ATM SCORE: A PREDICTOR OF LIVER CANCER RECURRENCE AFTER LIVER TRANSPLANTATION AND NEOADJUVANT THERAPY FOR SENSITIVE PATIENTS

Jiahao Pei,Jianhua Li,Ensi Ma,Quanbao Zhang,Li,Zhengyu Ma,Zhengxin Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.tp.0000701288.48529.e0
2020-01-01
Transplantation
Abstract:Objective: To investigate the effect of neoadjuvant therapy on the prognosis of liver transplantation. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 209 patients who underwent liver transplantation for liver cancer in our hospital from December 2016 to December 2019. General clinical data, biochemical indicators, preoperative treatment plan, TNM stage and Milan stage were collected. A total of 140 cases in the modeling group and 69 cases in the validation group were randomly divided to establish a nomogram model of liver cancer after liver transplantation by establishing risk stratification. The long-term survival rate and tumor-free survival rate were improved by preoperative neoadjuvant therapy. Results: There was no significant correlation between preoperative targeted therapy and prognosis and tumor-free survival rate (p=0.161 and p=0.788), while there was no significant correlation between preoperative interventional therapy and prognosis and tumor-free survival rate (p=0.326 and p=0.209). Preoperative multivariate cox regression analysis suggested that AST (p<0.01), TB(p<0.01) and patients meeting Milan criteria were associated with tumor-free survival after transplantation. We established a nomogram model (called ATM score) for post-transplant prognostic evaluation based on the Milan standard. The C index of the predictive model was 0.604 in the modeling group and 0.757 in the validation group, and the C index was 0.557 in the modeling group and 0.634 in the validation group. We stratified transplant patients with high, medium and low risk based on risk factors; The 1-year and 3-year survival rates of the high-risk group were 85.5% and 76.9%, respectively. The 1-year and 3-year survival rates were 85.2% and 81.5%, respectively, in the middle risk group. The 1-year, 3-year and 5-year survival rates in the low-risk group were 92.7%, 91.6% and 86.0%, respectively. In the high-risk group, preoperative interventional therapy had significant value in improving the prognosis (p<0.05), but had little significance in improving the tumor-free survival rate. Conclusion: We established a novel predictive model (ATM score) for the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation, which is more effective than the Milan standard. Preoperative neoadjuvant therapy (intervention) is of high value in improving long-term survival after liver transplantation for high-risk liver cancer patients.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?