Zhang M, Li B, Yan LN, Yin F, Wen TF, Zeng Y, Zhao JC, Ma YK. Development of a survival evaluation model for liver transplant recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma secondary to hepatitis B. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14(8): 1280-1285 [PMID: 18300358 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.14.1280]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Bo Li, PhD, Liver Transplantation Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University Medical School, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan Province, China. zmhxdoctor@gmail.com
Article-Type of This Article
Rapid Communication
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Gastroenterol. Feb 28, 2008; 14(8): 1280-1285 Published online Feb 28, 2008. doi: 10.3748/wjg.14.1280
Table 1 Demographic characteristics of recipients
Gender
n (%)
Male
129 (86.0)
Female
21 (14.0)
Median age (range)
51 (28-68)
Hepatitis B
150 (100)
Child’s score
A (5-6)
89 (59.3)
B (7-9)
46 (30.7)
C (10-15)
15 (10.0)
MELD score
≤ 18
132 (88.0)
> 18
18 (12.0)
Table 2 Pretransplant biochemical features of recipients
Variables
mean ± SD
Min value
Max value
Hb (g/dL)
12.23 ± 2.62
4.3
18.7
PLT (× 109)
131.4 ± 86.0
17
569
Urea (mmol/L)
4.90 ± 2.01
2.4
16.2
Crea (mg/dL)
1.06 ± 0.10
1
1.44
ALB (g/dL)
3.79 ± 0.68
2.01
5.28
TB (mg/dL)
26.8 ± 37.4
10
260.2
AKP (u/L)
160.51 ± 130.97
18
779
GGT (u/L)
215.34 ± 255.40
24
1630
AST (u/L)
89.83 ± 76.23
19
421
ALT (u/L)
101.49 ± 99.19
12
486
INR for PT
1.25 ± 0.24
1
2.16
AFP (&mgr;g/L)
426.65 ± 393.91
1.97
3000
Na+ ( mEq/L)
137.12 ± 5.33
114.2
150.3
Table 3 HCC-related features of recipients
Variable
Code
Frequency
Proportion (%)
History of
Present
1
15
10
hepatectomy
Absent
0
135
90
for HCC
Tumor diameter
1: < 5 cm
1
65
43.3
2: 5 cm-
2
58
38.7
Reference: > 10 cm
3
27
18
Tumor nodule
Nodule 1: one
1
93
62
Nodule 2: two
2
31
20.7
Reference: > two
3
26
17.3
Vascular invasion
Present
1
20
13.3
Absent
0
130
86.7
Intrahepatic tumor
Present Absent
1
33
22
dissemination
0
117
78
Perihepatic
Present
1
10
6.7
lymphadenectasis
Absent
0
140
93.3
Table 4 Univariate Cox analysis of parameters
Variable
Regression coefficient
Regression coefficient SE
Wald
P-value
Expβ
Hb (loge)
-0.510
0.510
0.997
0.318
0.601
PLT (loge)
0.060
0.230
0.068
0.795
1.062
Urea (loge)
0.024
0.457
0.003
0.958
1.025
Crea (loge)
-0.427
1.671
0.065
0.798
0.652
ALB (loge)
-2.056
0.695
8.758
0.003
0.128
TB (loge)
0.277
0.165
2.838
0.092
1.320
AKP (loge)
0.581
0.214
7.328
0.007
1.787
GGT (loge)
0.254
0.148
2.930
0.087
1.289
AST (loge)
0.535
0.202
6.987
0.008
1.707
ALT (loge)
-0.172
0.178
0.926
0.336
0.842
INR (loge)
-0.065
0.818
0.006
0.937
0.937
AFP (loge)
0.104
0.071
2.742
0.098
1.109
Na+ (loge)
-7.161
3.144
5.190
0.023
0.001
History of hepatectomy
-0.160
0.474
0.115
0.735
0.852
Tumor diameter
6.245
0.089
1
-1.057
0.505
4.385
0.036
0.347
2
0.278
0.359
0.603
0.437
1.321
Tumor nodule
5.410
0.067
1
-0.391
0.364
1.153
0.283
0.677
2
0.419
0.419
1.000
0.317
1.520
Vascular invasion
0.368
0.300
1.503
0.22
1.445
Intrahepatic tumor dissemination
0.190
0.345
0.305
0.581
1.210
Perihepatic lymphadenectasis
0.583
0.526
1.226
0.268
1.791
Table 5 Multivariate Cox assessment of risk factors associated with post-LT mortality
Variable
Regression coefficient
Regression coefficient SE
Wald
P-value
Expβ
AKP (loge)
0.663
0.222
8.917
0.003
1.941
AFP (loge)
0.122
0.074
4.042
0.048
1.130
Na+ (loge)
-8.755
3.252
7.247
0.007
0.000
Tumor nodule
8.189
0.017
0.532
1
-0.631
0.373
4.265
0.041
Citation: Zhang M, Li B, Yan LN, Yin F, Wen TF, Zeng Y, Zhao JC, Ma YK. Development of a survival evaluation model for liver transplant recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma secondary to hepatitis B. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14(8): 1280-1285