Premium
An Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital/Portal Vein Tumor Thrombus Scoring System as an Aid to Decision Making on Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients With Portal Vein Tumor Thrombus: A Multicenter Study
Author(s) -
Zhang XiuPing,
Gao YuZhen,
Chen ZhenHua,
Chen MinShan,
Li LeQun,
Wen TianFu,
Xu Li,
Wang Kang,
Chai ZongTao,
Guo WeiXing,
Shi Jie,
Xie Dong,
Wu MengChao,
Yee Lau Wan,
Cheng ShuQun
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
hepatology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 5.488
H-Index - 361
eISSN - 1527-3350
pISSN - 0270-9139
DOI - 10.1002/hep.30490
Subject(s) - medicine , hepatocellular carcinoma , hepatectomy , radiology , retrospective cohort study , receiver operating characteristic , cohort , portal vein , prospective cohort study , proportional hazards model , thrombus , surgery , resection
Portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT) is a significant poor prognostic factor for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Patients with PVTT limited to a first‐order branch of the main portal vein (MPV) or above could benefit from negative margin (R0) liver resection (LR). An Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital (EHBH)/PVTT scoring system was established to predict the prognosis of HCC patients with PVTT after R0 LR and guide selection of subgroups of patients that could benefit from LR. HCC patients with PVTT limited to a first‐order branch of the MPV or above who underwent R0 LR as an initial therapy were included. The EHBH‐PVTT score was developed from a retrospective cohort in the training cohort using a Cox regression model and validated in a prospective internal validation cohort and three external validation cohorts. There were 432 patients in the training cohort, 285 in the prospective internal validation cohort, and 286, 189, and 135 in three external validation cohorts, respectively. The score was calculated using total bilirubin, α‐fetoprotein (AFP), tumor diameter, and satellite lesions. The EHBH‐PVTT score differentiated two groups of patients (≤/>3 points) with distinct long‐term prognoses (median overall survival [OS], 17.0 vs. 7.9 months; P < 0.001). Predictive accuracy, as determined by the area under the time‐dependent receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs; 0.680‐0.721), was greater than that of the other commonly used staging systems for HCC and PVTT. Conclusion: The EHBH‐PVTT scoring system was more accurate in predicting the prognosis of HCC patients with PVTT than other staging systems after LR. It selected appropriate HCC patients with PVTT limited to a first‐order branch of the MPV or above for LR. It can be used to supplement the other HCC staging systems.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom