Assessment of the surveillance interval at 1 year after curative treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma: Risk stratification

  • Minjong Lee
  • , Young Chang
  • , Sohee Oh
  • , Young Youn Cho
  • , Dhong Eun Jung
  • , Hong Hyun Kim
  • , Joon Yeul Nam
  • , Hyeki Cho
  • , Eun Ju Cho
  • , Jeong Hoon Lee
  • , Su Jong Yu
  • , Nam Joon Yi
  • , Kwang Woong Lee
  • , Dong Ho Lee
  • , Jeong Min Lee
  • , Jung Hwan Yoon
  • , Kyung Suk Suh
  • , Yoon Jun Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

11 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background/Aims: Guidelines recommend surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence at 3-month intervals during the first year after curative treatment and 6-month intervals thereafter in all patients. This strategy does not reflect individual risk of recurrence. We aimed to stratify risk of recurrence to optimize surveillance intervals 1 year after treatment. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 1,316 HCC patients treated with resection/radiofrequency ablation at Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0/A. In patients without 1-year recurrence under 3-monthly surveillance, a new model for recurrence was developed using backward elimination methods: training (n=582)/validation cohorts (n=291). Overall survival (OS) according to risk stratified by the new model was compared according to surveillance intervals: 3-monthly versus 6-monthly (n=401) after lead time bias correction and propensity-score matching analyses. Results: Among patients without 1-year recurrence, age and international normalized ratio values were significant factors for recurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.03; p=0.009 and HR, 5.63; 95% CI, 2.24 to 14.18; p<0.001; respectively). High-risk patients stratified by the new model showed significantly higher recurrence rates than low-risk patients in the validation cohort (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.18 to 2.53; p=0.005). After propensity-score matching between the 3-monthly and 6-monthly surveillance groups, OS in high-risk patients under 3-monthly surveillance was significantly higher than that under 6-monthly surveillance (p=0.04); however, OS in low-risk patients under 3-monthly surveillance was not significantly different from that under 6-monthly surveillance (p=0.17). Conclusions: In high-risk patients, 3-monthly surveillance can prolong survival compared to 6-monthly surveillance. However, in low-risk patients, 3-monthly surveillance might not be beneficial for survival compared to 6-monthly surveillance.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)571-582
Number of pages12
JournalGut and Liver
Volume12
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2018

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Editorial Office of Gut and Liver. All rights reserved.

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • Carcinoma
  • Curative treatment
  • Hepatocellular
  • Risk stratification
  • Surveillance interval

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Assessment of the surveillance interval at 1 year after curative treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma: Risk stratification'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this