Total tumor volume and alpha‐fetoprotein for selection of transplant candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma: A prospective validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The selection of liver transplantation (LT) candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is currently validated based on Milan criteria. The use of extended criteria has remained a matter of debate, mainly because of the absence of prospective validation. The present prospective study recruited patients according to the previously proposed total tumor volume (TTV; ≤115 cm(3) )/alpha-fetoprotein (AFP; ≤400 ng/mL) score. Patients with AFP >400 ng/mL were excluded, and, as such, the Milan group was modified to include only patients with AFP <400 ng/mL; these patients were compared to patients beyond Milan, but within TTV/AFP. From January 2007 to March 2013, 233 patients with HCC were listed for LT. Of them, 195 patients were within Milan and 38 beyond Milan, but within TTV/AFP. The average follow-up from listing was 33.9 ± 24.9 months. Risk of dropout was higher for patients beyond Milan, but within TTV/AFP (16 of 38; 42.1%), than for those within Milan (49 of 195 [25.1%]; P = 0.033). In parallel, intent-to-treat survival from listing was lower in patients beyond Milan (53.8% vs. 71.6% at 4 years; P < 0.001). After a median waiting time of 8 months, 166 patients were transplanted, 134 within Milan criteria, and 32 beyond Milan but within TTV/AFP. They demonstrated acceptable and similar recurrence rates (4.5% vs. 9.4%; P = 0.138) and post-transplant survivals (78.7% vs. 74.6% at 4 years; P = 0.932). CONCLUSION: Based on the present prospective study, HCC LT candidate selection could be expanded to the TTV (≤115 cm(3) )/AFP (≤400 ng/mL) criteria in centers with at least 8-month waiting time. An increased risk of dropout on the waiting list can be expected, but with equivalent and satisfactory post-transplant survival.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".