Improved survival prediction and comparison of prognostic models for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib.

BACKGROUND: The 'Prediction Of Survival in Advanced Sorafenib-treated HCC' (PROSASH) model addressed the heterogeneous survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with sorafenib in clinical trials but requires validation in daily clinical practice. This study aimed to validate, compare and optimize this model for survival prediction. METHODS: Patients treated with sorafenib for HCC at five tertiary European centres were retrospectively staged according to the PROSASH model. In addition, the optimized PROSASH-II model was developed using the data of four centres (training set) and tested in an independent dataset. These models for overall survival (OS) were then compared with existing prognostic models. RESULTS: The PROSASH model was validated in 445 patients, showing clear differences between the four risk groups (OS 16.9-4.6 months). A total of 920 patients (n = 615 in training set, n = 305 in validation set) were available to develop PROSASH-II. This optimized model incorporated fewer and less subjective parameters: the serum albumin, bilirubin and alpha-foetoprotein, and macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic spread and largest tumour size on imaging. Both PROSASH and PROSASH-II showed improved discrimination (C-index 0.62 and 0.63, respectively) compared with existing prognostic scores (C-index ≤0.59). CONCLUSIONS: In HCC patients treated with sorafenib, individualized prediction of survival and risk group stratification using baseline prognostic and predictive parameters with the PROSASH model was validated. The refined PROSASH-II model performed at least as good with fewer and more objective parameters. PROSASH-II can be used as a tool for tailored treatment of HCC in daily practice and to define pre-planned subgroups for future studies.

Quality-of-life benefits of catheter ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation: a reanalysis of data from the SARA study.

AIMS: The recently published SARA study was a prospective, multi-centre randomized controlled trial that compared CA to antiarrhythmic drug therapy (ADT) in 146 patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). The study found that recurrence of AF or atrial flutter occurred significantly less often in the CA arm compared to the ADT arm (29.6% vs. 56.3%, p = 0.002). Despite this clear superiority in terms of efficacy, the authors were not able to demonstrate a corresponding Quality of Life (QoL) improvement. We sought to investigate this apparent disparity using alternative analytical methods. METHODS AND RESULTS: We were able to show that a high coefficient of variation existed for all QoL measures at each time point which may explain the lack of statistical difference originally reported. We reanalyzed the raw QoL data from the SARA study using paired sample t-tests for the change in QOL for individual patients between baseline and 12 month (final) follow up. For patients randomized to ADT the difference in QoL after 12 months was not significant for any of the four QoL domains (global, physical, psychological and sexual) whereas for patients randomized to CA all comparisons were significant (global, p < 0.001; physical, p = 0.001; psychological, p < 0.001; sexual, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: In the SARA study, after 12 months' follow up, CA significantly improved QoL for patients with persistent AF whereas medical therapy had no appreciable effect.