RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The decision of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) initiation and/or repetition remains challenging in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim was to develop a prognostic scoring system to guide TACE initiation/repetition. METHODS: A total of 597 consecutive patients who underwent TACE as their initial treatment for unresectable HCC were included. We derived a prediction model using independent risk factors for overall survival (OS), which was externally validated in an independent cohort (n = 739). RESULTS: Independent risk factors of OS included Albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade, maximal tumor size, alpha-fetoprotein, and tumor response to initial TACE, which were used to develop a scoring system ("ASAR"). C-index values for OS were 0.733 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.570-0.871) in the derivation, 0.700 (95% CI = 0.445-0.905) in the internal validation, and 0.680 (95% CI = 0.652-0.707) in the external validation, respectively. Patients with ASAR< 4 showed significantly longer OS than patients with ASAR≥4 in all three datasets (all P < 0.001). Among Child-Pugh class B patients, a modified model without TACE response, i.e., "ASA(R)", discriminated OS with a c-index of 0.788 (95% CI, 0.703-0.876) in the derivation, and 0.745 (95% CI, 0.646-0.862) in the internal validation, and 0.670 (95% CI, 0.605-0.725) in the external validation, respectively. Child-Pugh B patients with ASA(R) < 4 showed significantly longer OS than patients with ASA(R) ≥ 4 in all three datasets (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ASAR provides refined prognostication for repetition of TACE in patients with unresectable HCC. For Child-Pugh class B patients, a modified model with baseline factors might guide TACE initiation.
Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/administração & dosagem , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/terapia , Quimioembolização Terapêutica/métodos , Cirrose Hepática/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Hepáticas/terapia , Idoso , Bilirrubina/análise , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/sangue , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/patologia , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/fisiopatologia , Tomada de Decisão Clínica/métodos , Doxorrubicina/administração & dosagem , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Fígado/patologia , Fígado/fisiopatologia , Cirrose Hepática/sangue , Cirrose Hepática/patologia , Cirrose Hepática/fisiopatologia , Testes de Função Hepática , Neoplasias Hepáticas/sangue , Neoplasias Hepáticas/patologia , Neoplasias Hepáticas/fisiopatologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Modelos Biológicos , Critérios de Avaliação de Resposta em Tumores Sólidos , Medição de Risco/métodos , Fatores de Risco , Albumina Sérica/análise , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Análise de SobrevidaRESUMO
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.