A model to estimate survival in ambulatory patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Can it predict the natural course of hepatocellular carcinoma?

Prognostic models for outcome prediction in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated by systemic therapy: a systematic review and critical appraisal

Objective

To describe and analyze the predictive models of the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing systemic treatment.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

PubMed and Embase until December 2020 and manually searched references from eligible articles.

Eligibility criteria for study selection

The development, validation, or updating of prognostic models of patients with HCC after systemic treatment.

Results

The systematic search yielded 42 eligible articles: 28 articles described the development of 28 prognostic models of patients with HCC treated with systemic therapy, and 14 articles described the external validation of 32 existing prognostic models of patients with HCC undergoing systemic treatment. Among the 28 prognostic models, six were developed based on genes, of which five were expressed in full equations; the other 22 prognostic models were developed based on common clinical factors. Of the 28 prognostic models, 11 were validated both internally and externally, nine were validated only internally, two were validated only externally, and the remaining six models did not undergo any type of validation. Among the 28 prognostic models, the most common systemic treatment was sorafenib (n = 19); the most prevalent endpoint was overall survival (n = 28); and the most commonly used predictors were alpha-fetoprotein (n = 15), bilirubin (n = 8), albumin (n = 8), Child–Pugh score (n = 8), extrahepatic metastasis (n = 7), and tumor size (n = 7). Further, among 32 externally validated prognostic models, 12 were externally validated > 3 times.

Conclusions

This study describes and analyzes the prognostic models developed and validated for patients with HCC who have undergone systemic treatment. The results show that there are some methodological flaws in the model development process, and that external validation is rarely performed. Future research should focus on validating and updating existing models, and evaluating the effects of these models in clinical practice.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42020200187.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09841-5.

Comparison between hepatocellular carcinoma prognostic scores: A 10-year single-center experience and brief review of the current literature

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents the most common primitive liver malignancy. A relevant concern involves the lack of agreement on staging systems, prognostic scores, and treatment allocation algorithms. 

AIM

To compare the survival rates among already developed prognostic scores.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 140 patients with HCC diagnosed between February 2006 and November 2017. Patients were categorized according to 15 prognostic scoring systems and estimated median survivals were compared with those available from the current medical literature.

RESULTS

The median overall survival of the cohort of patients was 35 (17; 67) mo, and it was statistically different in relation to treatment choice, ultrasound surveillance, and serum alpha-fetoprotein. The Italian Liver Cancer (ITA.LI.CA) tumor staging system performed best in predicting survival according to stage allocation among all 15 evaluated prognostic scores. Using the ITA.LI.CA prognostic system, 28.6%, 40.7%, 22.1%, and 8.6% of patients fell within stages 0-1, 2-3, 4-5 and > 5 respectively. The median survival was 57.9 mo for stages 0-1, 43 mo for stages 2-3, 21.7 mo for stages 4-5, and 10.4 mo for stage > 5. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were respectively 95%, 65%, and 20%, for stages 0-1; 94.7%, 43.9% and 26.3% for stages 2-3; 71%, 25.8% and 16.1% for stages 4-5; and 50%, 16.7% and 8.3% for stage > 5. At the same time, although statistically significant in prognostic stratification, the most commonly used Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer system showed one of the most relevant differences in median survival, especially for stages A and C, when compared to the medical literature. In fact, 10.7%, 59.3%, 27.1%, 1.4%, and 0% of patients were stratified into stages 0, A, B, C, and D respectively. The median survival was > 81.1 mo for stage 0, 44.9 mo for stage A, 21.3 mo for stage B, and 3.1 mo for stage C. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were respectively 86.7%, 60%, and 46.7% for stage 0; 91.6%, 50.6%, and 20.5% for stage A; 73.7%, 23.7% and 13.2% for stage B; and 2%, 0% and 0% for stage C.

CONCLUSION

Survival analysis shows excellent prognostic ability of the ITA.LI.CA scoring system compared to other staging systems.

Central hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in a patient with anti-Gerbich antibody

Background

Anti-Gerbich (Ge) alloantibody against high-frequency erythrocyte antigen is extremely rare. Owing to incomplete evidence regarding the degree and severity of adverse events induced by hemolytic transfusion reactions, the transfusion management often remains cumbersome in these patients. We report an anti-Ge alloantibody positive patient with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who underwent central hepatectomy (CH) without the need for an allogeneic blood transfusion.

Case presentation

A 76-year-old Japanese woman was diagnosed with HCC measuring 9.5 × 8.0 cm in segments 4, 5, and 8 of the liver. This patient with anti-Ge alloantibody had a history of two pregnancies without transfusion. CH was planned, and based on the suggestion from the multidisciplinary team meeting, preoperative autologous donation (PAD) and acute normovolemic hemodilution (ANH) were performed. CH was successfully performed by using CUSA and Thunderbeat® with Pringle maneuver and infra-hepatic inferior vena cava clamping without perioperative need for an allogeneic blood transfusion. She has been alive without recurrence after a follow-up period of 45 months.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first case report of hepatectomy in a patient with anti-Ge alloantibody. A multidisciplinary team approach, PAD and ANH, and bloodless liver surgical techniques appear to be useful for major hepatectomy in patients with extremely rare blood type.