Impact of NAFLD on clinical outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib: an international cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The impact of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) on overall survival (OS), treatment response and toxicity in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with sorafenib is unknown. We examined the impact of NAFLD on survival and toxicity in an international cohort of patients receiving sorafenib. Methods: Clinical and demographic data were collected from patients consecutively treated at specialist centres in Europe and North America. The impact of NAFLD on OS, sorafenib-specific survival and toxicity compared with other aetiologies of liver disease using multivariable Cox-proportional hazards and logistic regression modelling was assessed. Results: A total of 5201 patients received sorafenib; 183 (3.6%) had NAFLD-associated HCC. NAFLD-associated HCC patients were more likely to be older women (median age 65.8 versus 63.0 years, p < 0.01 and 10.4% versus 2.3%, < 0.01), with a median body mass index (BMI) of 29.4. After controlling for known prognostic factors, no difference in OS in patients with or without NAFLD was observed [hazard ratio (HR): 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.84–1.18, p = 0.98]. NAFLD-associated patients had more advanced stage HCC when they commenced sorafenib [Barcelona Clinic Liver Class (BCLC) C/D 70.9% versus 58.9%, p < 0.01] and were more likely to be commenced on a lower starting dose of sorafenib (51.4 versus 36.4%, p < 0.01). There was no difference in sorafenib-specific survival between NAFLD and other aetiologies (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.79–1.17, p = 0.96). Adverse events were similar between NAFLD and non-NAFLD HCC groups, including rates of greater than grade 2 hypertension (6.3% versus 5.8%, p = 1.00). Conclusion: Survival in HCC does not appear to be influenced by the presence of NAFLD. NAFLD-associated HCC derive similar clinical benefit from sorafenib compared with other aetiologies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".