Copyright
©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Hepatol. Mar 27, 2015; 7(3): 521-531
Published online Mar 27, 2015. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v7.i3.521
Published online Mar 27, 2015. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v7.i3.521
Table 5 Overallsurvival in the third cohort of patients using the ART score calculated before the second TACE with a cut-off value of: 0-1.5 vs≥ 2.5
| ART(n = 100) | ART[0](n = 38) | ART[1](n = 30) | ART[1.5](n = 3) | ART[2.5](n = 8) | ART[4](n = 10) | ART[5](n = 8) | ART[6.5](n = 2) | ART[8](n = 1) |
| Median-survival, mo (95%CI) | 49 (36-63) | 21 (17-26) | 23 (21-23) | 13 (6-15) | 24 (19-35) | 19 (9-20) | 14 (13-15) | 9 (-) |
| 27.4 (24.7-37.8) | 15.5 (13.0-23.7) | |||||||
| P value ART (0, 1.5) vs ART ≥ 2.5 | 0.0001 | |||||||
- Citation: Adhoute X, Penaranda G, Castellani P, Perrier H, Bourliere M. Recommendations for the use of chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Usefulness of scoring system? World J Hepatol 2015; 7(3): 521-531
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5182/full/v7/i3/521.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v7.i3.521