Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2024.
World J Gastroenterol. Mar 21, 2024; 30(11): 1533-1544
Published online Mar 21, 2024. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v30.i11.1533
Table 1 Comparison of the clinical efficacy of the two treatment regimens [n (%)]
Group
CR
PR
NR
PD
Total effective rate
Research group (n = 50)7 (14.00)34 (68.00)6 (12.00)3 (6.00)41 (82.00)
Control group (n = 50)4 (8.00)24 (48.00)17 (34.00)5 (10.00)28 (56.00)
χ2 value7.901
P value0.005
Table 2 Comparison of liver function and portal venous pressure between the two groups before and after treatment (mean ± SD)
GroupALT (U/L)
AST (U/L)
Portal venous pressure (cm H2O)
Before treatment
After treatment
Before treatment
After treatment
Before treatment
After treatment
Research group (n = 50)40.06 ± 6.1571.45 ± 9.85a53.16 ± 6.9875.90 ± 10.09a39.71 ± 7.5628.93 ± 5.98a
Control group (n = 50)40.99 ± 7.5189.27 ± 11.26a51.21 ± 9.3295.45 ± 9.29a39.83 ± 5.1531.51 ± 5.88a
t value0.6768.4251.18410.0760.0892.174
P value0.501< 0.0010.240<0.0010.9290.032
Table 3 Comparison of liver cancer marker levels before and after treatment between the two groups (mean ± SD)
GroupAFP (ug/L)
GPC-3 (ng/mL)
AFP-L3 (ng/L)
Before treatment
After treatment
Before treatment
After treatment
Before treatment
After treatment
Research group (n = 50)645.88 ± 56.05463.12 ± 40.45a11.52 ± 2.886.46 ± 1.43a1751.54 ± 214.99867.26 ± 153.14a
Control group (n = 50)655.80 ± 53.69563.21 ± 41.46a11.89 ± 2.584.84 ± 1.26a1787.74 ± 177.191179.48 ± 175.10a
t value0.90412.2200.6655.9750.9199.491
P value0.368< 0.0010.508< 0.0010.360< 0.001
Table 4 Comparison of adverse reactions between the two groups [n (%)]
Group
Diaphragm injury
Diarrhea
Rash
Portal vein and biliary tract injury
Gastrointestinal bleeding
Nausea and vomiting
Fatigue
Research group (n = 50)3 (6.00)14 (28.00)20 (40.00)13 (26.00)5 (10.00)9 (18.00)33 (66.00)
Control group (n = 50)1 (2.00)2 (4.00)2 (4.00)10 (20.00)3 (6.00)1 (2.00)10 (20.00)
χ2 value1.04210.71418.8810.5080.5437.11121.583
P value0.3070.001< 0.0010.4760.4610.008< 0.001
Table 5 Comparison of 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rates between the two groups
Group1-yr survival rate
2-yr survival rate
3-yr survival rate
Number of cases
Survival rate (%)
Number of cases
Survival rate (%)
Number of cases
Survival rate (%)
Research group (n = 50)4794.004284.003672.00
Control group (n = 50)4080.003264.002040.00
Log-χ2 value4.4655.3379.223
P value0.0350.0210.002
Table 6 Univariate analysis of the survival group and death group [n (%)]
Item
Survival group (n = 56)
Death group (n = 44)
χ2 value
P value
Age
    ≤ 60 yr43 (76.79)29 (65.91)1.4460.229
    > 60 yr13 (23.21)15 (34.09)
Child-Pugh grade
    Grade A45 (80.36)23 (52.27)8.9310.003
    Grade B11 (19.64)21 (47.73)
History of hepatitis
    Yes18 (32.14)29 (65.91)11.2780.001
    None38 (67.86)15(34.09)
Number of tumors
    135 (62.50)15 (34.09)8.2660.016
    216 (28.57)20 (45.45)
    35 (8.93)9 (20.45)
Tumor size (cm)
    < 649 (87.50)15 (34.09)30.506<0.001
    6-107 (12.50)29 (65.91)
Use of sorafenib
    Yes36 (64.29)14 (31.82)10.3900.001
    No20 (35.71)30 (68.18)
Stage of liver cancer
    IIIB47 (83.93)20 (45.45)16.496< 0.001
    IIIC9 (16.07)24 (54.55)
Histological differentiation
    High28 (50.00)14 (31.82)6.8100.033
    Low-moderate18 (32.14)12 (27.27)
    Necrosis10 (17.86)18 (40.91)
Previous splenectomy
    Yes18 (32.14)30 (68.18)12.822< 0.001
    None38 (67.86)14 (31.82)
Table 7 Logistic multivariate regression analysis of poor prognosis in patients with liver cancer complicated with portal hypertension
Item
β
SE
Wald
P value
Exp (B)
95%CI
High Child-Pugh grade1.4700.7383.9700.0464.3491.024-18.469
History of hepatitis2.2860.8038.0980.0049.8332.037-47.463
Tumor size (6-10 cm)2.3990.7889.2680.00211.0082.350-51.567
No use of sorafenib2.4830.8298.9630.00311.9812.357-60.884
Liver cancer of stage IIIC1.9000.7196.9880.0086.6831.634-27.329
Previous splenectomy1.6290.7414.8350.0285.1011.194-21.800
Constant6.6851.48620.226< 0.0010.001