Differences in clinical characteristics and treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma between Asians and non-Asians.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
289 Background: Studies have demonstrated clinical differences in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) between Asians (AS) and non-Asians (NAS). In the US, AS are less likely to undergo liver transplant compared to Caucasians. Despite the large immigrant population in Canada, there has been no prior comparison of HCC in AS and NAS in the context of the Canadian universal health care system. We retrospectively evaluated the ethnic differences in HCC at the largest cancer centre in Canada. Methods: We analyzed 268 patients who enrolled in a Genetic Epidemiology Study of HCC (April 2010 to February 2013), where patients were asked to complete a questionnaire and give a blood sample at their first visit. Relevant clinical data were extracted and analyzed by descriptive statistics, t-test or Chi-square test. Results: The study population had a mean age of 61 years and 83% males. There were 45% AS, 49% Caucasians, and 6% other ethnicities. Etiologies of HCC included: Hepatitis B (HBV) 34%, Hepatitis C (HCV) 32%, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis 15%, alcohol 18%. Compared to NAS, HCC patients of Asian ancestry had significantly higher rates of HBV (60% vs. 12%, p<0.001). At diagnosis, 83% of patients were Child-Pugh A (mean MELD score 9.2). Ethnicity had no impact on Child-Pugh class, multifocal disease or macrovascular invasion. However, MELD scores were lower in AS (p=0.02). Overall, 71% of cases were initially treated with curative intent. Patients underwent various treatment modalities: liver transplant 13%, resection 31%, radiofrequency ablation 39%, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) 21%, radiation 17%, systemic therapy 27%. AS had higher resection rates (41% vs. 22%, p<0.001), while no differences were observed for other treatments. Duration of response was 11.7 months for TACE (AS 14.2, NAS 10.5), 7.5 months for sorafenib (AS 6.8, NAS 8.1). Rate of intolerance to sorafenib was 24% (AS 27%, NAS 22%, p=0.63). This analysis was limited by inherent bias in the selection of study patients. Conclusions: AS with HCC tend to have HBV and lower MELD scores, and to undergo resection in a public health care setting with no differences in the uptake of other therapies. An analysis of survival based on ethnicity will be reported.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".