纤维化是否影响肝移植术后患者的生存:来自SEER数据库的证据
Does Fibrosis Influence Survival after Liver Transplantation? Evidence from the SEER Database
DOI: 10.12677/ACM.2021.1111829, PDF, HTML, XML, 下载: 404  浏览: 689 
作者: 熊凌风, 罗永平, 袁天白, 林伟鹏, 余迥标, 林伯辉, 吴 琛, 区奕猛*:广东药科大学附属第一医院,肝胆外科,广东 广州
关键词: 肝癌肝纤维化预后肝移植SEER数据库Hepatocellular Carcinoma Liver Fibrosis Survival Liver Transplantation SEER Database
摘要: 背景与目的:肝纤维化是否与肝细胞癌(HCC)有关,并对HCC患者肝移植术后生存有影响?这个问题仍存在争议。本研究旨在通过(SEER)数据库对肝纤维化的严重程度是否影响HCC患者肝移植术后总生存期(OS)的问题进行探索。方法:从SEER数据库中入组了2004年至2016年间共计1536例HCC患者。首先,对肝纤维化患者进行倾向评分匹配(propensity score matching, PSM),然后通过使用Kaplan-Meier和Cox比例风险回归模型确定纤维化组的风险比(HR)及95%置信区间(CI),比较纤维化和其他临床病理特征对生存结局的影响。同时通过建立基于多变量分析得出的列线图,校准、检验、预测其准确性。结果:纤维化评分高(5~6分)的患者比例大于纤维化评分低(0~4分)的患者(89.2% vs. 10.8%)。通过多变量Cox比例风险模型,纤维化评分是OS的独立预后因素[风险比(HR):1.461,95%置信区间(CI):1.191~1.792,P < 0.001],且与其他肿瘤特征相比,纤维化与生存结局的相关性较高。将诊断年龄、纤维化评分、性别、种族、美国联合癌症委员会(AJCC) T分期、N分期、肿瘤大小、病理分级和甲胎蛋白(AFP)水平纳入多因素分析。综合这些因素的列线图对HCC患者的预后预测(C指数:0.601,95% CI:0.569~0.632)。结论:纤维化增加是HCC肝移植术后患者生存的独立危险因素。
Abstract: Background and Purpose: Whether liver fibrosis is associated with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) affects patients’ survival after liver transplantation (LT) remains controversial. Using the US National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, we explored whether the severity of liver fibrosis affected the overall survival (OS) after LT in patients with HCC. Methods: A total of 1536 HCC patients from the SEER database between 2004 and 2016 were enrolled. Propensity score matching was performed on patients with liver fibrosis. We then used Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression models to compare the effects of fibrosis and other clinicopathological characteristics on survival outcomes. We simultaneously established a nomogram based on multivariate analysis and then calibrated, tested, and predicted its accuracy. Results: The proportion of patients with a high fibrosis score (5~6 points, 89.2%) was greater than that of patients with a low fibrosis score (0~4 points, 10.8%). The fibrosis score was an independent prognostic factor for OS by a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model (hazard ratio [HR] 1.461, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.191~1.792, P < 0.001) and was associated with a higher survival outcome than other tumor characteristics. Age at diagnosis, fibrosis score, gender, ethnicity, American Joint Cancer Committee tumor-node-metastasis stage, tumor size, case grade, and alpha-fetoprotein level were included in the multivariate analysis. A nomogram combining these factors predicted HCC patients’ prognoses (C-index 0.601, 95% CI 0.569~0.632). Conclusion: Increased fibrosis was an independent risk factor for survival in patients with HCC after LT, as analyzed by prognostic nomograms that included fibrosis scores and other risk factors.
文章引用:熊凌风, 罗永平, 袁天白, 林伟鹏, 余迥标, 林伯辉, 吴琛, 区奕猛. 纤维化是否影响肝移植术后患者的生存:来自SEER数据库的证据[J]. 临床医学进展, 2021, 11(11): 5594-5605. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2021.1111829

1. 前言

全球范围而言,肝癌在肿瘤发病率中排在第六位,在肿瘤相关死亡率中排第四位,世界卫生组织估计,2030年将有100多万患者死于肝癌 [1]。手术切除、消融、化疗和肝移植是主要的治愈性治疗方法 [2] [3],但由于其转移和复发的频率较高,HCC的处理仍令人失望 [4]。术后5年内携带70%~100%的累积复发风险 [5] [6] [7]。在绝大多数病例(70%~90%)中,由于各种病因导致,HCC患者在晚期发生纤维化和肝硬化可能性大 [8]。肝移植(LT)是一组伴有基础肝硬化的HCC患者的最佳治疗方式。然而,在所有接受过LT的患者中,8%~30%的患者HCC的复发是一个重大的临床问题 [9] [10]。HCC复发的主要机制可能与LT时肿瘤的亚临床肝外扩散和术中操作肝脏过程中恶性肿瘤细胞巢有关 [11]。据报道,晚期复发(>5年)的总生存率明显优于早期复发 [12]。晚期复发似乎与侵袭性较低的肿瘤生物学和对局部治疗的较高反应性相关 [13]。然而,晚期复发的病理生物学尚不十分清楚,正如临床实践中的监测没有很好的标准化一样。HCC是炎症相关癌症,慢性炎症可引起纤维化和肝硬化,最后导致肝癌发生 [14]。纤维化是指肝内细胞外基质蛋白或纤维结缔组织的过度沉积,使肝实质的代谢和其他稳态功能受损,导致肝血流紊乱,建立炎症和致瘤环境 [15] [16]。因此,肝纤维化可进展为肝硬化和肝细胞癌(HCC)。导致肝纤维化的典型慢性肝病包括病毒性肝炎、胆汁淤积性疾病、慢性酒精滥用、自身免疫性以及遗传性疾病。在几项纵向队列研究中一致认为纤维化程度与肝脏相关,同时也与肝外发病率和死亡率相关 [17]。因此,有理由提出晚期肝纤维化更易导致肝移植术后复发的假设。故我们期望通过从SEER数据库中提取大量病例,探索肝纤维化对HCC肝移植术预后的影响。

Figure 1. Flowchart for screening post-liver transplant patients with HCC in the SEER database

图1. SEER数据库中筛选肝移植后HCC患者的流程图

2. 资料和方法

2.1. 临床资料

通过查询SEER-18 regs研究数据(https://seer.cancer.gov/),我们对2004年至2016年间诊断为HCC的患者进行了回顾性队列分析[国际肿瘤疾病分类(第3版,ICD-O-3):HCC (8170/3),形态学编码(C22.0)]。由于SEER数据是公开的以及本次研究是回顾性的,因此免除了伦理批准和知情同意等工作。本次研究患者的纤维化程度分为两类,分别为F0-4 (代码0,非至中度)和F5-6 (代码1,重度纤维化或肝硬化),然后对这两个亚组患者的生存期作一个对比。按甲胎蛋白(AFP)水平分为3组,分别是阳性/升高(代码10)、阴性/正常或在正常范围内(代码20)或结果不明确。在肿瘤大小的分类中,由于90%的患者 < 1 cm,故分为3组 ≤ 1 cm (代码0-991)、>1 cm (代码992-996)或不清楚。本分析最终选择了1536例符合所需标准的患者(图1)。

2.2. 纳入标准和排除标准

本文患者的排除标准如下:(I) 年龄 < 18岁,(II) 纤维化评分无效,(III) 非全肝切除和移植;(IV) 2004年以前确诊的患者。

2.3. 观察指标

我们从SEER数据库中提取了相关患者的年龄、性别、AJCC TNM分期、纤维化评分、AFP水平、肿瘤大小、病理分级和生存期(月)等数据作为后续分析的基础。

2.4. 统计学处理

本文根据以下协变量进行倾向评分匹配(PSM),以尽量减少选择偏倚并平衡纤维化评分为F0-4和F5-6两个亚组的基线协变量:性别、年龄、人种、诊断年份、纤维化评分(FS)、病理分级、甲胎蛋白(AFP)水平和肿瘤大小。为达到充分匹配,使用预设口径进行1:1最近邻匹配(在计算倾向评分logit的0.02标准差范围内)。随后我们通过标准软件(SPSS v19.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA)对SEER数据进行统计分析。连续变量以平均值±标准差(SD)值来表示,并通过非配对t检验进行分析。而分类变量比较采用卡方或Fisher精确检验进行分析。Kaplan-Meier法生成生存曲线(log-rank检验)。通过多变量分析(Cox比例风险模型)进一步检验单变量分析中显著影响生存期的因素。然后,利用多变量分析中的变量在R软件(http://www.R-project.org;rms软件包;R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, China)中构建预后列线图。最后,为了验证预测的准确性我们进行了一致性指数(C-index)和校准曲线。统计学显著性设定为P < 0.05。

Table 1. The baseline characteristics of post-liver transplant patients with HCC of both types of fibrosis scores

表1. 两种纤维化评分的HCC肝移植后患者的基线特征

PSM, Propensity Score Matching; AJCC, American Joint Cancer Committee; AFP, Alpha-Fetoprotein.

(a) (b)

Figure 2. Survival analysis curves for patients with two fibrosis scores before (a) and after (b) PSM,reflecting different prognoses. PSM, propensity score matching.

图2. PSM前(a)和PSM后(b)两种纤维化评分患者的生存分析曲线

3. 结果

3.1. 研究对象的基本情况

从SEER数据库中筛选出2004年至2016年间诊断为HCC且符合我们合格标准的总计1536例患者。随访间隔0~155 (中位数,53)个月。纤维化评分为F0~4和F5~6的两个组,病例数分别为166例和1370例(图1)。晚期纤维化者较早期患者白人比例更高(78.2% vs. 67.4%),而两组的其他协变量平衡良好,基线时无显著差异(P均 > 0.05;表1)。为达到减少不同程度的肝纤维化患者基线水平差异的效果,我们使用PSM方法进行1:1配对(F0~4, 164; F5~6, 164)。基线结果显示,两组的协变量平衡良好,无显著差异(P均 > 0.05;表1)。

3.2. 纤维化进展与HCC患者肝移植后预后较差相关

匹配前,F0~4 (vs. F5~6)子集患者的累积1年、3年和5年OS率(分别为93.5%、82.1%和63.6%vs. 91.8%、72.4%和57.1%)。纤维化进展患者的预后明显更差(P = 0.002) (图2(a)),中位OS明显降低(69比82个月,P = 0.002)。1:1 PSM后,1年、3年和5年累积OS率仍存在分歧(F0~4分别为93.4%、81.8%和64.6%vs. F5~6分别为91.3%、71.8%和56.0%)。在这些患者中,中位OS再次降低(66 vs. 82个月,P = 0.053),晚期纤维化/肝硬化患者的患者预后显著更差(P = 0.053) (图2(b))。

匹配前患者的单变量Cox回归分析中(如表2表3所示),将P < 0.5作为筛选条件,发现晚期纤维化/肝硬化(P = 0.003)、诊断年龄 > 60岁(P < 0.001)、性别(P = 0.002)、T3~4分期(P = 0.302)、N1 (P = 0.187)、肿瘤大小(P = 0.159)、种族(black P = 0.064; other P = 0.016)、AFP (Negative P = 0.496)、病理学分级(Grade I P = 0.051; Grade III P = 0.133)与OS相关并纳入多变量Cox回归分析中。我们发现晚期纤维化/肝硬化(HR: 1.461, 95% CI: 1.191~1.792; P < 0.001) [18]、诊断年龄 > 60岁(HR: 1.383; 95% CI: 1.220~1.567; P < 0.001)、Race Other (HR: 0.834, 95% CI: 0.702~0.989; P = 0.037)、T3-4分期(HR: 0.520; 95% CI: 0.328~0.825; P = 0.005)是死亡率增加的独立风险因素(如表4所示)。

3.3. 预后列线图的构建及内部验证

我们的预后列线图纳入Cox多变量分析的因素,预测生存期的C指数达到0.601 (95% CI: 0.569~0.632) (图3(a))。随后,我们也绘制了1年、3年和5年生存概率的校准图(图3(b))。因此,我们的列线图因素(即肝纤维化程度、诊断年龄、性别、人种、AJCC T分期、AJCC N分期、Pathological Grade、肿瘤大小和AFP水平)的整合为预测HCC患者肝移植术后的生存率提供了相对可靠的方法。

Table 2. Univariate analysis of prognostic factors for OS

表2. OS预后因素的单变量分析

OS, overall survival; PSM, propensity score matching; CI, confidence interval; AJCC, American Joint Cancer Committee; AFP, alpha-feto-protein

Table 3. Univariate analysis of factors predictive of patients’ OS

表3. 患者OS预测因素的单变量分析

OS, overall survival; PSM, propensity score matching; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; AJCC, American Joint Cancer Committee; AFP, alpha-fetoprotein.

Table 4. Multivariate analysis of factors predictive of patients’ OS

表4. 患者OS预测因素的多变量分析

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; AJCC, American Joint Cancer Committee; AFP, alpha-fetoprotein.

(a)(b)

Figure 3. Post-liver transplant patients with HCC survival nomogram (a) and calibration curves (b)

图3. 肝移植后HCC患者生存列线图(a)和校准曲线(b)

4. 讨论

本研究的结果证明,晚期纤维化/肝硬化是HCC患者肝移植术后的生存期独立危险因素。相关信息被我们整合从而绘制成预后列线图。该预测模型在临床中具有一定的可信度。肝细胞癌(HCC)是最常见的原发性肝癌,是全球医生和患者面临的重大健康挑战。据世界卫生组织统计,未来十年内预计有超过100万患者死于肝癌 [19]。肝移植(LT)是一组伴有基础肝硬化的HCC患者的最佳治疗方式。然而,随着全球不断尝试扩大HCC的LT适应症的趋势,移植后复发率的增加是不可避免的 [20]。在所有接受过LT的患者中,8%~30%的患者HCC的复发是一个重大的临床问题 [21] [22]。一些模型已经被开发用于预测肝移植后HCC复发。如米兰标准(0.63; 95%, 0.54~0.71)和UCSF标准(0.57; 95%, 0.47~0.66)。准确的模型可以预测肝移植后的肝细胞癌复发,有助于肝移植后的监测。然而,纤维化评分对预测肝移植后HCC预后的影响尚未得到充分探索 [23] [24] [25] [26]。更好地理解纤维化在这种情况下所起的作用,并使用包括纤维化评分的列线图,可能对患者生存率产生更准确的预测。纤维化涉及异常伤口愈合反应的许多方面,最终导致肝组织瘢痕形成。单核细胞源性巨噬细胞表现出炎症表型,可激活星状细胞成为产生胶原的肌成纤维细胞 [27] [28] [29]。肝星状细胞(HSC)的活化,意味着其从静息的维生素A储存表型转分化为增殖和产生胶原的肌成纤维细胞,是肝纤维化形成的核心 [30]。但是,Noda等人发现HCC患者是否存在肝纤维化与OS无明显相关(P = 0.1185) [31]。与此同时,Suh等人也发现OS与纤维化程度无关(轻度vs.重度;P = 0.267) [23]。有趣的是,在我们的研究中,晚期纤维化构成了肝移植术后OS的独立风险因素。本文的结局与Zhang等人最近的荟萃分析一致 [32],既往差异可能部分归因于患者入组标准的差异。本研究的优势在于通过在国家量表的代表性人群中进行充分的统计分析证实了结局。使用SEER的数据,我们能够调整一系列变量,包括纤维化评分(Ishak)、肿瘤大小、AFP水平和AJCC肿瘤分期,并且在采集数据时,我们进行了PSM以尽量减少选择偏倚。这样指定的患者在年龄、性别、AJCC TNM分期、AFP水平、肿瘤大小或血管浸润方面没有显著差异;因此,患者分布平衡良好。本研究存在一些潜在的局限性。首先,SEER数据库仅提供纤维化评分的分类变量(0~4 vs 5~6)。如果有原始的纤维化评分信息,我们可以丰富分析内容,获得更令人信服的有关肝纤维化发现。其次,SEER数据库缺乏与HCC病因学起源(例如,病毒性肝炎)、肝功能指数(包括Child-Pugh评分和凝血酶原时间/国际标准化比值、胆红素、肌酐、白蛋白)、门静脉高压程度或体能状态评分相关的任何记录。故在预测准确性方面,我们的列线图和其他常用系统(如BCLC分期、MESH、CLIP评分)难以进行比较。第三,我们无法获得与术前(LT前等待时间和LRT效果)或术后管理相关的数据;因此,在多变量分析中未分析辅助治疗的影响。第四,在SEER数据库中,关于HCC的合并症、复发和辅助化疗的信息不是开放数据。此外,由于SEER信息来自不同的医院,数据的准确性可能不可避免地存在错误,因为没有专业人员负责全面检查数据。但是,使用适当的统计程序开发了SEER质量改善方法,提供了评价SEER登记研究性能的措施。最后,本研究的回顾性性质使得很难避免其他混杂因素的偏倚,尽管我们实施了PSM。通过多中心前瞻性招募进一步验证显然是必要的,以提高我们新的预后列线图的可靠性和准确性。

5. 结论

总的来说,很明显,晚期纤维化的HCC患者,肝移植术后的结局较差。我们已经成功地生成了一个列线图,这可以给临床工作提供一定的帮助。但是,我们希望获得更详细的数据或进行前瞻性研究,使临床预测模型更具有可靠性和准确性。

参考文献

[1] Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R.L., et al. (2021) Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 71, 209-249.
https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660
[2] Tinkle, C.L. and Haas-Kogan, D. (2012) Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Natural History, Current Management, and Emerging Tools. Biologics, 6, 207-219.
https://doi.org/10.2147/BTT.S23907
[3] Maluccio, M. and Covey, A. (2012) Recent Progress in Understanding, Diagnosing, and Treating Hepatocellular Carcinoma. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 62, 394-399.
https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21161
[4] Llovet, J.M., Ricci, S., Mazzaferro, V., et al. (2008) Sorafenib in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma. The New England Journal of Medicine, 359, 378-390.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0708857
[5] Marrero, J.A., Kulik, L.M., Sirlin, C.B., et al. (2018) Diagnosis, Staging, and Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: 2018 Practice Guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology, 68, 723-750.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.29913
[6] Rahbari, N.N., Mehrabi, A., Mollberg, N.M., et al. (2011) Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Management and Perspectives for the Future. Annals of Surgery, 253, 453-469.
https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31820d944f
[7] Poon, R.T., Fan, S.T., Lo, C.M., et al. (2002) Long-Term Survival and Pattern of Recurrence after Resection of Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients with Preserved Liver Function: Implications for a Strategy of Salvage Transplantation. Annals of Surgery, 235, 373-382.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-200203000-00009
[8] El-Serag, H.B. and Rudolph, K.L. (2007) Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Epidemiology and Molecular Carcinogenesis. Gastroenterology, 132, 2557-2576.
https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2007.04.061
[9] Sapisochin, G. and Bruix, J. (2017) Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Outcomes and Novel Surgical Approaches. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 14, 203-217.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2016.193
[10] Sharma, P., Welch, K., Hussain, H., et al. (2012) Incidence and Risk Factors of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence after Liver Transplantation in the MELD Era. Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 57, 806-812.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-011-1910-9
[11] Alshahrani, A.A., Ha, S.M., Hwang, S., et al. (2018) Clinical Features and Surveillance of Very Late Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence after Liver Transplantation. Annals of Transplantation, 23, 659-665.
https://doi.org/10.12659/AOT.910598
[12] Chok, K.S., Chan, S.C., Cheung, T.T., et al. (2011) Late Recurrence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Liver Transplantation. World Journal of Surgery, 35, 2058-2062.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-011-1146-z
[13] Angelico, R., Parente, A. and Manzia, T.M. (2017) Using a Weaning Immunosuppression Protocol in Liver Transplantation Recipients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Compromise between the Risk of Recurrence and the Risk of Rejection? Translational Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2, 74.
https://doi.org/10.21037/tgh.2017.08.07
[14] Dulai, P.S., Singh, S., Patel, J., et al. (2017) Increased Risk of Mortality by Fibrosis Stage in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Hepatology, 65, 1557-1565.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.29085
[15] Lee, Y.A., Wallace, M.C. and Friedman, S.L. (2015) Pathobiology of Liver Fibrosis: A Translational Success Story. Gut, 64, 830-841.
https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2014-306842
[16] Leonardi, G.C., Candido, S., Cervello, M., et al. (2012) The Tumor Microenvironment in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (Review). International Journal of Oncology, 40, 1733-1747.
[17] Weiskirchen, R. and Tacke, F. (2016) Liver Fibrosis: From Pathogenesis to Novel Therapies. Digestive Diseases, 34, 410-422.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000444556
[18] Ahmad, O.B., Boschi-Pinto, C., Lopez, A.D., Murray, C.J., Lozano, R. and Inoue, M. (2001) Age Standardization of Rates: A New WHO Standard. World Health Organization, Geneva. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper31.pdf
[19] Villanueva, A. (2019) Hepatocellular Carcinoma. The New England Journal of Medicine, 380, 1450-1462.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1713263
[20] Ahmad, O.B., Lopez, A.D., Murray, C.J., Lozano, R. and Inoue, M. (2017) Age Standardization of Rates: A New WHO Standard. World Health Organization, Geneva.
[21] Tarantino, G., Magistri, P., Ballarin, R., et al. (2016) Oncological Impact of M-Tor Inhibitor Immunosuppressive Therapy after Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Review of the Literature. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 7, 387.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2016.00387
[22] Huang, J.L., Fu, Y.P., Jing, C.Y., et al. (2018) A Novel and Validated Prognostic Nomogram Based on Liver Fibrosis and Tumor Burden for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Curative Resection. Journal of Surgical Oncology, 117, 625-633.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24895
[23] Krenkel, O., Puengel, T., Govaere, O., et al. (2018) Therapeutic Inhibition of Inflammatory Monocyte Recruitment Reduces Steatohepatitis and Liver Fibrosis. Hepatology, 67, 1270-1283.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.29544
[24] Trautwein, C., Friedman, S.L., Schuppan, D., et al. (2015) Hepatic Fibrosis: Concept to Treatment. Journal of Hepatology, 62, S15-S24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2015.02.039
[25] Noda, Y., Kawaguchi, T., Korenaga, M., et al. (2019) High Serum Interleukin-34 Level Is a Predictor of Poor Prognosis in Patients with Non-Viral Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Hepatology Research, 49, 1046-1053.
https://doi.org/10.1111/hepr.13350
[26] Suh, S.W. and Choi, Y.S. (2019) Influence of Liver Fibrosis on Prognosis after Surgical Resection for Resectable Single Hepatocellular Carcinoma. ANZ Journal of Surgery, 89, 211-215.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.14732
[27] Taura, K., Ikai, I., Hatano, E., et al. (2007) Influence of Coexisting Cirrhosis on Outcomes after Partial Hepatic Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Fulfilling the Milan Criteria: An Analysis of 293 Patients. Surgery, 142, 685-694.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2007.05.009
[28] Sasaki, K., Shindoh, J., Margonis, G.A., et al. (2017) Effect of Background Liver Cirrhosis on Outcomes of Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. JAMA Surgery, 152, e165059.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.5059
[29] Baeck, C., Wehr, A., Karlmark, K.R., et al. (2012) Pharmacological Inhibition of the Chemokine CCL2 (MCP-1) Diminishes Liver Macrophage Infiltration and Steatohepatitis in Chronic Hepatic Injury. Gut, 61, 416-426.
https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300304
[30] Karlmark, K.R., Weiskirchen, R., Zimmermann, H.W., et al. (2009) Hepatic Recruitment of the Inflammatory Gr1+ Monocyte Subset upon Liver Injury Promotes Hepatic Fibrosis. Hepatology, 50, 261-274.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.22950
[31] Zhang, Y., Wang, R. and Yang, X. (2018) FIB-4 Index Serves as a Noninvasive Prognostic Biomarker in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis. Medicine (Baltimore), 97, e13696.
https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000013696
[32] Toyoda, H., Kumada, T., Tada, T., et al. (2017) Differences in the Impact of Prognostic Factors for Hepatocellular Carcinoma over Time. Cancer Science, 108, 2438-2444.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cas.13406