly higher than that under 6-monthly surveillance (p=0.04); however, OS in low-risk patients under 3-monthly surveillance was not significantly different from that under 6-monthly surveillance (p=0.17).

CONCLUSIONS In high-risk patients, 3-monthly surveillance can prolong survival compared to 6-monthly surveillance. However, in low-risk patients, 3-monthly surveillance might not be beneficial for survival compared to 6-monthly surveillance.

Keywords

Carcinoma, hepatocellularCurative treatmentRisk stratificationSurveillance interval

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1 Patients flow diagram. RFA, radio-frequency ablation; TACE, trans-arterial chemo-embolization; PEI, percutaneous ethanol injection; CTP, Child-Turcotte-Pugh; BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCV, hepatitis C virus; AS score, assessment for surveillance interval score.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2 Clinical outcomes of low- and high-risk patients based on assessment for surveillance interval scores. (A) In the training cohort, the cumulative recurrence rates of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients were significantly higher than those in low-risk patients (p=0.003). (B) In the validation cohort, the cumulative recurrence rates of HCC in high-risk patients were significantly higher than those in low-risk patients (p=0.005). (C) In the total population, overall survival (OS) rates in low-risk patients were significantly higher than those in high-risk patients (p<0.001). (D) In the total population, the complication rates of cirrhosis in high-risk patients were significantly higher than those in low-risk patients (p<0.001).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3 Comparison of survival rates after propensity-score matching between patients under 6-monthly surveillance 1 year after curative treatment and those under 3-monthly surveillance. (A) The cumulative survival rates of low-risk patients under 6-monthly surveillance 1 year after curative treatment were not significantly different from those under 3-monthly surveillance (p=0.17). (B) The cumulative survival rates of high-risk patients under 3-monthly surveillance were significantly higher than those of high-risk patients under 6-monthly surveillance 1 year after curative treatment (p=0.04).

그림 출처: PubMed Central 공개 논문 (PMC6143446)

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

그 밖의 정보
출판 형태
Evaluation Study, Journal Article
저널
Gut and liver · eISSN 2005-1212
MeSH
Aged · Carcinoma, Hepatocellular / diagnosis / surgery · Female · Hepatectomy / statistics & numerical data · Humans · Liver Neoplasms / diagnosis / surgery · Male · Middle Aged · Neoplasm Recurrence, Local / diagnosis · Population Surveillance / methods · Propensity Score · Proportional Hazards Models · Radiofrequency Ablation / statistics & numerical data · Retrospective Studies · Risk Assessment / methods · Time Factors*
참고문헌
28편