DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1033896/v1
Tumor recurrence is the leading cause of death after liver transplantation (LT) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in cirrhosis. In 1996 Milan criteria were introduced by Mazzaferro et al. [16] and this classification is still recommended by a few guidelines for assigning patients exceptional Meld points or for initial listing for liver transplantation. It is well known that a certain patient population “outside” Milan can be found that show similar low recurrence rates as patients “inside” Milan. There is an ongoing debate as to whether biological markers, such as alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), Des-gammo-carboxy prothrombin (DCP), grading, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio [7] or downstaging after initial presentation with disease outside the Milan criteria [2, 6, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22] should be considered to refine criteria for transplantation.
The diagnostic potential of 18.F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) in the evaluation of transplant candidates is well established for extrahepatic tumor. However, the sensitivity of 18F-FDG PET/CT for HCC is lower than in metastatic liver cancer or cholangiocellular carcinoma (CCC) [9]. In recent years, the use of volumetric indices in PET/CT has been more frequent because they may reflect location of cancerous tissue as well as metabolic activity. This combination of metabolic activity and computed tomography (CT) images is supposed to discriminate more precisely between physiologic and malignant FDG uptake and may support physicians in the calculation of recurrence risk more accurately.
The study analyzes the value of 18F-FDG PET/CT for the identification of patients with HCC in cirrhosis and the tumor biology after LT.
This study in human subjects was carried out with consent of the local ethics committee (reg.-no. :2020-1827-Daten) in accordance with national law and the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975 (in the current form)
Here we analyze 103 consecutive patients who underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT in our hospital before liver transplantation for HCC from 2009 to 2019. Patient data, HCCs, treatment and follow-up were extracted from standard medical records. Data not found in the standard medical records were completed by contacting clinicians.
Diagnostic procedures were applied following current European guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma [15]. Decisions about diagnosis and treatment were made by the tumor board with participation of hepatobiliary surgeons, radiologists, oncologists, nuclear medicine physicians and radiotherapists.
We analyzed the morphological data of the tumor load in pre-transplant computed tomography scans (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, α-fetoprotein (AFP) (ng/ml) level, TNM stage [4], stage of underlying liver disease (Child-Pugh-stage) and use of loco-regional therapy before liver transplantation.
In cases of sufficient liver function bridging procedures, such as liver resection, local ablative procedures (transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), radio frequency ablation (RFA), Yttrium90 radio embolization (Y90RE), tomotherapy, in combination with systemic therapy with thyrosinkinase inhibitor were employed. All these interventions were continued for as long as residual tumor was identified and monitored radiologically in 90 days intervals. In cases of residual vital tumor, the procedures were repeated and combined.
2.2 Calculation of standardized uptake value (SUV) max, standardized uptake value (SUV) mean and tumor to liver ratio (TLR)
Whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT scan was performed before LT as described recently [25]. The maximum SUV (SUVmax) of a hepatic tumor was measured by drawing a volume-of- interest (VOI) over the target lesion with reference to PET, contrast- enhanced CT, and/or MRI images. In case of multiple lesions, the highest SUVmax was used as a representative value. Tumor to liver SUV ratio (TLR) was calculated as the ratio of SUVmax of the tumor to SUVmean of normal liver tissue (Yaprak et al. 2018, Song et al. 2012). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to define the optimal F-18-FDG uptake value cut-off to predict tumor recurrence.
All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 26.0 software (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) software. Distributions of variables were tested using the Chi square test, Fisher ‘s exact test or Mann-Whitney-U-Test, as indicated. Cumulative recurrence rates were calculated from the date of liver transplantation to first clinical diagnosis of tumor recurrence. Patient deaths unrelated to HCC recurrence were censored. Cumulative recurrence curves were created using the Kaplan–Meier method. Median follow-up time was calculated using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method. Differences in recurrence rates as well as significant and independent predictors of recurrence were identified by Cox proportional hazard analysis. Statistical significance was defined as a p value < 0.05 for all analyses.
From 2009 to 2019 103 patients underwent 18-F-FDG-PET/CT in our hospital before liver transplantation for HCC. Patients’ age at transplantation was median 62 years (range 23–71 years). Morphological tumor load was inside Milan in 54 (52%) patients and outside Milan in 49 (48%) patients. 79 (77%) patients received a liver from deceased donors. 24 patients got a split from a living donor (all of them were right lobes). The waiting time was median 9 months (range 0–45 months) for LT from deceased donor and 6 months (range 0–34 months) for the living donations. The median interval between PET/CT scan and liver transplantation was 6 months (range 0-41 months). Further details on patients, tumor load and treatment are shown in Table 1.
| Item | Strata | n | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | under 60 | 38 | 37 |
| 60 u and above | 65 | 63 | |
| Sex | male | 91 | 88 |
| female | 12 | 12 | |
| Milan | in | 54 | 52 |
| out | 49 | 48 | |
| UTS | in | 57 | 57 |
| out | 46 | 46 | |
| Bridging before PET/CT | No | 71 | 69 |
| Yes | 32 | 31 | |
| AFP | 0-399 ng/ml | 87 | 90 |
| ≥400ng/ml | 10 | 10 | |
| Grade | grade 1-2 | 88 | 85 |
| grade 3 | 15 | 15 | |
| Type of transplantation | decreased donor | 79 | 77 |
| living donor | 24 | 23 | |
| pV | V0 | 82 | 80 |
| V1 | 21 | 20 | |
| Number of lesions | solitary | 49 | 48 |
| multiple | 54 | 52 | |
| Size of lesion | < 5cm | 72 | 72 |
| 5 cm an larger | 31 | 31 | |
| Child stage | Milan-Kriterien | 92 | 89 |
| Child A/B | 11 | 11 | |
| pT-category | pT1/2/3 | 88 | 85 |
| pT3/pT4 | 15 | 15 | |
| Total | 103 | 100 | |
| 1) 6 missings ??? | |||
Median follow-up time after LT was 79 months (range 0–139 months). During the interval 48 patients died, 9 of them in the postoperative interval, 18 due to HCC recurrence. Three patients died from malignant second tumor (lung cancer in 1, ENT area in 2), and 18 died from tumor unrelated causes.
SUVmax in tumor tissue ranged from 1.1 to 23.6 with a median of 2.6. SUVmean in non-tumor liver tissue ranged from 1.1 to 3.6 with a median of 2.3. Median tumor to liver SUV ratio was 1.0 (range 1.0–8.74).
Tumor to liver SUV ratio (TLR) of the primary tumor was statistically significant higher in Milan out tumors (p=0.018), “up-to-seven” out tumors (p=0.015), grade 3 (p=0.023), patients with AFP level >400 ng/ml (p<0.001) and lesions of a diameter of 5 cm and more (p=0.007). All other factors (age, sex, bridging therapy before PET/CT, type of transplantation, number of tumors, Child-Pugh- stage, pT-category, necrosis in the tumor) did not show a statistically significant dependence on the Tumor to liver SUV ratio.
A ROC analysis was performed to define the optimal cut-off for the Tumor to liver SUV ratio to predict tumor recurrence. In the present study, we chose a cut-off value of >1.38, giving a sensitivity of 70.0% and a specificity of 67.6%.
Patients who died in the first 3 months were excluded from survival and recurrence analysis resulting in 94 patients for long term analysis. All 94 patients were followed-up until death or until 31st December 2020. To date, 5 patients lived for more than 10 years after transplantation, 34 for more than 5 years. All living patients have been followed up for at least one year. Five patients died from HCC recurrence during the first year after LTX.
Median survival time after transplantation was 106 months, overall 5- and 10-year-survival rates were 66% and 34%, respectively.
Univariate analysis found only four factors with statistically significant influence on 10-year overall survival: Milan (p=0.018), “up-to-seven” (p=0.044), number of lesions (p=0.011) and pT-category (p=0.047). Milan, number of lesions and pT-category were included in a multivariate COX regression analysis, which did not show independent statistically significant factors for 10-year overall survival.
The majority of the 23 recurrences (70%) occurred in the first two years after transplantation, but there was also a significant number of later recurrences. The median interval to tumor relapse was 15 months (range 2-84 months).
Recurrence was intrahepatic in 6 patients and extrahepatic in 17 patients. Sites of extrahepatic recurrence were lung (6 patients), bones (5 cases), adrenal gland (2 patients), peritoneum (2 patients), abdominal wall (1 patient) and lymph nodes (1 patient). Tumor recurrence was treated with curative intent in 8 patients. Pulmonary metastases were resected in 3 patients, adrenal metastases in 2 patients, and metastases in lymph nodes and
metastases in the abdominal wall and local recurrence in the liver in one patient each.
Five- and 10-year cumulative recurrence rates were 28% and 34%. Age, sex, bridging before PET/CT and Child stage did not influence cumulative 10-year recurrence rates statistically significant but Milan, “up-to-seven” grade, pV, AFP-level, number of lesions, size of lesion, pT-category, Tumor to liver SUV ratio did (Figure 1, Details are shown in Table 3).
| Present study | Yang [26]) ** | Lee [13] * 3) | Detry [5] | Kim [11] | Hsu [8] | Hsu [14]3) | Lee [27] 4) | Kang [10] 1) 3) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Period under study | 2009-2019 | 2000-2004 | 2005-2011 | 2006-2011 | 2008-2012 | 2006-2014 | 2005-2013 | 2006-2013 | 2005-2013 |
| Patients under study | 95 | 38 | 191 | 27 | 110 | 147 | 280 | 103 | 239 |
| Patients with “positive” PET | 39 (42%) | 13 (34%) | 55 (29%) | 8 (30%) | 39 (35%) | 30 (20%) | 90 | 78 (76%) | --- |
| Median follow up (months) | 79 (3-122) | 19 (5-40) | 28 (1-79) | 26 2) | 46 2) | 26 | n.s. | 26 2) | 53 (5-131) |
| Patients with recurrence | 20 (21%) | 11 (29%) | 38 (20%) | 5 (19%) | 30 (27%) | 18 (12%) | n.s. | 53 (52%) | 74 (31%) |
| Cutoff value of SUV ratio | 1.38 | 1 | 1 | 1.15 | 1.16 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2.8 |
| Milan | p=0,012 | --- | p<0,001 | p=0.21 | p=0.004 | p=0.830 | --- | p<0.001 | --- |
| Size of lesions | p=0,068 | --- | p<0,001 | p=0.05 | p<0.001 | p=0.347 | p=0.015 | --- | p<0,001 |
| Number of lesions | p=0,021 | --- | --- | p=0.99 | p=0.012 | p=0.795 | p=0.280 | p=0.005 | p<0,001 |
| pT-category | p<0.001 | --- | --- | --- | --- | p=0.032 | --- | --- | --- |
| AFP | p=0,035 | --- | p=0,001 | p=0.47 | --- | p=0.894 | p=0.722 | p=0.001 | p<0,001 |
| Tumor to liver SUV ratio | p=0,015 | p=0.003 | p<0,001 | p=0.01 | p<0.001 | p<0.001 | p=0.003 | p=0.011 | p<0,001 |
| n.s. not stated, --- not investigated, *3-year rates presented, **2-year rates presented, 1) multicentric, 2) mean follow-up, 3) only living donor liver transplantation | |||||||||
| 4) only patients with HBV-related HCC | |||||||||
To achieve reliable results in multivariate COX analyses for the 23 patients with recurrence, a maximum of three factors should be used [20]. pT-category (because this factor takes number and size of lesions and vascular invasion into account), tumor to liver SUV ratio and grade were chosen. All three factors proved to be independent statistically significant factors for 10-year cumulative recurrence rates (Table 3). For a second multivariate COX analysis we chose pT-category, tumor to liver SUV ratio and pre-transplant AFP-level. In this analysis, pT-category and pre-transplant AFP-level were independent statistically significant factors for 10-year cumulative recurrence rates but tumor to liver SUV ratio was not (Table 3).
In our study, tumor to liver SUV ratio (TLR) of the primary tumor was statistically significantly higher in Milan out tumors, “up-to-seven” out tumors, Grade 3 tumors, AFP level >400 ng/ml and lesions of a diameter of 5cm or more.
Like us, many investigators found TLR to be statistically significantly higher in tumors with negative prognostic factors, such as high grade and microvascular invasion [1], high preoperative AFP level, Milan out, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) out, large tumor size, major vessel invasion, and serosal invasion [13, 27]. Therefore, they presumed 18F-FDG PET/CT could be a noninvasive diagnostic tool to identify HCCs with negative prognostic factors and a high incidence of tumor recurrence.
Like others, we found an independently statistically significant influence of metabolic activity in 18F-FDG PET/CT on cumulative recurrence rate. Therefore, it can add some valuable information to other preoperative findings, such as tumor size, tumor number and AFP value.
Seo et al. were among the first authors who reported a prognostic usefulness of 18F-FDG PET/CT in transplanted patients with HCC [23]. They found that in HCC patients with an uptake of 18F-FDG in a primary HCC lesion equal to the uptake in a normal liver the 2-year recurrence-free survival rate was significantly higher than that of PET patients with an increased uptake of 18F-FDG in the primary HCC lesion.
Since then many studies reporting the influence of metabolic activity on overall survival or recurrence rates were undertaken. They either used a semi-quantitative classification [12, 24] or the TLR [5, 13, 27].
Integrated PET/CT, combining a full-ring-detector clinical PET scanner with a multi-detector-row helical CT scanner has made it possible to acquire both metabolic and morphologic imaging data with a single device in one diagnostic session, and has been demonstrated to show precise anatomic location of suspicious areas of increased FDG uptake.
In our study, factors which had a statistically significant influence on 10-year overall survival in univariate analyses were Milan, up-to-seven”, number of lesions and pT-category. Multivariate COX regression analysis did not show independently statistically significant factors for 10-year overall survival.
In Table 4 several key data from studies about the prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT are compared. Noticeably, some authors report very short follow-up intervals [26], which might miss a significant proportion of recurrences. Another surprising point is that not all studies analyzed the influence of Milan criteria on the cumulative recurrence rate [10, 26] and others did not find a statistically significant influence of Milan on recurrence rates [11, 13, 27] in the univariate analysis.
|
Present study |
Lee [13] 3)4) |
Detry [5] |
Kim [11] |
Lee [14]3) |
Ye [27] |
Kang [10] 1)3) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Patients with recurrence (events) |
23 |
28 |
5 |
30 |
n.s. |
53 |
74 |
|
Number of variables in multivariate COX analysis |
3 |
11 |
3 |
5 |
13 |
9 |
4 |
|
Events per independent variable |
7.7 |
2.5 |
1.6 |
6 |
n.s. |
5.9 |
18.5 |
|
Milan |
--- |
n.s. |
--- |
0.029 |
--- |
0.004 |
--- |
|
AFP |
--- |
n.s. |
--- |
--- |
0.991 |
0.001 |
<0.001 |
|
Number of lesions |
--- |
n.s. |
--- |
--- |
0.534 |
0.485 |
0.046 |
|
Size of lesions |
--- |
n.s. |
n.s. |
--- |
0.001 |
--- |
0.003 |
|
Grade |
0.044 |
n.s. |
n.s. |
--- |
0.927 |
0.380 |
--- |
|
pV |
--- |
n.s. |
--- |
--- |
0.033 |
<0.001 |
--- |
|
pT-category |
<0.001 |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
|
Tumor to liver SUV ratio |
0.031 |
0.024 |
0.018 |
0.009 |
0.001 |
0.011 |
<0.001 |
| --- = not included in COX analyses, n.s. not stated, 1) multicentric, 2) mean follow-up, 3) only living donor liver transplantation 4) 3-year rates presented | |||||||
Recurrence rates vary between 12% [8] and 52% [27]. The number of patients with recurrence limits the informative value of multivariable analyses, because results of studies having fewer than ten events per variable analyzed should be interpreted with caution [20].
In our study, 5-year and 10-year cumulative recurrence rates are 27% and 34%, respectively. An univariate analysis found that they were statistically significantly influenced by Milan, grade, pV, number of lesions, size of lesions, pT-category, and tumor to liver SUV ratio (Table 4).
After the introduction of the Milan criteria, multiple other classifications were proposed. Most of them are based on the morphologic tumor burden, measured by number and diameter of the lesions, sometimes complemented by variables of liver function or preoperative AFP-value [3].
Two study groups from South Korea proposed scores including the findings in PET/CT in new scores for estimation of the prognosis after living donor liver transplantation for HCC. Both yield results comparable to the Milan criteria [10, 14].
Table 5 lists studies with PET/CT using multivariate Cox regression analysis to identify independently statistically significant factors for cumulative recurrence rates. Only in two cases, the number of events per variable analyzed exceeds 5. Therefore, there is an urgent need for studies with larger sample sizes to overcome the methodical problem of low numbers of recurrences in small sample sizes.
Summary
The sensitivity of 18F-PET/CT for predicting recurrence after liver transplantation is approximately 70%. Like others, we found a statistically independently significant influence of metabolic activity in 18F-FDG PET/CT on cumulative recurrence rate. Therefore, it may add some valuable information to other preoperative findings, such as tumor size, tumor number and AFP value.
* Conflict of interest: no conflict of interest
* Financial support: no financial support
* Trial registration number: no trial registration number
Funding: Authors did not receive any funding/grants for this work.
Disclosure: The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to disclose
The study in humans has been carried out with approval of the local ethics committee (Nr. 4337-02/15), in accordance with national law and the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975 (in the current form).
Informed consent: All patients give their consent for clinical registration. We have only used data from the clinical data registry.
1. Bailly M, Venel Y, Orain I et al. (2016) 18F-FDG PET in Liver Transplantation Setting of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Predicting Histology?Clin Nucl Med 41:e126-129
2. Bauschke A, Altendorf-Hofmann A, Ardelt M et al.(2020) Impact of successful local ablative bridging therapy prior to liver transplantation on long-term survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 146:1819-1827
3. Bauschke A, Altendorf-Hofmann A, Kissler H et al. (2017) Validity of eleven prognostic scores with respect to intra- and extrahepatic recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 143:2595-2605
4. Brierley J, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C (2017) TNM classification of malignant tumours. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chichester, West Sussex, UK ; Hoboken, NJ
5. Detry O, Govaerts L, Deroover A et al. (2015) Prognostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in liver transplantation for hepatocarcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 21:3049-3054
6. Gordon-Weeks AN, Snaith A, Petrinic T et al. (2011) Systematic review of outcome of downstaging hepatocellular cancer before liver transplantation in patients outside the Milan criteria. The British journal of surgery 98:1201-1208
7. Halazun KJ, Hardy MA, Rana AA et al. (2009) Negative impact of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio on outcome after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma.Ann Surg 250:141-151
8. Hsu CC, Chen CL, Wang CC et al.(2016) Combination of FDG-PET and UCSF Criteria for Predicting HCC Recurrence After Living Donor Liver Transplantation. Transplantation 100:1925-1932
9. Iwata Y, Shiomi S, Sasaki N et al. (2000) Clinical usefulness of positron emission tomography with fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in the diagnosis of liver tumors. Ann Nucl Med 14:121-126
10. Kang YK, Choi JY, Paeng JC et al. (2019) Composite criteria using clinical and FDG PET/CT factors for predicting recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after living donor liver transplantation. Eur Radiol 29:6009-6017
11. Kim YI, Paeng JC, Cheon GJ et al. (2016) Prediction of Posttransplantation Recurrence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Metabolic and Volumetric Indices of 18F-FDG PET/CT.J Nucl Med 57:1045-1051
12. Kornberg A, Witt U, Schernhammer M et al.(2017) Combining (18)F-FDG positron emission tomography with Up-to-seven criteria for selecting suitable liver transplant patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Sci Rep 7:14176
13. Lee SD, Kim SH, Kim YK et al. (2013) (18)F-FDG-PET/CT predicts early tumor recurrence in living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Transpl Int 26:50-60
14. Lee SD, Lee B, Kim SH et al. (2016) Proposal of new expanded selection criteria using total tumor size and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose - positron emission tomography/computed tomography for living donor liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: The National Cancer Center Korea criteria. World J Transplant 6:411-422
15. Llovet JM, Lencioni R, Di Bisceglie AM et al. (2012) EASL-EORTC Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of Hepatology 56:908-943
16. Mazzaferro V, Regalia E, Doci R et al. (1996) Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. The New England journal of medicine 334:693-699
17. Millonig G, Graziadei IW, Freund MC et al. (2007) Response to preoperative chemoembolization correlates with outcome after liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transpl 13:272-279
18. Otto G, Herber S, Heise M et al. (2006) Response to transarterial chemoembolization as a biological selection criterion for liver transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transpl 12:1260-1267
19. Pavel MC, Fuster J (2018) Expansion of the hepatocellular carcinoma Milan criteria in liver transplantation: Future directions. World J Gastroenterol 24:3626-3636
20. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Feinstein AR et al. (1995) Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards regression analysis. II. Accuracy and precision of regression estimates. J Clin Epidemiol 48:1503-1510
21. Ravaioli M, Grazi GL, Piscaglia F et al. (2008) Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: results of down-staging in patients initially outside the Milan selection criteria. Am J Transplant 8:2547-2557
22. Roayaie S, Schwartz JD, Sung MW et al. (2004) Recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplant: patterns and prognosis. Liver Transpl 10:534-540
23. Seo S, Hatano E, Higashi T et al. (2007) Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography predicts tumor differentiation, P-glycoprotein expression, and outcome after resection in hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 13:427-433
24. Takada Y, Kaido T, Shirabe K et al. (2017) Significance of preoperative fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in prediction of tumor recurrence after liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma patients: a Japanese multicenter study. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 24:49-57
25. Winkens T, Rudakoff W, Rauchfuss F et al. (2021) FDG PET/CT to Detect Incidental Findings in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma-Additional Benefit for Patients Considered for Liver Transplantation? Clin Nucl Med
26. Yang SH, Suh KS, Lee HW et al. (2006) The role of (18)F-FDG-PET imaging for the selection of liver transplantation candidates among hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Liver Transpl 12:1655-1660
27. Ye YF, Wang W, Wang T et al. (2017) Role of [(18)F] fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the selection of liver transplantation candidates in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 16:257-263
Table 2: Univariate and multivariate analyses of cumulative recurrence rates
|
All patients, n=93 |
Univariate |
Multivariate Model 1 |
Multivariate Model 2 |
||||
|
Prognostic factor |
Strata |
p |
Exp(B) (95% CI) |
p |
Exp(B) (95% CI) |
|
Exp(B) (95% CI) |
|
Age |
<60years/≥60 years |
0.975 |
1.013 (0.437 - 2.350) |
|
|
|
|
|
Sex |
female/male |
0.394 |
0.532 (0.124 - 2.272) |
|
|
|
|
|
Milan |
in/out |
0.001 |
4.344 (1.780 - 10.602) |
|
|
|
|
|
UTS |
in/out |
0.001 |
5.056 (1.984 - 12.887) |
|
|
|
|
|
Bridging before PET/CT |
Yes/no |
0.609 |
0.784 (0.309 - 1.990) |
|
|
|
|
|
AFP |
0-399 / ≥400 ng/ml |
0.008 |
3.939 (1.426 - 10.878) |
|
|
0.036 |
3.165 (1.080 - 9.276) |
|
Grade |
grade 1-2/grade 3 |
0.016 |
3.179 (1.242 - 8.131) |
0.044 |
2.780 (1.029 - 7.513) |
|
|
|
pV |
pV0/pV1 |
0.008 |
3.099 (1.340 - 7.166) |
|
|
|
|
|
Number of lesions |
Solitary/multiple |
0.014 |
3.066 (1.254 - 7.496) |
|
|
|
|
|
Size of lesion |
<5cm/≥5cm |
0.014 |
2.799 (1.232 - 6.362) |
|
|
|
|
|
Child stage |
Child A-B/Child C |
0.653 |
1.321 (0.392 - 4.450) |
|
|
|
|
|
pT-category |
pT0-2/pT3-4 |
<0.001 |
5.326 (2.270 - 12.496) |
<0.001 |
5.564 (2.272 - 13.622) |
0.001 |
5.192 (1.951 - 13.818) |
|
Tumor to liver SUV ratio |
<1,38/≥1,38 |
0.005 |
3.562 (1.463 - 8.672) |
0.031 |
2.783 (1.096 - 7.067) |
0.056 |
2.667 (0.975 - 7.297) |