AFP score and metroticket 2.0 perform similarly and could be used in a ""within-ALL"" clinical decision tool
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
2
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2023
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
ELSEVIER
Autores
PINERO, Federico
COSTENTIN, Charlotte
DEGROOTE, Helena
NOTARPAOLO, Andrea
BOIN, Ilka FSF.
BOUDJEMA, Karim
BACCARO, Cinzia
BACHELLIER, Philippe
ETTORRE, Giuseppe Maria
Citação
JHEP REPORTS, v.5, n.2, article ID 100644, 10p, 2023
Resumo
Background & Aims: Two recently developed composite models, the alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) score and Metroticket 2.0, could be used to select patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are candidates for liver transplantation (LT). The aim of this study was to compare the predictive performance of both models and to evaluate the net risk reclassification of post-LT recurrence between them using each model's original thresholds.Methods: This multicenter cohort study included 2,444 adult patients who underwent LT for HCC in 47 centers from Europe and Latin America. A competing risk regression analysis estimating sub-distribution hazard ratios (SHRs) and 95% CIs for recurrence was used (Fine and Gray method). Harrell's adapted c-statistics were estimated. The net reclassification index for recurrence was compared based on each model's original thresholds.Results: During a median follow-up of 3.8 years, there were 310 recurrences and 496 competing events (20.3%). Both models predicted recurrence, HCC survival and survival better than Milan criteria (p <0.0001). At last tumor reassessment before LT, c statistics did not significantly differ between the two composite models, either as original or threshold versions, for recurrence (0.72 vs. 0.68; p = 0.06), HCC survival, and overall survival after LT. We observed predictive gaps and overlaps between the model's thresholds, and no significant gain on reclassification. Patients meeting both models (""within-ALL"") at last tumor reassessment presented the lowest 5-year cumulative incidence of HCC recurrence (7.7%; 95% CI 5.1-11.5) and higher 5-year post-LT survival (70.0%; 95% CI 64.9-74.6).Conclusions: In this multicenter cohort, Metroticket 2.0 and the AFP score demonstrated a similar ability to predict HCC recurrence post-LT. The combination of these composite models might be a promising clinical approach.Impact and implications: Composite models were recently proposed for the selection of liver transplant (LT) candidates among individuals with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We found that both the AFP score and Metroticket 2.0 predicted post-LT HCC recurrence and survival better than Milan criteria; the Metroticket 2.0 did not result in better reclassification for transplant selection compared to the AFP score, with predictive gaps and overlaps between the two models; patients who met low-risk thresholds for both models had the lowest 5-year recurrence rate. We propose prospectively testing the combination of both models, to further optimize the LT selection process for candidates with HCC.& COPY; 2022 The Authors.
Palavras-chave
Prediction, reclassification, recurrence, transplantation
Referências
- Berenguer M, 2020, TRANSPLANTATION, V104, P1143, DOI 10.1097/TP.0000000000003196
- Berhane S, 2016, CLIN GASTROENTEROL H, V14, P875, DOI 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.12.042
- Cescon M, 2013, J HEPATOL, V58, P609, DOI 10.1016/j.jhep.2012.09.021
- Collins GS, 2015, TRANSPARENT REPORTIN, P1, DOI [10.1186/s12916-014-0241-z, DOI 10.1186/S12916-014-0241-Z]
- Cucchetti A, 2020, J HEPATOL, V73, P342, DOI 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.03.018
- Dignam JJ, 2012, CLIN CANCER RES, V18, P2301, DOI 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2097
- Duvoux C, 2012, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V143, P986, DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.05.052
- European Assoc Study Liver, 2018, J HEPATOL, V69, P182, DOI 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.019
- Firl DJ, 2020, HEPATOLOGY, V71, P569, DOI 10.1002/hep.30838
- Halazun KJ, 2017, ANN SURG, V265, P557, DOI 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001966
- Heimbach JK, 2018, HEPATOLOGY, V67, P358, DOI 10.1002/hep.29086
- Kerr KF, 2014, EPIDEMIOLOGY, V25, P114, DOI 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000018
- Kneteman N, 2011, LIVER TRANSPLANT, V17, pS117, DOI 10.1002/lt.22334
- Lai Q, 2020, CANCERS, V12, DOI 10.3390/cancers12020452
- Mazzaferro V, 1996, NEW ENGL J MED, V334, P693, DOI 10.1056/NEJM199603143341104
- Mazzaferro V, 2018, GASTROENTEROLOGY, V154, P128, DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.09.025
- McShane LM, 2005, JNCI-J NATL CANCER I, V97, P1180, DOI 10.1093/jnci/dji237
- Newson RB, 2010, STATA J, V10, P339, DOI 10.1177/1536867X1001000303
- Notarpaolo A, 2017, J HEPATOL, V66, P552, DOI 10.1016/j.jhep.2016.10.038
- Pencina MJ, 2011, STAT MED, V30, P11, DOI 10.1002/sim.4085
- Piñero F, 2016, LIVER INT, V36, P1657, DOI 10.1111/liv.13159
- Rhu J, 2018, TRANSPLANTATION, V102, P1316, DOI 10.1097/TP.0000000000002136
- Toll DB, 2008, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V61, P1085, DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.04.008
- von Elm E, 2008, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V61, P344, DOI [10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008, 10.2471/BLT.07.045120]
- Wolbers M, 2014, BIOSTATISTICS, V15, P526, DOI 10.1093/biostatistics/kxt059