Accuracy of Staging as a Predictor for Recurrence After Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We read with interest the paper from Shah et al. regarding “Accuracy of staging as a predictor for recurrence after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma” published in Transplantation (1). We at the Liver Transplant Unit in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom, have carried out a similar analysis of patients transplanted for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and end-stage liver disease between January 2000 and December 2005 in our unit. During the above period, 15 patients with HCC underwent liver transplantation. Thirteen patients were within the Milan criteria on preoperative imaging. Two patients had tumors that were outside the Milan criteria but considered to be within the extended UCSF criteria. All patients had imaging repeated at three monthly intervals while on the transplant waiting list. Ten patients received Adriamycin based neoadjuvant therapy (transarterial chemoembolization in nine, systemic chemotherapy in one) while on the waiting list. All patients received a single dose of Adriamycin intraoperatively during the anhepatic phase and systemic chemotherapy posttransplantation. At a median follow-up of 57 months, three patients had developed tumor recurrence after 8, 18, and 32 months respectively. Detailed analysis of the explanted livers revealed that preoperative imaging had understaged tumors in eight patients. Six patients were understaged in terms of number of lesions (more than three), one patient in terms of both size and number of lesions, and one patient had previously unidentified major vascular invasion. The accuracy of cross-sectional imaging in our study was hence 46.7%. One patient with recurrence had been transplanted for a tumor that was within the Milan criteria both on imaging and explant examination. All three patients with recurrence had Edmonton grade 3/4 tumors with microvascular invasion. We agree with Shah et al. that current imaging technology has several limitations in staging HCC in the context of cirrhosis. Better markers of disease progression are needed to refine patient selection and growth rate of the largest nodule as described by the authors appears to be a step in this direction. There is, however, an urgent need for the identification of more reliable tumor markers (genomic- or proteomic-based) that are predictive of high pathological grade and vascular invasiveness because these factors have been shown to correspond with disease recurrence and poor prognosis. Until such markers are available, cross-sectional imaging will remain but an imperfect guide to staging HCC for transplantation. Mettu S. Reddy Derek M. Manas Regional Liver Unit Freeman Hospital Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».