Document Detail

Prognostic indicators in hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review of 72 studies.
Jump to Full Text
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  19141028     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
BACKGROUND: Although there are many studies of the predictors of death in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), most combine patients with and without cirrhosis and many combine those with compensated and decompensated cirrhosis.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of the literature evaluating the predictors of death in patients with cirrhosis and HCC and to evaluate whether the predictors differ between patients with compensated and decompensated cirrhosis.
METHODS:
INCLUSION CRITERIA: (i) publication in English, (ii) adult patients, (c) >80% of the patients had cirrhosis, (iv) follow-up >6 months and (v) multivariable analysis. Quality was based on the accepted quality criteria for prognostic studies.
RESULTS: Of the 1106 references obtained, 947 were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. A total of 23 968 patients were included in 72 studies (median, 177/study); 77% male, median age 64, 55% Child-Pugh class A. The most robust predictors of death were portal vein thrombosis, tumour size, alpha-foetoprotein and Child-Pugh class. Sensitivity analysis using only 15 'good' studies and 22 studies in which all patients had cirrhosis yielded the same variables. In the studies including mostly compensated or decompensated patients, the predictors were both liver and tumour related. However, these studies were few and the results were not robust.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of 72 studies shows that the most robust predictors of death in patients with cirrhosis and HCC are tumour related and liver related. Future prognostic studies should include these predictors and should be performed in specific patient populations to determine whether specific prognostic indicators are more relevant at different stages of cirrhosis.
Authors:
Puneeta Tandon; Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao
Related Documents :
6685108 - The influence of portosystemic shunting on zinc and vitamin a metabolism in liver cirrh...
9834338 - Portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis with variceal hemorrhage.
3394688 - Systemic availability of propionate and acetate in liver cirrhosis.
10628928 - Prediction of the development of hepato-cellular-carcinoma in patients with liver cirrh...
10354168 - Pityriasis rubra pilaris in black south africans.
7815148 - Quantified patterns of mossy fiber sprouting and neuron densities in hippocampal and le...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Review     Date:  2008-12-24
Journal Detail:
Title:  Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver     Volume:  29     ISSN:  1478-3231     ISO Abbreviation:  Liver Int.     Publication Date:  2009 Apr 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2009-03-27     Completed Date:  2009-06-25     Revised Date:  2014-07-30    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  101160857     Medline TA:  Liver Int     Country:  England    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  502-10     Citation Subset:  IM    
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Carcinoma, Hepatocellular / mortality*
Female
Humans
Liver Cirrhosis / mortality*
Liver Neoplasms / mortality*
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Staging
Prognosis
Survival Rate
Comments/Corrections
Comment In:
Liver Int. 2009 Apr;29(4):478-80   [PMID:  19323777 ]

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Full Text
Journal Information
Journal ID (nlm-ta): Liver Int
Journal ID (publisher-id): liv
ISSN: 1478-3223
ISSN: 1478-3231
Publisher: Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Article Information
Download PDF
? 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S
open-access:
Received Day: 28 Month: 8 Year: 2008
Accepted Day: 29 Month: 10 Year: 2008
Print publication date: Month: 4 Year: 2009
Volume: 29 Issue: 4
First Page: 502 Last Page: 510
ID: 2711257
PubMed Id: 19141028
DOI: 10.1111/j.1478-3231.2008.01957.x

Prognostic indicators in hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review of 72 studies
Puneeta Tandon123
Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao12
1Digestive Diseases Section, Yale University School of MedicineNew Haven, CT, USA
2VA Connecticut Healthcare SystemWest Haven, CT, USA
3Division of Gastroenterology, University of AlbertaEdmonton, AB, Canada
Correspondence: Correspondence Guadalupe Garcia-Tsao, Professor of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street-1080 LMP, New Haven, CT 06520, USA Tel: +203 737 6063 Fax: +203 785 7273 e-mail: guadalupe.garcia-tsao@yale.edu

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality in cirrhosis. It commonly leads to decompensation of cirrhosis and is one of the leading causes of death in cirrhotic patients (1, 2). Identifying the accurate prognostic indicators of death for HCC allows the provider to counsel individual patients and also forms the basis of any decision-making process. Most cases of HCC in the western world occur in the setting of cirrhosis and, therefore, prognosis is determined not only by factors related to the tumour but also by factors related to cirrhosis. In fact, current prognostic models for HCC include parameters of liver dysfunction and parameters related to HCC (3?5). However, studies on the prediction of death in HCC include patients both with and without underlying cirrhosis, and this heterogeneity may impact the clinical utility of current prognostic models.

Additionally, one could hypothesize that, as in cirrhosis not associated with HCC (2), the prognostic factors for HCC would be different in patients with underlying compensated vs. decompensated cirrhosis, with factors related to the tumour having a greater prognostic significance in the former and factors related to both tumour and liver disease being more important in the latter. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the predictors of death in patients with HCC and underlying cirrhosis to determine whether the predictors differ between patients with compensated and decompensated cirrhosis.


Methods

A Medline search was performed using the terms (survival [ALL] OR mortality [ALL] OR predictor [ALL] OR prognosis [ALL] OR prognostic [ALL] AND (multivariate OR Cox OR Cox's OR adjusted OR adjustment OR logistic [ALL]) [MESH] AND hepatocellular carcinoma [MESH]. The search was carried out in March 2008 and no lower date limit was set on the search results. Additional studies were located by manual search using references from retrieved articles.

Studies were selected using the following inclusion criteria: (i) English language, (ii) inclusion of only adult patients, (iii) established diagnosis of HCC, (iv) >80% of patients included had cirrhosis ? if cirrhosis was not specifically mentioned, it was assumed that the population was comprised of cirrhotic patients if all patients in the study were classified into Child?Pugh classes, (v) survival analysis was reported, (vi) multivariate analysis of prognostic indicators of mortality was performed and (vii) patients in the study were either untreated or the study included more than one type of therapy following a local treatment protocol. Trials were excluded if they had (i) <80% cirrhosis, (ii) only prediction of short-term survival (<6 months), (iii) a single treatment option was being analysed, (iv) randomized trials comparing two different therapies, (v) the main predictive factor being studied was a tumour histological feature (i.e. tumour staining) and (vi) abstract only or full-text article not available. The rationale for excluding trials with only a single treatment option was that as candidates for particular treatment options may have varying prognoses, this may have resulted in a biased inclusion of patients. Required clinical data and data regarding study validity were predefined and collected for all studies meeting the inclusion criteria.

Study validity was assessed using predefined quality criteria, as listed in Table 1 (2, 6?8). Because none of the trials met all the quality criteria (Table 1), ?good quality? studies were arbitrarily defined as those that fulfilled all four of the following major quality criteria: (i) enrollment of consecutive patients, (ii) listing relevant baseline data, (iii) reporting the number of deaths and (iv) the absence of overfitting (ratio of the number of deaths/the number of variables >10). All ?good quality? studies documented the number of patients with cirrhosis.

An ?advanced? tumour was arbitrarily defined as any of the following: ?multinodular? tumours or tumours exceeding the Milan criteria (one tumour >5 cm or three tumors, with any of them being >3 cm) (9). In the analysis aimed at determining whether the prognostic variables differed between patients with advanced vs. non-advanced tumours, studies including mostly advanced tumours were defined as those in which 66% of the patients had advanced tumours and studies including mostly non-advanced tumours were defined as those in which >66% of the patients had non-advanced tumours. Decompensated cirrhosis was defined as a patient with Child?Pugh B or C classification. In the analysis aimed at determining whether the prognostic variables differed between patients with compensated vs. decompensated cirrhosis, studies including mostly compensated patients were arbitrarily defined as those in which >66% of the patients were Child?Pugh A and studies including mostly decompensated patients were arbitrarily defined as those in which >66% of the patients were Child?Pugh B or C.

The 1-, 2-, 3- and 5-year cumulative survivals and the final cumulative survival were recorded if present. The first five significant prognostic indicators in each multivariate analysis were recorded as were the number of studies evaluating each variable. A sensitivity analysis was performed using the ?good quality? studies and using the studies in which 100% of the patients had cirrhosis.


Results

As shown in Figure 1, of the 1106 references identified through a Medline search, 947 were excluded on analysis of the abstract provided because they did not meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of the remaining 159 full-text articles, 88 were excluded, 84 because they did not meet the inclusion criteria (at least 35 had combined cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients, with <80% being cirrhotic and 10 did not even mention whether there was underlying cirrhosis) and four because the full-text paper was not found, leaving 71 articles (4, 10?79) meeting the criteria for inclusion in the review. One trial (46) was included twice as it had two separate analyses for two different age groups, bringing the total number of studies reviewed to 72.

Description of the prognostic studies

Regarding the aim of the study, 69% (50/72) of the studies were predictive studies, i.e. they assessed the prognostic value of multiple variables without concern on the pathophysiology of the variable, and 31% (22/72) were explanatory, i.e. a specific variable was evaluated according to a biologically plausible hypothesis (Table 1). Regarding the design of the study, 71% were retrospective and only 29% were prospective. Only 57% of the studies enrolled patients consecutively. The least commonly fulfilled quality criteria were the presence of an inception cohort (3%), internal/external validation of results (10%) and reporting of loss to follow-up (18%). No study fulfilled all quality criteria. Fifteen studies met our definition for a ?good quality study?, i.e. they fulfilled the four major predefined quality criteria (4, 21, 26, 31, 33, 34, 38, 44, 53, 56, 58, 66, 68, 71, 77). The geographical origin of the majority of the studies was Japan or Italy (Table 1). Eighty-two per cent of the articles outlined their diagnostic criteria for HCC. This included various combinations of compatible histology, radiology and ?-foetoprotein (AFP) investigations.

Description of patients included in the prognostic studies

Overall, 23 968 patients were included in the 72 studies. Their characteristics are reported in Table 2. The median number of patients per trial was 177, with a range from 30 to 4525. The median age was 66, with 71% males. Fifty-two of the included studies explicitly stated the number of patients with cirrhosis. Although the other 20 studies did not, they did divide all patients by the Child?Pugh classification which is, by convention, reserved for cirrhotic patients. None of these 20 studies met our predefined quality criteria.

Survival in the prognostic studies

As shown in Table 2, the median follow-up time was 21 months, with a mortality rate of 69%. The median survival time was 16 months. The 1-, 3-year and final cumulative survival were 66, 36 and 24% respectively. The median survival in studies including patients with predominantly decompensated cirrhosis (n=3 studies with available data) (38, 54, 62) was 8 months as compared with 29 months in those including patients with predominantly compensated cirrhosis (n=4 studies) (39, 51, 59, 74). Twenty-eight studies reported the causes of death. The most common cause of death was recorded as being related to HCC in the majority (59%), followed by progression of liver disease (28%) (Table 2).

Prognostic variables

A total of 79 variables were evaluated in these studies (Table 3). The five most common independent predictors of death in HCC were portal vein thrombosis, tumour size, AFP, Child?Pugh class and bilirubin (Table 4). Of these, the variables that were found to be most significant in a larger number of studies were portal vein thrombosis, tumour size and Child?Pugh class (each of them evaluated in more than 30 studies and found to be significant in >50% of them). The Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (CLIP) score was the sixth independent predictor found in 11/15 studies (24, 26, 34, 36, 45, 47, 53, 54, 58, 61, 65, 66, 72, 75, 79) evaluating the variable. Variables found to be independently predictive of survival in at least one study are shown in Table 5 and, of these, lack of therapy and performance status are remarkable because they were found to be predictive of death in over two-thirds of the 15 and eight studies in which they were evaluated. Eighteen (23%) of the 79 variables evaluated were not significantly predictive of death in any study.

When only the 15 ?good quality? studies are analysed (Table 6), the same most common predictors of death are observed as for the overall analysis, i.e. Child?Pugh class, AFP, portal vein thrombosis, CLIP score and tumour size. The most robust predictors were Child?Pugh class, AFP and portal vein thrombosis. As the majority of the studies (89%) evaluating Child?Pugh status divided patients by class (A, B, C) and not by score, the term Child?Pugh class is utilized in this review.

When the 22 studies in which 100% of the patients had cirrhosis are analysed (11, 12, 14, 19, 23, 24, 26, 27, 32, 35, 36, 38, 47, 52, 53, 60, 62, 68, 69, 71, 78, 79) (Table 7), the most common predictors of death found in over three studies are the CLIP score, tumours that were untreated, tumour size, the Child?Pugh class, tumour number, AFP and portal vein thrombosis.

The number of studies that included mostly compensated or decompensated cirrhotic patients was small. However, as shown in Table 8, in both groups of patients, the predictors of death included both liver-related and tumour-related factors. When patients were separated by advanced or non-advanced tumour status, the most important predictors of death in patients with advanced tumours were portal vein thrombosis, AFP, bilirubin and lack of treatment (Table 9). The number of studies analysing significant predictors of death in patients with non-advanced tumours was small.


Discussion

Hepatocellular carcinoma can arise in both non-cirrhotic and cirrhotic livers. In the Orient, where hepatitis B or toxins are the most common underlying causes, HCC commonly arises in the absence of cirrhosis (80, 81). In the west, where hepatitis C and alcohol are the most common underlying liver diseases, HCC arises mostly in the setting of cirrhosis (81?83). Prognosis is predictably worse in patients with underlying cirrhosis (81, 84). Even in patients with cirrhosis (without HCC), it has recently been shown that the prognostic factors, survival and causes of death differ significantly between those with compensated and decompensated cirrhosis (2) and that these two entities should be considered separately both in clinical practice and in clinical research (85). In fact, HCC is an independent predictor of death in patients with decompensated cirrhosis (2).

Prognosis is an essential part of the assessment of patients with HCC. It allows the patient to make important decisions, both therapeutic and other and it allows for risk stratification such that different therapies can be investigated according to risk. However, prognostic studies in HCC are often unsatisfactory because patients included are heterogeneous, particularly with regard to the presence (or absence) of underlying cirrhosis, and the results are therefore not widely applicable. Because most of the cases of HCC in the USA occur in the setting of cirrhosis, it is important to determine the prognostic variables in this subset of patients with HCC. Unfortunately, many of the prognostic studies in HCC include patients with and without cirrhosis. In fact, of the 159 articles retrieved for this analysis, at least 45 (28%) were excluded because more than 20% of the patients did not have cirrhosis or the presence (or absence) of cirrhosis was not mentioned. Even within the 72 studies selected for analysis, only 22 (31%) of them clearly stated that they included only patients with cirrhosis.

One of the strengths of this systematic review is that it analysed predictors of death in HCC, specifically in studies in which ?80% of the patients had underlying cirrhosis. Furthermore, it aimed to analyse whether the predictors differed in patients with compensated vs. decompensated cirrhosis.

Despite methodological problems in the evaluated studies (none met all quality criteria and only 21% of them met important quality criteria), this systematic review allowed for the identification of the ?robust? predictors of death. As could have probably been predicted, these were both tumour related (portal vein thrombosis, tumour size and AFP) and cirrhosis related (mainly, the Child?Pugh class). The strength or the robustness of a predictor is given by the ratio between the number of studies in which each variable was significant and the number of studies in which it was assessed. With a larger number of studies, a large ratio is an indirect measure of the validity as each study that confirms the predictive value of a variable provides indirect proof of its validity (2). This robustness, which is independent of the quality of the studies, was particularly true for portal vein thrombosis, tumour size and Child?Pugh class, each of which was evaluated in more than 30 studies with a ratio >50%, i.e. more than half of the studies proved them to be among the first five most significant variables on a multivariable analysis. Importantly, the same parameters were the most frequent significant variables when only the studies in which 100% of the patients included had cirrhosis and when ?good? quality studies were analysed. In the analysis of good quality studies, one of the most robust predictors of death was the AFP.

Interestingly, one of the most commonly used HCC staging systems, the CLIP system (4), includes all four of these predictors (portal vein thrombosis, tumour size, Child?Pugh class and AFP) and, in fact, the CLIP staging system itself was identified as the sixth most common predictor of mortality, being among the first five significant variables in 11/15 studies (73%). Six of the 11 studies identifying the CLIP score as an independent predictor were of Italian origin (24, 26, 36, 47, 53, 72). Another commonly used HCC staging system, and the one recommended in recently published guidelines (81), is the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) system (5), which was only evaluated in three studies, but was nevertheless found to be among the first five significant variables in two (67%) of them. This staging system also includes three of the predictors (tumour size, Child?Pugh class and portal vein thrombosis). Although it does not include AFP, the BCLC staging system has the advantage of including other parameters such as performance status (found to be an important predictor in 6/8 or 75% of the studies in which it was assessed) and, importantly, of tailoring other prognostic factors to different tumour stages (early vs. intermediate/advanced) and to Child?Pugh class. For example, portal pressure, as determined by the hepatic venous pressure gradient, which was not directly evaluated in any of the studies in this analysis, was shown to be an independent predictor of death in early stages (patients subjected to resection) (86, 87) and is included in the BCLC system but only in Child A patients with resectable tumours (5). In the BCLC multivariable analysis study that was performed to identify the predictors of death in intermediate/advanced stages, an AFP of >35 ng/ml was not significant on univariate analysis (23), whereas in the CLIP staging system an AFP of >400 ng/dl had an independent prognostic value (4). As has been recently discussed, the prognostic utility of AFP is unclear in part due to the use of heterogeneous cut-off levels and also due to its variable sensitivity (88, 89). For example, in a recent study of 1158 patients (60% Child?Pugh A), even though the specificity of an AFP level >600 ng/ml in predicting survival was 93%, its sensitivity was only 23% (89).

Therefore, although the BCLC model has been reported to be superior to alternate models for the prediction of survival in HCC, including the Okuda, CLIP, tumour node metastasis, Japanese Integrated System, Groupe d'Etude de Traitement du Carcinoma Hepatocellulaire and Chinese University Prognostic Index models (61, 67), three of which include the AFP, it would be interesting to see whether the AFP (as a continuous variable) adds to the prognostic value of the BCLC. The appropriate cut-off level and the group of patients in which the AFP may be helpful remains to be determined, although our analysis would suggest that it appears to be more useful in advanced tumour stages (Table 9).

The importance of determining prognosis at different stages of cirrhosis cannot be overemphasized (2). We had hypothesized that in the compensated patients factors related to the tumour would be more important, whereas in the decompensated patient, both liver- and tumour-related factors would be important. However, in a subanalysis of studies including mostly patients with compensated or decompensated cirrhosis (Table 8), both tumour-related and cirrhosis-related predictors appeared to be predictive of death in both groups. However, the number of studies is too small to draw firm conclusions, particularly regarding patients with mostly decompensated cirrhosis and those with mostly non-advanced tumour stage.

Our study is limited by the design and prognostic parameters chosen in each of the studies included in this analysis as well as the heterogeneous group of patients included with both treated and untreated tumours. Furthermore, although the choice of the 66% cut-off for the definition of ?mostly decompensated cirrhosis? or ?mostly non-advanced tumour? was in part arbitrary, it can be justified because even at this cut-off there were too few studies available in the >66% non-advanced tumour or >66% decompensated cirrhosis categories to obtain definitive results.

Future studies on the prognostic indicators of HCC should include patients either with or without cirrhosis. Studies that will apply to patients with HCC seen in western countries should include only patients with cirrhosis and the prognostic variables should be assessed separately for the different stages of cirrhosis, at a minimum, separating those with compensated and those with decompensated cirrhosis. The study quality should be optimized by incorporating most, if not all, of the criteria listed in Table 1. Additionally, parameters identified by the majority of the studies included in this analysis should be included in such studies.


References
1. Fattovich G,Giustina G,Degos F,et al. Morbidity and mortality in compensated cirrhosis type C: a retrospective follow-up study of 384 patientsGastroenterologyYear: 1997112463729024300
2. D'Amico G,Garcia-Tsao G,Pagliaro L. Natural history and prognostic indicators of survival in cirrhosis: a systematic review of 118 studiesJ HepatolYear: 2006442173116298014
3. Okuda K,Ohtsuki T,Obata H,et al. Natural history of hepatocellular carcinoma and prognosis in relation to treatment. Study of 850 patientsCancerYear: 19855691822990661
4. A new prognostic system for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective study of 435 patients: the Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (CLIP) investigatorsHepatologyYear: 19982875159731568
5. Llovet JM,Bru C,Bruix J. Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: the BCLC staging classificationSemin Liver DisYear: 1999193293810518312
6. Diamond GA. Future imperfect: the limitations of clinical prediction models and the limits of clinical predictionJ Am Coll CardiolYear: 198914Suppl. A12A22A
7. Laupacis A,Sekar N,Stiell IG. Clinical prediction rules. A review and suggested modifications of methodological standardsJAMAYear: 1997277488949020274
8. Justice AC,Covinsky KE,Berlin JA. Assessing the generalizability of prognostic informationAnn Intern MedYear: 19991305152410075620
9. Mazzaferro V,Regalia E,Doci R,et al. Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosisN Engl J MedYear: 199633469398594428
10. Calvet X,Bruix J,Gines P,et al. Prognostic factors of hepatocellular carcinoma in the west: a multivariate analysis in 206 patientsHepatologyYear: 199012Part 1753602170267
11. Akashi Y,Koreeda C,Enomoto S,et al. Prognosis of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: an evaluation based on multivariate analysis of 90 casesHepatologyYear: 19911426281650325
12. Barbara L,Benzi G,Gaiani S,et al. Natural history of small untreated hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: a multivariate analysis of prognostic factors of tumor growth rate and patient survivalHepatologyYear: 19921613271352268
13. Nomura F,Ohnishi K,Honda M,et al. Clinical features of hepatocellular carcinoma in the elderly: a study of 91 patients older than 70 yearsBr J CancerYear: 19947069037917919
14. Pirisi M,Fabris C,Soardo G,et al. Prognostic value of serum alpha-1-antitrypsin in hepatocellular carcinomaEur J CancerYear: 199632A22158664031
15. Yamashita F,Tanaka M,Satomura S,Tanikawa K. Prognostic significance of Lens culinaris agglutinin A-reactive alpha-fetoprotein in small hepatocellular carcinomasGastroenterologyYear: 199611199610018831594
16. Kouroumalis EA,Skordilis PG,Moschandrea J,et al. Natural history of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in Crete. Association with hepatitis C virusEur J Gastroenterol HepatolYear: 1997998189391788
17. Shiota G,Kishimoto Y,Suyama A,et al. Prognostic significance of serum anti-p53 antibody in patients with hepatocellular carcinomaJ HepatolYear: 19972766189365042
18. Tanizaki H,Ryu M,Kinoshita T,et al. Comparison of clinical features and survival in patients with hepatitis B and C virus-related hepatocellular carcinomaJpn J Clin OncolYear: 19972767709152792
19. Ebara M,Hatano R,Fukuda H,et al. Natural course of small hepatocellular carcinoma with underlying cirrhosis. A study of 30 patientsHepatogastroenterologyYear: 199845Suppl. 31214209730377
20. Pawarode A,Voravud N,Sriuranpong V,Kullavanijaya P,Patt YZ. Natural history of untreated primary hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective study of 157 patientsAm J Clin OncolYear: 199821386919708639
21. Chevret S,Trinchet JC,Mathieu D,et al. A new prognostic classification for predicting survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Groupe d'Etude et de Traitement du Carcinome HepatocellulaireJ HepatolYear: 1999311334110424293
22. Hayashi K,Kumada T,Nakano S,et al. Usefulness of measurement of Lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive fraction of alpha-fetoprotein as a marker of prognosis and recurrence of small hepatocellular carcinomaAm J GastroenterolYear: 19999430283310520864
23. Llovet JM,Bustamante J,Castells A,et al. Natural history of untreated nonsurgical hepatocellular carcinoma: rationale for the design and evaluation of therapeutic trialsHepatologyYear: 1999296279862851
24. Prospective validation of the CLIP score: a new prognostic system for patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. The Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (CLIP) InvestigatorsHepatologyYear: 200031840510733537
25. Dohmen K,Shirahama M,Onohara S,et al. Differences in survival based on the type of follow-up for the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma: an analysis of 547 patientsHepatol ResYear: 2000181102110936562
26. Farinati F,Rinaldi M,Gianni S,Naccarato R. How should patients with hepatocellular carcinoma be staged? Validation of a new prognostic systemCancerYear: 20008922667311147597
27. Giannini E,Arzani L,Borro P,et al. Does surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma in HCV cirrhotic patients improve treatment outcome mainly due to better clinical status at diagnosis?HepatogastroenterologyYear: 2000471395811100360
28. Tangkijvanich P,Janchai A,Charuruks N,et al. Clinical associations and prognostic significance of serum anti-p53 antibodies in Thai patients with hepatocellular carcinomaAsian Pac J Allergy ImmunolYear: 2000182374311316045
29. Farinati F,Gianni S,Marin G,et al. Does the choice of treatment influence survival of patients with small hepatocellular carcinoma in compensated cirrhosis?Eur J Gastroenterol HepatolYear: 20011312172411711779
30. Lerose R,Molinari R,Rocchi E,Manenti F,Villa E. Prognostic features and survival of hepatocellular carcinoma in Italy: impact of stage of diseaseEur J CancerYear: 2001372394511166152
31. Schoniger-Hekele M,Muller C,Kutilek M,et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma in Central Europe: prognostic features and survivalGutYear: 200148103911115830
32. Shiomi S,Nishiguchi S,Ishizu H,et al. Usefulness of positron emission tomography with fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose for predicting outcome in patients with hepatocellular carcinomaAm J GastroenterolYear: 20019618778011419843
33. Toyoda H,Kumada T,Nakano S,et al. Impact of diabetes mellitus on the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinomaCancerYear: 2001919576311251947
34. Ueno S,Tanabe G,Sako K,et al. Discrimination value of the new western prognostic system (CLIP score) for hepatocellular carcinoma in 662 Japanese patients. Cancer of the Liver Italian ProgramHepatologyYear: 2001345293411526539
35. Giannelli G,Pierri F,Trerotoli P,et al. Occurrence of portal vein tumor thrombus in hepatocellular carcinoma affects prognosis and survival. A retrospective clinical study of 150 casesHepatol ResYear: 2002245012243792
36. Giannini E,Romagnoli P,Fasoli A,et al. Influence of age on clinical presentation, therapeutic options, and prognosis in anti-HCV positive cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinomaAge AgeingYear: 2002314576212446292
37. Ohkubo K,Kato Y,Ichikawa T,et al. Viral load is a significant prognostic factor for hepatitis B virus-associated hepatocellular carcinomaCancerYear: 2002942663812173334
38. Ueno S,Tanabe G,Nuruki K,et al. Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma associated with Child class B and C cirrhosis in relation to treatment: a multivariate analysis of 411 patients at a single centerJ Hepato Pancreat SurgYear: 2002946977
39. Kawakita T,Shiraki K,Yamanaka Y,et al. A new prognostic scoring system involving des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin as a useful marker for predicting prognosis in patients with hepatocellular carcinomaInt J OncolYear: 20032311152012963993
40. Nagaoka S,Yatsuhashi H,Hamada H,et al. The des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin index is a new prognostic indicator for hepatocellular carcinomaCancerYear: 2003982671714669288
41. Tan CK,Law NM,Ng HS,Machin D. Simple clinical prognostic model for hepatocellular carcinoma in developing countries and its validationJ Clin OncolYear: 2003212294812805329
42. Yano Y,Yamashita F,Sumie S,et al. Clinical significance of antibody against hepatitis B virus core antigen in patients with hepatitis C virus-related hepatocellular carcinomaLiver IntYear: 2003232273112895261
43. Akamatsu M,Yoshida H,Shiina S,et al. Neither hepatitis C virus genotype nor virus load affects survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinomaEur J Gastroenterol HepatolYear: 2004164596615097037
44. Trevisani F,Cantarini MC,Labate AM,et al. Surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly Italian patients with cirrhosis: effects on cancer staging and patient survivalAm J GastroenterolYear: 2004991470615307862
45. Cillo U,Bassanello M,Vitale A,et al. The critical issue of hepatocellular carcinoma prognostic classification: which is the best tool available?J HepatolYear: 2004401243114672623
46. Dohmen K,Shirahama M,Shigematsu H,Irie K,Ishibashi H. Optimal treatment strategy for elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinomaJ Gastroenterol HepatolYear: 2004198596515242487
47. Giannini E,Risso D,Botta F,et al. Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in anti-HCV positive cirrhotic patients: a single-centre comparison amongst four different staging systemsJ Intern MedYear: 200425539940814871465
48. Kudo M,Chung H,Haji S,et al. Validation of a new prognostic staging system for hepatocellular carcinoma: the JIS score compared with the CLIP scoreHepatologyYear: 200440139640515565571
49. Lang BH,Poon RT,Fan ST,Wong J. Outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma presenting with variceal bleedingAm J GastroenterolYear: 20049921586515554997
50. Okumoto K,Hattori E,Tamura K,et al. Possible contribution of circulating transforming growth factor-beta1 to immunity and prognosis in unresectable hepatocellular carcinomaLiver IntYear: 20042421815101997
51. Omagari K,Honda S,Kadokawa Y,et al. Preliminary analysis of a newly proposed prognostic scoring system (SLiDe score) for hepatocellular carcinomaJ Gastroenterol HepatolYear: 2004198051115209629
52. Sakar B,Ustuner Z,Karagol H,et al. Prognostic features and survival of inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma in Turkish patients with cirrhosisAm J Clin OncolYear: 2004274899315596917
53. Sangiovanni A,Del Ninno E,Fasani P,et al. Increased survival of cirrhotic patients with a hepatocellular carcinoma detected during surveillanceGastroenterologyYear: 200412610051415057740
54. Siddique I,El-Naga HA,Memon A,et al. CLIP score as a prognostic indicator for hepatocellular carcinoma: experience with patients in the Middle EastEur J Gastroenterol HepatolYear: 2004166758015201581
55. Tangkijvanich P,Mahachai V,Suwangool P,Poovorawan Y. Gender difference in clinicopathologic features and survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinomaWorld J GastroenterolYear: 20041015475015162522
56. Toyoda H,Kumada T,Kiriyama S,et al. Changes in the characteristics and survival rate of hepatocellular carcinoma from 1976 to 2000: analysis of 1365 patients in a single institution in JapanCancerYear: 200410024152115160346
57. Vejchapipat P,Tangkijvanich P,Theamboonlers A,et al. Association between serum hepatocyte growth factor and survival in untreated hepatocellular carcinomaJ GastroenterolYear: 2004391182815622483
58. Greten TF,Papendorf F,Bleck JS,et al. Survival rate in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective analysis of 389 patientsBr J CancerYear: 2005921862815870713
59. Grieco A,Pompili M,Caminiti G,et al. Prognostic factors for survival in patients with early-intermediate hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing non-surgical therapy: comparison of Okuda, CLIP, and BCLC staging systems in a single Italian centreGutYear: 200554411815710992
60. Kemp W,Pianko S,Nguyen S,Bailey MJ,Roberts SK. Survival in hepatocellular carcinoma: impact of screening and etiology of liver diseaseJ Gastroenterol HepatolYear: 2005208738115946134
61. Marrero JA,Fontana RJ,Barrat A,et al. Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of 7 staging systems in an American cohortHepatologyYear: 2005417071615795889
62. Toyoda H,Kumada T,Kiriyama S,et al. Impact of tumor factors on the prognosis of patients with advanced cirrhosis (Child?Pugh class C) and hepatocellular carcinomaJ Gastroenterol HepatolYear: 200520963515946154
63. Toyoda H,Kumada T,Kiriyama S,et al. Comparison of the usefulness of three staging systems for hepatocellular carcinoma (CLIP, BCLC, and JIS) in JapanAm J GastroenterolYear: 200510017647116086713
64. Van Vlierberghe H,Colle I,Henrion J,et al. The HepCar registry: report on a one-year registration program of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Belgium. What is daily practice in HCC?Acta Gastroenterol BelgYear: 2005684031116432990
65. Yeung YP,Lo CM,Liu CL,et al. Natural history of untreated nonsurgical hepatocellular carcinomaAm J GastroenterolYear: 20051001995200416128944
66. Cantarini MC,Trevisani F,Morselli-Labate AM,et al. Effect of the etiology of viral cirrhosis on the survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinomaAm J GastroenterolYear: 200610191816405539
67. Cillo U,Vitale A,Grigoletto F,et al. Prospective validation of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging systemJ HepatolYear: 2006447233116488051
68. Giannini EG,Risso D,Testa R,et al. Prevalence and prognostic significance of the presence of esophageal varices in patients with hepatocellular carcinomaClin Gastroenterol HepatolYear: 2006413788417059899
69. Huo TI,Lin HC,Huang YH,et al. The model for end-stage liver disease-based Japan Integrated Scoring system may have a better predictive ability for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing locoregional therapyCancerYear: 2006107141816708358
70. Martins A,Cortez-Pinto H,Marques-Vidal P,et al. Treatment and prognostic factors in patients with hepatocellular carcinomaLiver IntYear: 200626680716842324
71. Pascual S,Zapater P,Such J,et al. Comparison of staging systems to predict survival in hepatocellular carcinomaLiver IntYear: 200626673916842323
72. Pignata S,Gallo C,Daniele B,et al. Characteristics at presentation and outcome of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the elderly. A study of the Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (CLIP)Crit Rev Oncol HematolYear: 200659243916916608
73. Tsukioka G,Kakizaki S,Sohara N,et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma in extremely elderly patients: an analysis of clinical characteristics, prognosis and patient survivalWorld J GastroenterolYear: 200612485316440416
74. Yeo W,Mo FK,Koh J,et al. Quality of life is predictive of survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinomaAnn OncolYear: 2006171083916600982
75. Huo TI,Huang YH,Chiang JH,et al. Survival impact of delayed treatment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing locoregional therapy: is there a lead-time bias?Scand J GastroenterolYear: 2007424859217454859
76. Nagaoka S,Yoshida T,Akiyoshi J,et al. Serum C-reactive protein levels predict survival in hepatocellular carcinomaLiver IntYear: 2007271091717845537
77. Perry JF,Charlton B,Koorey DJ,et al. Outcome of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma referred to a tertiary centre with availability of multiple treatment options including cadaveric liver transplantationLiver IntYear: 2007271240817919236
78. Tangkijvanich P,Thong-Ngam D,Mahachai V,Theamboonlers A,Poovorawan Y. Role of serum interleukin-18 as a prognostic factor in patients with hepatocellular carcinomaWorld J GastroenterolYear: 2007134345917708609
79. Tangkijvanich P,Hourpai N,Rattanatanyong P,et al. Serum LINE-1 hypomethylation as a potential prognostic marker for hepatocellular carcinomaClin Chim ActaYear: 20073791273317303099
80. Liaw YF,Tai DI,Chu CM,et al. Early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic type B hepatitis. A prospective studyGastroenterologyYear: 19869026372416625
81. Bruix J,Sherman M,Llovet JM,et al. Clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 EASL conference. European Association for the Study of the LiverJ HepatolYear: 2001354213011592607
82. Poynard T,Aubert A,Lazizi Y,et al. Independent risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma in French drinkersHepatologyYear: 1991138969011851493
83. Bolondi L,Sofia S,Siringo S,et al. Surveillance programme of cirrhotic patients for early diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost effectiveness analysisGutYear: 200148251911156649
84. Melia WM,Wilkinson ML,Portmann BC,Johnson PJ,Williams R. Hepatocellular carcinoma in the non-cirrhotic liver: a comparison with that complicating cirrhosisQ J MedYear: 1984533914006207557
85. Garcia-Tsao G,Bosch J,Groszmann RJ. Portal hypertension and variceal bleeding-unresolved issues. Summary of an American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and European Association for the Study of the Liver Single Topic ConferenceHepatologyYear: 20084717647218435460
86. Bruix J,Castells A,Bosch J,et al. Surgical resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients: prognostic value of preoperative portal pressureGastroenterologyYear: 19961111018228831597
87. Llovet JM,Fuster J,Bruix J. Intention-to-treat analysis of surgical treatment for early hepatocellular carcinoma: resection versus transplantationHepatologyYear: 19993014344010573522
88. Huo TI,Huang YH,Lui WY,et al. Selective prognostic impact of serum alpha-fetoprotein level in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: analysis of 543 patients in a single centerOncol RepYear: 2004115435014719097
89. Farinati F,Marino D,De Giorgio M,et al. Diagnostic and prognostic role of alpha-fetoprotein in hepatocellular carcinoma: both or neither?Am J GastroenterolYear: 20061015243216542289

Glossary
Abbreviations
AFP ?-foetoprotein
BCLC Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer
CLIP Cancer of the Liver Italian Program
HCC hepatocellular carcinoma.

Figures

[Figure ID: fig01]
Fig. 1 

Trial flow.



Tables
[TableWrap ID: tbl1] Table 1 

Summary of the characteristics of 72 studies of the predictors of mortality in hepatocellular carcinoma


Characteristics of studies n (%)
Aim
Explanatory 22 (31)
Predictive 50 (69)
Design
Prospective 21 (29)
Retrospective 51 (71)
Inception cohort 2 (3)
Patients were included consecutively* 41 (57)
Inclusion and exclusion criteria defined 34 (47)
Number of excluded patients specified 23 (32)
Diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma well defined 59 (82)
Candidate variables identified a priori 38 (53)
Candidate variables included previously identified the predictors of survival 72 (97)
Relevant baseline data shown*, ? 43 (60)
Length of follow-up reported 21 (29)
Patients lost to follow-up reported 13 (18)
Number of deaths reported* 43 (60)
Causes of death reported 29 (40)
Ratio of number of deaths/number of variables >10 (i.e. no overfitting)* 28 (39)
Missing data reported 47 (65)
Results validated internally or externally 7 (10)
Geographical origin of the study
Japan 28 (39)
Italy 19 (26)
Thailand 5 (7)
Spain 3 (4)
Sites publishing ?2 studies? 17 (24)

*?Good? study defined by the presence of these quality variables.

?At a minimum, studies should have reported age, sex, presence and aetiology of cirrhosis and Child?Pugh class or components.

?Other sites included Australia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Germany, Portugal, Kuwait, USA, France, Austria, Turkey, Greece, Belgium, Singapore and China.


[TableWrap ID: tbl2] Table 2 

Characteristics of hepatocellular carcinoma patients included in 72 studies evaluating predicting the predictors of mortality


Variable No. of studies with available information Median [range] (interquartile range)
Sample size (patients included/study) 72 177 [30?4525]
Age 66 64 [51?82]
% male 71 77 [63?93]
% cirrhosis 52 97 (90?100)
Aetiology of cirrhosis 68
Hepatitis C (%) 56 60 (38?81)
Alcohol (%) 31 16 (9?29)
Hepatitis B (%) 61 18 (11?40)
Mixed (%) 29 5 (2?9)
Other (%) 46 12 (7?18)
Child?Pugh class
A (%) 58 55 (45?65)
B (%) 53 33 (28?40)
C (%) 52 11 (7?18)
% with decompensated cirrhosis 60 45 (35?56)
% with advanced tumour 68 52 (45?58)
% with varices 9 49 (45?58)
Treatment
Curative* (%) 51 34 (29?49)
Palliative? (%) 48 30 (22?48)
Untreated (%) 50 26 (12?56)
Other? (%) 25 15 (4?50)
Follow-up period (months) 21 19 (12?28)
Mortality (%) 43 69 (57?81)
Causes of death 28
Hepatocellular carcinoma (%) 21 59 (35?74)
Progression of liver disease (%) 23 28 (18?56)
Variceal bleeding (%) 20 9 (6?15)
Sepsis (%) 7 5 (1?8)
Median survival time (months) 36 16 (5?22)
1-year cumulative survival (%) 46 66 (49?81)
2-year cumulative survival (%) 18 49 (28?56)
3-year cumulative survival (%) 32 36 (22?46)
5-year cumulative survival (%) 24 24 (15?30)
Final cumulative survival (%) 31 21 (13?29)
No. of variables assessed (total) 36 15 (11?19)
No, of deaths 43 121 (55?248)
No. variables entered on multivariate analysis 66 7 (5?10)
No. variables independently predictive of death 72 4 (2?4)

*Liver transplantation, surgical resection or local ablative therapies (percutaneous ethanol injection, radiofrequency ablation).

?Transarterial embolization or chemoembolization, systemic or hepatic arterial chemotherapy.

?Other treatment modalities, treatment not mentioned or combination therapy.


[TableWrap ID: tbl5] Table 5 

Variables that were found to be significant in one to 10 studies (n=55)


Variables significant among the first five in two to 10 studies divided by the total studies in which the variable was tested (%) Variables significant among the first five in only one study divided by the total studies in which the variable was tested (%) Variables significant among the first five and tested in only one study
Untreated 10/15 (67) Viral load 1/2 (50) Centre of diagnosis
Tumour number 8/22 (36) ICG 1/2 (50) Modified JIS score
Albumin 7/16 (44) Creatinine 1/3 (33) Lymph nodes
Performance status 6/8 (75) JIS scale 1/3 (33) CRP
Age 6/16 (38) Period of surveillance 1/3 (33) ?-1 antitrypsin
Treatment modality 5/7 (71) MELD 1/5 (20) Tumour echo
Metastases 5/8 (63) Hepatitis C 1/6 (17) Tumour margin
Ascites 5/15 (33) GGT 1/7 (14) SUV ratio
DCPa 4/6 (67) ALP 1/10 (10) Encapsulation
Gross HCCb 4/9 (44) LAK
Tumour stage 4/14 (29) TGF-?
Okuda scale 4/15 (27) NK
LCSGJ liver damage 3/4 (75) HBeAg
Tumour histology 3/5 (60) Tumour doubling time
Symptoms 3/7 (43) p53
Alcohol 2/2 (100) IL-8
Surgery 2/2 (100) HGF
LCSGJ stagec 2/2 (100) Combination of staging systems
AFP-L3 2/2 (100) LINE-1
BCLC scale 2/3 (67)
Milan criteria 2/3 (67)
Urea 2/3 (67)
TACE 2/3 (67)
Mode of detection 2/6 (33)
Varices 2/6 (33)
PT 2/8 (25)
Hepatitis B 2/10 (20)

AFP-L3, lens-culinaris agglutinin-reactive fraction of ?-foetoprotein; ALP, alkaline phosphatase; BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; CRP, C reactive protein; DCP, des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin; GGT, ?-glutamyl transpeptidase; HBeAg, hepatitis B envelope antigen; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; HGF, hepatocyte growth factor; ICG, indocyanine green clearance; IL, interleukin; JIS, Japanese Integrated System; LAK, lymphokine-activated killer activity; LCSGJ, Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan; MELD, model for end-stage liver disease; NK, natural killer activity; p53, anti-p53 antibody; PT, prothrombin time; SUV, standardized uptake value on positron emission tomography scan; TACE, transarterial chemoembolization; TGF-?, transforming growth factor-?.


[TableWrap ID: tbl4] Table 4 

Variables (n=6) that were most commonly found to be significant predictors of death in hepatocellular carcinoma in 72 studies


Variable No. of studies in which variable was among the first five significant variables No. of studies evaluating the variable % of studies in which the variable was among the first five/total of studies
Portal vein thrombosis 22 32 69
Tumour size 20 33 61
AFP 20 41 49
Child?Pugh class 18 33 55
Bilirubin 15 24 63
CLIP score* 11 15 73

*Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (consists of portal vein thrombosis, tumour size, AFP and Child?Pugh class).

AFP, ?-foetoprotein; CLIP, Cancer of the Liver Italian Program.


[TableWrap ID: tbl3] Table 3 

A list of all variables (n=79) evaluated as predictors of death in 72 studies


Patient demographics (n=3)
Age, Gender, Ethnicity
Hepatic insufficiency (n=9)
Child?Pugh class, MELD, albumin, bilirubin, PT, ICG clearance, LCSGJ liver damage scale
Cirrhosis, hepatic encephalopathy
Portal hypertension (n=3)
Ascites, varices
Platelets
Tumour factors (n=28)
Portal vein thrombosis, metastases, lymph node involvement, gross HCC*, tumour size, tumour number, tumour histology, tumour stage, tumour echo?, tumour margin?, tumour doubling time, encapsulation?, SUV ratio, AFP, AFP-L3, DCP, LAK, NK, p53, IL-8, LINE-1, CRP, TGF-?, HGF, Milan criteria?
Tumour location, cholinesterase, PIVKA-II
Hepatocellular carcinoma staging classifications (n=10)
CLIP score, LCSGJ stage, Okuda scale, BCLC scale, JIS scale, Modified JIS score, combination of staging systems
GRETCH scale, CUPI scale, French score
Aetiological factors (n=6)
Alcohol, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, viral load, HBeAg
Genotype
Treatment (n=5)
Untreated, treatment modality, surgery, TACE, delayed treatment
Other (n=15)
Performance status, symptoms, mode of detection, urea, creatinine, GGT, ALP, ?-1 antitrypsin, centre of diagnosis, period of surveillance
ALT, AST, haemoglobin, LDH, sodium

Variables in italics were among the first five significant variables on multivariable analysis in at least one study.

*Combination of number of tumours, size and extent of liver replacement.

?Echo pattern on ultrasound.

?Regular tumour margin on ultrasound.

?Presence of capsule on ultrasound.

?Single tumour <5 cm or three tumours each <3 cm.

AFP, ?-foetoprotein; AFP-L3, lens-culinaris agglutinin-reactive fraction of AFP; ALP, alkaline phosphatase; ALT, alanino aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase, BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; CLIP, Cancer of the Liver Italian Program; CRP, C reactive protein; CUPI, Chinese University Prognostic Index; DCP, des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin; GGT, ?-glutamyl transpeptidase; GRETCH, Groupe d'Etude et de Traitement du Carcinome Hepatocellulaire; HBeAg, hepatitis B envelope antigen; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; HGF, hepatocyte growth factor; ICG, indocyanine green clearance; IL, interleukin; JIS, Japanese Integrated System; LAK, lymphokine-activated killer activity; LCSGJ, Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; MELD, model for end-stage liver disease; NK, natural killer activity; p53, anti-p53 antibody; PIVKA-II, serum protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonist II; PT, prothrombin time; SUV, standardized uptake value on positron emission tomography scan; TACE, transarterial chemoembolization; TGF-?, transforming growth factor-?.


[TableWrap ID: tbl6] Table 6 

Variables that were most commonly found to be significant predictors of death assessed in 15 ?good? quality studies*


Variable No. of good studies in which variable was among the first significant ones No. of good studies evaluating the variable % of studies in which variable was among the first five/total studies
Child?Pugh class 8 11 73
AFP 8 10 80
Portal vein thrombosis 5 7 71
CLIP score 4 5 80
Tumour size 4 7 57

*Good quality studies included all the four major quality criteria [relevant baseline data shown, number of deaths reported, patients were included consecutively and ratio of number of deaths/number of variables >10 (i.e. no overfitting)].

AFP, ?-foetoprotein; CLIP, Cancer of the Liver Italian Program.


[TableWrap ID: tbl7] Table 7 

Variables that were most commonly found to be significant predictors of death assessed in 22 studies in which 100% of the patients included had cirrhosis


Variable No. of good studies in which variable was among the first significant ones No. of good studies evaluating the variable % of studies in which variable was among the first five/total studies
CLIP score 6 6 100
Tumour size 5 7 71
Child?Pugh class 5 11 45
Tumour number 4 6 67
AFP 4 10 40
Portal vein thrombosis 4 10 40

AFP, ?-foetoprotein; CLIP, Cancer of the Liver Italian Program.


[TableWrap ID: tbl9] Table 9 

Variables significant in studies including mostly advanced tumours or mostly non-advanced tumours


Advanced tumours (15 studies)
Non-advanced tumours (7 studies)
Variable No. of significant studies No. of studies evaluated % Variable No. of significant studies No. of studies evaluated %
Portal vein thrombosis 6 9 67 Albumin 2 2 100
AFP 5 8 63 Tumour size 2 2 100
Bilirubin 4 6 67 DCP 2 2 100
Untreated 4 6 67 Age 2 3 67

AFP, ?-foetoprotein; CLIP, Cancer of the Liver Italian Program; DCP, des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin.


[TableWrap ID: tbl8] Table 8 

Variables significant in studies including mostly compensated or mostly decompensated patients


Compensated cirrhosis (13 studies)
Decompensated cirrhosis (5 studies)
Variable No. of significant studies No. of studies evaluated % Variable No. of significant studies No. of studies evaluated %
DCP 4 5 80 Tumour size 2 2 100
Bilirubin 4 5 80 AFP 2 2 100
Child?Pugh class 4 7 57 Albumin 2 3 67
AFP 4 11 36
CLIP 3 4 75
Treatment received 3 4 75
Tumour size 3 4 75

AFP, ?-foetoprotein; CLIP, Cancer of the Liver Italian Program; DCP, des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin.



Article Categories:
  • Clinical Studies

Keywords: hepatocellular carcinoma, multivariable analysis, prognosis.

Previous Document:  Oxidative stress may enhance the malignant potential of human hepatocellular carcinoma by telomerase...
Next Document:  Mesenchymal stem cells from human umbilical cords ameliorate mouse hepatic injury in vivo.