Defining the severity of liver dysfunction in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma by the model for end-stage liver disease-derived systems

被引:14
|
作者
Lee, Yun-Hsuan [2 ]
Hsu, Chia-Yang [2 ,7 ]
Hsia, Cheng-Yuan [2 ,5 ]
Huang, Yi-Hsiang [3 ]
Su, Chien-Wei [2 ]
Lin, Han-Chieh [2 ]
Loong, Che-Chuan [2 ,5 ]
Chiou, Yi-You [2 ,6 ]
Huo, Teh-Ia [1 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Taipei Vet Gen Hosp, Dept Med, Div Gastroenterol, Taipei 112, Taiwan
[2] Natl Yang Ming Univ, Sch Med, Fac Med, Taipei 112, Taiwan
[3] Natl Yang Ming Univ, Sch Med, Inst Clin Med, Taipei 112, Taiwan
[4] Natl Yang Ming Univ, Sch Med, Inst Pharmacol, Taipei 112, Taiwan
[5] Taipei Vet Gen Hosp, Dept Surg, Taipei 112, Taiwan
[6] Taipei Vet Gen Hosp, Dept Radiol, Taipei 112, Taiwan
[7] Natl Yang Ming Univ Hosp, Dept Med, Yilan, Taiwan
关键词
Hepatocellular carcinoma; MELD; MELDNa; MELD-Na; ReFit MELDNa; INTEGRATED SCORING SYSTEM; TRANSARTERIAL CHEMOEMBOLIZATION; PROGNOSTIC PREDICTOR; CIRRHOSIS; MELD; SURVIVAL; TRANSPLANTATION; MANAGEMENT; ASCITES; RISK;
D O I
10.1016/j.dld.2012.04.018
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and serum sodium (Na) are important markers for liver functional reserve in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to determine the best model to define the severity of liver dysfunction in terms of outcome prediction among the 4 currently used systems (MELD, MELDNa, MELD-Na and ReFit MELDNa). Methods: A total of 2308 prospectively enrolled patients with hepatocellular carcinoma were analysed. The prognostic ability was compared by the Akaike information criterion. Results: MELDNa had the best prognostic accuracy overall, and for patients receiving curative and non-curative treatments, followed by MELD-Na, MELD and ReFit MELDNa. When patients were categorized into <8, 8-12, 12-16, 16-20 and >20, the adjusted risk ratios for MELDNa were 1.065 (p = 0.46), 0.996 (p = 0.973), 1.38(p = 0.048) and 1.563 (p = 0.003) for the scores of 8-12, 12-16, 16-20 and >20, respectively, compared to the group with scores <8. The adjusted risk ratio for MELDNa was 1.014 (95% confidence interval, 1.001-1.027; p = 0.034) per unit score increment in the Cox model. Conclusions: The MELDNa is the best marker to define the severity of liver dysfunction in hepatocellular carcinoma patients independent of treatment strategy. The ReFit MELDNa does not enhance the predictive accuracy of the MELD. (C) 2012 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:868 / 874
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Assessing liver dysfunction in cirrhosis: Role of the model for end-stage liver disease and its derived systems
    Lee, Yun-Hsuan
    Hsu, Chia-Yang
    Huo, Teh-Ia
    JOURNAL OF THE CHINESE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2013, 76 (08) : 419 - 424
  • [2] Significance of Incorporation of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Score with TNM Staging in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Undergoing Hepatic Resection
    Ling, Ching-Hsien
    Chau, Gar-Yang
    Hsia, Chen-Yuan
    King, Kuang-Liang
    HEPATO-GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2013, 60 (125) : 1142 - 1147
  • [3] Comparison of five models for end-stage liver disease in predicting the survival rate of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma
    Hong, Ying-Fen
    Chen, Zhan-Hong
    Ma, Xiao-Kun
    Li, Xing
    Wu, Dong-Hao
    Chen, Jie
    Dong, Min
    Wei, Li
    Wang, Tian-Tian
    Ruan, Dan-Yun
    Lin, Ze-Xiao
    Wen, Jing-Yun
    Lin, Qu
    Jia, Chang-Chang
    Wu, Xiang-Yuan
    TUMOR BIOLOGY, 2016, 37 (04) : 5265 - 5273
  • [4] Survival After Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease and Pre-Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Eras and the Independent Impact of Hepatitis C Virus
    Thuluvath, Paul J.
    Maheshwari, Anurag
    Thuluvath, Nimisha P.
    Nguyen, Geoffrey C.
    Segev, Dorry L.
    LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, 2009, 15 (07) : 754 - 762
  • [5] The sequential changes of the model for end-stage liver disease score correlate with the severity of liver cirrhosis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing locoregional therapy
    Huo, Teh-Ia
    Lee, Pui-Ching
    Huang, Yi-Hsiang
    Wu, Jaw-Ching
    Lin, Han-Chieh
    Chiang, Jen-Huei
    Lee, Shou-Dong
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2006, 40 (06) : 543 - 550
  • [6] Value of the model for end-stage liver disease for predicting survival in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with transarterial chemoembolization
    Kim, Jeong Han
    Kim, Ji Hoon
    Choi, Jong Hwan
    Kim, Chung Ho
    Jung, Young Kul
    Yim, Hyung Joon
    Yeon, Jong Eun
    Park, Jong-Jae
    Kim, Jae Seon
    Bak, Young-Tae
    Byun, Kwan Soo
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2009, 44 (03) : 346 - 357
  • [7] The Effect of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease 3.0 on Disparities between Patients with and without Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Korea
    Kim, Kunhee
    Kim, Deok-Gie
    Lee, Jae Geun
    Joo, Dong Jin
    Lee, Hye Won
    YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2023, 64 (11) : 647 - 657
  • [8] Model for End-Stage Liver Disease and Sodium Velocity Predicts Overall Survival in Nonmetastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients
    Tang, Justin Y.
    Ohri, Nitin
    Kabarriti, Rafi
    Aparo, Santiago
    Chuy, Jennifer
    Goel, Sanjay
    Schwartz, Jonathan M.
    Kinkhabwala, Milan
    Kaubisch, Andreas
    Guha, Chandan
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, 2018, 2018
  • [9] MELDEQ: An Alternative Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Score for Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma
    Marvin, Michael R.
    Ferguson, Nicole
    Cannon, Robert M.
    Jones, Christopher M.
    Brock, Guy N.
    LIVER TRANSPLANTATION, 2015, 21 (05) : 612 - 622
  • [10] Selecting a Short-term Prognostic Model for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Comparison Between the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD), MELD-sodium, and Five Cancer Staging Systems
    Huo, Teh-Ia
    Hsia, Cheng-Yuan
    Huang, Yi-Hsiang
    Lin, Han-Chieh
    Lee, Pui-Ching
    Lui, Wing-Yiu
    Chiang, Jen-Huei
    Chiou, Yi-You
    Loong, Che-Chuan
    Lee, Shou-Dong
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2009, 43 (08) : 773 - 781