首页> 外文期刊>Liver international : >Applicability of BCLC stage for prognostic stratification in comparison with other staging systems: Single centre experience from long-term clinical outcomes of 1717 treatment-na?ve patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
【24h】

Applicability of BCLC stage for prognostic stratification in comparison with other staging systems: Single centre experience from long-term clinical outcomes of 1717 treatment-na?ve patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

机译:与其他分期系统相比,BCLC分期在预后分层中的适用性:来自1717例初治肝癌患者长期临床结果的单中心经验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: The most informative staging system regarding survival outcomes for treatment-na?ve hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains debated. We evaluated prognostic values of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage compared with other staging systems, and identified discrepancies between treatment options chosen in Korean clinical practice and BCLC guidelines. Methods: Between 2003 and 2008, 1717 prospectively enrolled patients with treatment-na?ve HCC were analysed. Prognostic ability of each staging system was assessed using time-dependent receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Results: The most common aetiology was hepatitis B virus (1238, 72.1%); 167 (9.8%) patients were classified as BCLC stage 0, 526 (30.6%) as A, 333 (19.4%) as B, 608 (35.4%) as C and 83 (4.8%) as D. Median overall survival was 22.5 months, and 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year survival rates were 62.6, 48.3, 39.9, 34.7, and 29.3% respectively. Of six staging systems, BCLC had the highest area under ROC (AUROC; 0.821) for overall survival, followed by JIS (0.809), Tokyo score (0.771), CLIP (0.746), CUPI (0.701) and GRETCH (0.685) system. In both subgroups stratified according to treatment strategy (curative vs. palliative), BCLC also showed the best AUROCs (curative, 0.708/palliative, 0.807) for overall survival. Regarding discrepancies between treatment options chosen in our cohort and BCLC guidelines, more than half with very early/early-stage HCC underwent transarterial chemoembolization, rather than resection or local ablative therapy; most of those with advanced-stage HCC received intra-arterial chemotherapy-based treatments rather than sorafenib. Conclusion: BCLC was the best long-term prognostic model for treatment-na?ve HCC in a large-scale Korean cohort. However, treatment modalities did not exactly match BCLC paradigm.
机译:背景:关于初治肝细胞癌(HCC)生存结果的最有用的分期系统仍存在争议。我们评估了巴塞罗那临床肝癌(BCLC)阶段与其他分期系统相比的预后价值,并确定了韩国临床实践中选择的治疗方案与BCLC指南之间的差异。方法:2003年至2008年间,对1717例未接受过治疗的初治肝癌患者进行了分析。每个分期系统的预后能力使用时间依赖性的接收者操作特征(ROC)曲线进行评估。结果:最常见的病因是乙型肝炎病毒(1238,占72.1%)。 167名(9.8%)患者被分类为BCLC 0期,526名(30.6%)被分类为A,333名(19.4%)被分类为B,608名(35.4%)被分类为C,83名(4.8%)被分类为D.中位总生存率为22.5 1、2、3、4和5年生存率分别为62.6%,48.3、39.9、34.7和29.3%。在六个分期系统中,BCLC的总体生存率在ROC(AUROC; 0.821)下最高,其次是JIS(0.809),Tokyo评分(0.771),CLIP(0.746),CUPI(0.701)和GRETCH(0.685)系统。在根据治疗策略(治愈性与姑息性)分层的两个亚组中,BCLC还显示出总体生存期最佳的AUROC(治愈性,0.708 /姑息性,0.807)。关于我们队列研究和BCLC指南中选择的治疗方案之间的差异,超过一半的HCC处于早期/早期阶段的患者接受了经动脉化学栓塞治疗,而不是切除或局部消融治疗;大多数晚期肝癌患者接受基于动脉化疗的治疗,而不是索拉非尼。结论:在大规模韩国人群中,BCLC是初治肝癌的最佳长期预后模型。但是,治疗方式与BCLC范式不完全匹配。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号