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
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 value | 7.901 | ||||
P value | 0.005 |
Table 2 Comparison of liver function and portal venous pressure between the two groups before and after treatment (mean ± SD)
Group | ALT (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 ± 6.15 | 71.45 ± 9.85a | 53.16 ± 6.98 | 75.90 ± 10.09a | 39.71 ± 7.56 | 28.93 ± 5.98a |
Control group (n = 50) | 40.99 ± 7.51 | 89.27 ± 11.26a | 51.21 ± 9.32 | 95.45 ± 9.29a | 39.83 ± 5.15 | 31.51 ± 5.88a |
t value | 0.676 | 8.425 | 1.184 | 10.076 | 0.089 | 2.174 |
P value | 0.501 | < 0.001 | 0.240 | <0.001 | 0.929 | 0.032 |
Table 3 Comparison of liver cancer marker levels before and after treatment between the two groups (mean ± SD)
Group | AFP (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 ± 56.05 | 463.12 ± 40.45a | 11.52 ± 2.88 | 6.46 ± 1.43a | 1751.54 ± 214.99 | 867.26 ± 153.14a |
Control group (n = 50) | 655.80 ± 53.69 | 563.21 ± 41.46a | 11.89 ± 2.58 | 4.84 ± 1.26a | 1787.74 ± 177.19 | 1179.48 ± 175.10a |
t value | 0.904 | 12.220 | 0.665 | 5.975 | 0.919 | 9.491 |
P value | 0.368 | < 0.001 | 0.508 | < 0.001 | 0.360 | < 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 value | 1.042 | 10.714 | 18.881 | 0.508 | 0.543 | 7.111 | 21.583 |
P value | 0.307 | 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.476 | 0.461 | 0.008 | < 0.001 |
Table 5 Comparison of 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rates between the two groups
Group | 1-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) | 47 | 94.00 | 42 | 84.00 | 36 | 72.00 |
Control group (n = 50) | 40 | 80.00 | 32 | 64.00 | 20 | 40.00 |
Log-χ2 value | 4.465 | 5.337 | 9.223 | |||
P value | 0.035 | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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 yr | 43 (76.79) | 29 (65.91) | 1.446 | 0.229 |
> 60 yr | 13 (23.21) | 15 (34.09) | ||
Child-Pugh grade | ||||
Grade A | 45 (80.36) | 23 (52.27) | 8.931 | 0.003 |
Grade B | 11 (19.64) | 21 (47.73) | ||
History of hepatitis | ||||
Yes | 18 (32.14) | 29 (65.91) | 11.278 | 0.001 |
None | 38 (67.86) | 15(34.09) | ||
Number of tumors | ||||
1 | 35 (62.50) | 15 (34.09) | 8.266 | 0.016 |
2 | 16 (28.57) | 20 (45.45) | ||
3 | 5 (8.93) | 9 (20.45) | ||
Tumor size (cm) | ||||
< 6 | 49 (87.50) | 15 (34.09) | 30.506 | <0.001 |
6-10 | 7 (12.50) | 29 (65.91) | ||
Use of sorafenib | ||||
Yes | 36 (64.29) | 14 (31.82) | 10.390 | 0.001 |
No | 20 (35.71) | 30 (68.18) | ||
Stage of liver cancer | ||||
IIIB | 47 (83.93) | 20 (45.45) | 16.496 | < 0.001 |
IIIC | 9 (16.07) | 24 (54.55) | ||
Histological differentiation | ||||
High | 28 (50.00) | 14 (31.82) | 6.810 | 0.033 |
Low-moderate | 18 (32.14) | 12 (27.27) | ||
Necrosis | 10 (17.86) | 18 (40.91) | ||
Previous splenectomy | ||||
Yes | 18 (32.14) | 30 (68.18) | 12.822 | < 0.001 |
None | 38 (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 grade | 1.470 | 0.738 | 3.970 | 0.046 | 4.349 | 1.024-18.469 |
History of hepatitis | 2.286 | 0.803 | 8.098 | 0.004 | 9.833 | 2.037-47.463 |
Tumor size (6-10 cm) | 2.399 | 0.788 | 9.268 | 0.002 | 11.008 | 2.350-51.567 |
No use of sorafenib | 2.483 | 0.829 | 8.963 | 0.003 | 11.981 | 2.357-60.884 |
Liver cancer of stage IIIC | 1.900 | 0.719 | 6.988 | 0.008 | 6.683 | 1.634-27.329 |
Previous splenectomy | 1.629 | 0.741 | 4.835 | 0.028 | 5.101 | 1.194-21.800 |
Constant | 6.685 | 1.486 | 20.226 | < 0.001 | 0.001 |
- Citation: Yang LM, Wang HJ, Li SL, Gan GH, Deng WW, Chang YS, Zhang LF. Efficacy of radiofrequency ablation combined with sorafenib for treating liver cancer complicated with portal hypertension and prognostic factors. World J Gastroenterol 2024; 30(11): 1533-1544
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v30/i11/1533.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v30.i11.1533