MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987965430 · doi:10.1002/lt.21078

Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Transplantation

2007· article· en· W1987965430 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy Parfitt, Paul Marotta, Mohammed Abdullah Alghamdi, William Wall, Anand Khakhar, Neville Suskin, Douglas Quan, Vivian McAllister, Cam Ghent, Mark Levstik, Carolyn A. McLean, Subrata Chakrabarti, Bertha García, David K. Driman

Bibliographic record

VenueLiver Transplantation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMilan criteriaHepatocellular carcinomaLiver transplantationPathologicalNomogramCirrhosisInternal medicineTransplantationGastroenterologyMultivariate analysisSurgeryOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Milan and University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) criteria are used to select patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) for liver transplantation (LT). Recurrent HCC is a significant cause of death. There is no widely accepted pathological assessment strategy to predict recurrent HCC after transplantation. This study compares the pathology of patients meeting Milan and UCSF criteria and develops a pathological score and nomogram to assess the risk of recurrent HCC after transplantation. All explanted livers with HCC from our center over the 18-yr period 1985 to 2003 were assessed for multiple pathological features and relevant clinical data were recorded; multivariate analysis was performed to determine features associated with recurrent HCC. Using pathological variables that independently predicted recurrent HCC, a pathological score and nomogram were developed to determine the probability of recurrent HCC. Of 75 cases analyzed, 50 (67%) met Milan criteria, 9 (12%) met only UCSF criteria and 16 (21%) met neither criteria based on explant pathology. There were 20 cases of recurrent HCC and the mean follow-up was 8 yr. Recurrent HCC was more common (67 vs. 12%; P < 0.001) and survival was lower (15 vs. 83% at 5 yr; 15 vs. 55% at 8 yr; P < 0.001) with those who met only UCSF criteria, compared to those who met Milan criteria. Cryptogenic cirrhosis (25 vs. 5%; P = 0.015), preoperative AFP >1,000 ng/mL (20 vs. 0%; P < 0.001) and postoperative OKT3 use (40 vs. 15%; P = 0.017) were more common among patients with recurrent HCC. While microvascular invasion was the strongest pathological predictor of recurrent HCC, tumor size >or=3 cm (P = 0.004; odds ratio [OR] = 7.42), nuclear grade (P = 0.044; OR = 3.25), microsatellitosis (P = 0.020; OR = 4.82), and giant/bizarre cells (P = 0.028; OR = 4.78) also predicted recurrent HCC independently from vascular invasion. The score and nomogram stratified the risk of recurrent HCC into 3 tiers: low (<5%), intermediate (40-65%), and high (>95%). In conclusion, compared to patients meeting Milan criteria, patients who meet only UCSF criteria have a worse survival and an increased rate of recurrent HCC with long-term follow-up, as well as more frequent occurrence of adverse histopathological features, such as microvascular invasion. Application of a pathological score and nomogram could help identify patients at increased risk for tumor recurrence, who may benefit from increased surveillance or adjuvant therapy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations151
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiver TransplantationSame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207