Gut and Liver (Sep 2018)

Assessment of the Surveillance Interval at 1 Year after Curative Treatment in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Risk Stratification

  • Minjong Lee,
  • Young Chang,
  • Sohee Oh,
  • Young Youn Cho,
  • Dhong-Eun Jung,
  • Hong Hyun Kim,
  • Joon Yeul Nam,
  • Hyeki Cho,
  • Eun Ju Cho,
  • Jeong-Hoon Lee,
  • Su Jong Yu,
  • Nam-Joon Yi,
  • Kwang-Woong Lee,
  • Dong Ho Lee,
  • Jeong Min Lee,
  • Jung-Hwan Yoon,
  • Kyung-Suk Suh,
  • Yoon Jun Kim

DOI
https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl17365
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12, no. 5
pp. 571 – 582

Abstract

Read online

Background/AimsGuidelines recommend surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence at 3-month intervals during the first year after curative treatment and 6-month intervals thereafter in all patients. This strategy does not reflect individual risk of recurrence. We aimed to stratify risk of recurrence to optimize surveillance intervals 1 year after treatment.Methods : We retrospectively analyzed 1,316 HCC patients treated with resection/radiofrequency ablation at Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0/ A. In patients without 1-year recurrence under 3-monthly surveillance, a new model for recurrence was developed using backward elimination methods: training (n=582)/ validation cohorts (n=291). Overall survival (OS) according to risk stratified by the new model was compared according to surveillance intervals: 3-monthly versus 6-monthly (n=401) after lead time bias correction and propensity-score matching analyses.Results : Among patients without 1-year recurrence, age and international normalized ratio values were significant factors for recurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.03; p=0.009 and HR, 5.63; 95% CI, 2.24 to 14.18; p<0.001; respectively). High-risk patients stratified by the new model showed significantly higher recurrence rates than low-risk patients in the validation cohort (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.18 to 2.53; p=0.005). After propensity-score matching between the 3-monthly and 6-monthly surveillance groups, OS in high-risk patients under 3-monthly surveillance was significantly higher than that under 6-monthly surveillance (p=0.04); however, OS in low-risk patients under 3-monthly surveillance was not significantly different from that under 6-monthly surveillance (p=0.17).Conclusion : sIn high-risk patients, 3-monthly surveillance can prolong survival compared to 6-monthly surveillance. However, in low-risk patients, 3-monthly surveillance might not be beneficial for survival compared to 6-monthly surveillance.

Keywords