We have located links that may give you full text access.
The Model to Estimate Survival in Ambulatory Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Aids in the Decision for TACE Retreatment.
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology 2018 November 15
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is a major therapeutic modality for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, which needs repeated treatments. Model to Estimate Survival in Ambulatory Hepatocellular carcinoma patients (MESIAH) was recently developed as a model for predicting survival. We aimed to develop a novel index for TACE retreatment using MESIAH scores.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2005 to 2008, 783 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who had undergone 1 previous TACE procedure were enrolled. We calculated their pre-TACE and post-TACE-MESIAH and calculated the MESIAH ratio by dividing the post-TACE by pre-TACE score. The discriminatory abilities of the MESIAH ratio and post-TACE-MESIAH were compared with ART and ABCR scores.
RESULTS: Among 783 patients, 355 (45.3%) received a second TACE (test set), and 195 (24.9%) patients received a third TACE treatment (validation set). In the test set, patients with a MESIAH ratio <0.9 obtained longer overall survival than patients with a MESIAH ratio ≥0.9 [26.0 vs. 9.0 mo, respectively; hazard ratio 1.66 (1.29-2.14)], and patients with a post-TACE-MESIAH<4.5 showed longer overall survival than patients with a post-TACE-MESIAH≥4.5 [38.0 vs. 7.0 mo, respectively; hazard ratio, 3.17 (2.45-4.09)]. The post-TACE-MESIAH [C-index 0.663 (0.628-0.697)] was better than the ART [C-index 0.596 (0.554-0.638)] and ABCR scores [C-index 0.576 (0.536-0.617)] at estimating prognosis. Our results were confirmed by the validation set.
CONCLUSIONS: A MESIAH score ≥4.5 after TACE identifies patients with a poor prognosis. Randomized studies are needed to establish whether additional TACE may affect survival.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2005 to 2008, 783 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who had undergone 1 previous TACE procedure were enrolled. We calculated their pre-TACE and post-TACE-MESIAH and calculated the MESIAH ratio by dividing the post-TACE by pre-TACE score. The discriminatory abilities of the MESIAH ratio and post-TACE-MESIAH were compared with ART and ABCR scores.
RESULTS: Among 783 patients, 355 (45.3%) received a second TACE (test set), and 195 (24.9%) patients received a third TACE treatment (validation set). In the test set, patients with a MESIAH ratio <0.9 obtained longer overall survival than patients with a MESIAH ratio ≥0.9 [26.0 vs. 9.0 mo, respectively; hazard ratio 1.66 (1.29-2.14)], and patients with a post-TACE-MESIAH<4.5 showed longer overall survival than patients with a post-TACE-MESIAH≥4.5 [38.0 vs. 7.0 mo, respectively; hazard ratio, 3.17 (2.45-4.09)]. The post-TACE-MESIAH [C-index 0.663 (0.628-0.697)] was better than the ART [C-index 0.596 (0.554-0.638)] and ABCR scores [C-index 0.576 (0.536-0.617)] at estimating prognosis. Our results were confirmed by the validation set.
CONCLUSIONS: A MESIAH score ≥4.5 after TACE identifies patients with a poor prognosis. Randomized studies are needed to establish whether additional TACE may affect survival.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app